Jesus in the Talmud

[Pythagoras]

Hors d'oeuvres:

.Sanhedrin 106b

A sectarian said to R. Chanina: Do you know how old Balaam was? [R. Chanina] replied: It is not written. However, since it says (Psalms 55:24) "Men of bloodshed and deceit will not live out half their days..." he was 33 or 34. [The heretic] said: You said well. I have seen the chronicle of Balaam and it said "At 33 years Balaam the lame was killed by Pinchas (Phineas) the robber."

Balaam is codeword for Jesus throughout the Talmud. Pinchas is Pontius Pilate.



.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."

Rav Papa is refering to Mary in the second sentence.The first refers to Jesus.

Comments?

[technomage]

Balaam is codeword for Jesus throughout the Talmud.Oh, is this so? And tell me, how do you know this? Are there other uses of Balaam in the Talmud that use Balaam as a codeword for Jesus?
For there are several other references to Balaam in the Talmud ... but oddly enough, each and every one of them is unequivocably about Balaam son of Beor, whose story was told in Numbers.Some other mentions of Balaam in the Talmudic literature:
* Sifrei on Deuteronomy 34:10
* Avot DeRabbi Natan 2:5
* Mishnah Avot 5:19


Pinchas is Pontius Pilate.

Says who? You?

"Pinchas" is not a corruption of Pilate, but of Phineas.


6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.

7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba-the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.


Talmudic tradition was that it was specifically Phineas who killed Balaam.



.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."

Rav Papa is refering to Mary in the second sentence.The first refers to Jesus.

Rav Papa is giving a parable about the blessed who fall to low estate ... as Balaam son of Beor fell from being a prophet of YHVH to a sorcerer who was hired to curse Israel.

So nice to see you again, Pythagoras. Pity you fell for such poor sources, yet again. Oh, and if you're going to continue on this vein, please tell me you're going to cite the Talmud Gittin ... that one's so much fun to disassemble.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Wiccan,


It's certain Jesus and Mary are in view in those passages just presented. And there's much more, as you already seem to know.

You betray more than a cursory knowledge of the polemics of the Jews,Wiccan. Bob Jones be the guilty party by any chance? I was beginnig to think myself as the only one (at least on these threads ). I'm officially listed as being impressed by your knowledge of this Jambalaya. Wiccan, refrences to a thirty-three year old, hanged, Ballam and to an adulturess of royal descent running around with carpenters are hardly coincidental, don't you think? -- hint, hint.



Look it. Many passages in the Talmudic books treat of the birth, life, death, and teachings of Jesus Christ. He is not always referred to by the name Jesus for obvious reasons , but is diversely spited as "That Man," "A Certain One," "The Carpenter's Son," "The One Who Was Hanged," "Baalam", "Peloni" , "Son of Pandira(Roman soldier) etc.

Since the word Jeschua means "Savior," the name Jesus rarely occurs in the Jewish books. It is almost always abbreviated to Jeschu, which is maliciously taken as if it were composed of the initial letters of the three words Immach Schemo Vezikro - "May his name and memory be blotted out."



Elsewhere he is simply called Peloni the bastard- "A Certain One." In Chagigah, 4b, we read:
"Mary...the mother of a certain one, of whom it is related in Schabbath..." (104b)
That this Mary is none other than the mother of Jesus can easily be shown.

Out of contempt, Jesus is also called Naggar bar naggar - "the carpenter son of a carpenter", also Ben charsch etaim - "the son of a wood worker."

He is also called Talui - "The one who was hanged."

This son of Stada was the son of Pandira. For Rabbi Chasda tells us that Pandira was the husband of Stada, his mother, and he lived during the time Paphus the son of Jehuda. But his mother was stada, Mary of Magdala (a ladies' hairdresser) who, as it is said in Pumbadita, deserted her husband."
The meaning of this is that his Mary was called Stada, that is, a prostitute, because, according to what was taught at Pumbadita, she left her husband and commited adultery. This is also recorded in the Jerusalem Talmud and by Maimonides.

That the mention here is of Mary, the mother of Jesus, is verified in the Tract Chagigah, 4b:
"When Rabbi Bibhai was visited once by the Death Angel (the devil), the latter said to his assistant: "Go and bring to me Mary the hairdresser" (that is, kill her). He went and brought Mary the children's hairdresser - in place of the other Mary."


Although the Rabbis in their additions to the Talmud try to hide their malice and say that it is not Jesus Christ, their deceit is plainly evident, and many things prove that they wrote and understood all these things about him. In the first place, they also call him the son of Pandira. Jesus the Nazarene is thus called in other passages of the Talmud where express mention is made of Jesus the son of Pandira. St. John Damascene also, in his Genealogy of Christ, mentions Panthera and the Son of Panthera. Panthera was ofcourse a Roman soldier.

This Stada is said to be Mary, and this Mary the mother of Peloni "that certain one," by which without doubt Jesus is meant. For in this way they were accustomed to cover up his name because they were afraid to mention it.


He is called "the one who was hanged," which clearly refers to the crucifixion of Christ, especially since a reference to the time "on the eve of the Passover" is added, which coincides with the time of the crucifixion of Jesus.


And this is just the tip of the ice berg. Jesus reserved his severest rebukes for the crocked Rabbis (and by implication their crocked descendants); these compilers of Talmud , Midrash polemics. He recognized what was in their malicious hearts, and they certainly didn't disappoint. Jesus knew them well indeed-- 'brood of vipers', 'white washed tombs', 'hypocrites', 'children of the Evil One', 'liars' etc.

best,

[Conductor42]

My comment:

The "Balaam" being discussed in Sanhedrin 106a is specifically identified as the prophet/sorcerer, Balaam the son of Peor.


Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the sword]. A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! — R. Yohanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer. R. Papa observed: This is what men say, 'She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Yosh.,


My comment:

The "Balaam" being discussed in Sanhedrin 106a is specifically identified as the prophet/sorcerer, Balaam the son of Peor.

You can deny it until the cows come home, but it's pretty obvious who this Ballam is. Anyway your own Maimonides doesn't even bother with codewords , he goes straight for the jugular.

Immediately after Maimonides' admonition that it is a duty for Jews not to save a drowning or perishing Gentile(and non-Torah believing Jew), he informs us of the Talmudic duty for Jews towards Christians, and also towards Jews who deny the Talmud:

Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Chapter 10 , pg.184:

"It is a mitzvah [religious duty;like the muslim Jihad], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot."

The commentary accompanying the preceding statement of Maimonides mentions that Jesus was an example of a min (plural: minnim). The commentary also states that the followers of Tzadok were defined as those Jews who deny the truth of the Talmud and who uphold only the written law (i.e. the Old Testament),and that includes you Yosh!


So the evidence is quite clear cut . . You are, however, free to delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

best,

[technomage]

Wiccan,

Take a chill pill.

Oh, I'm plenty chill. Nice and relaxed. I've got my coffee, and despite the rain outside, it's a beautiful day.


It's certain Jesus and Mary are in view in those passages just presented. And there's much more, as you already seem to know.

You see, that's the basic question that's being begged ... you may argue that it is "certain" but you offer no substantiation save for your own assertions. All of these connections ... what, was Jesus the only "villain" in all of Judaic history? Is every single reference you've mentioned actually speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, or have you (yet again) assumed that any point of similarity can be stretched to the identity that you choose?

But you know, I just don't think that's the real issue here. There seems to be an overall pattern of rejecting anything associated with the Jews: the Talmudic and Mishnaic literature; the Kabbalah; Rabbinic Judaism. Heaven knows you accuse Eliyoseph and Yosh of dishonesty every time they turn around, and you seem to assume they don't understand Hebrew as well as you do.

But this is all boiling down to one question I want to ask you: wasn't Jesus Jewish?

Justin

[Conductor42]

You can deny it until the cows come home, but it's pretty obvious who this Ballam is. Anyway your own Maimonides doesn't even bother with codewords , he goes straight for the jugular.

Of course, these are two seperate issues.


Immediately after Maimonides' admonition that it is a duty for Jews not to save a drowning or perishing Gentile(and non-Torah believing Jew),

Why don't you be so kind as to verify this with a quote?


he informs us of the Talmudic duty for Jews towards Christians, and also towards Jews who deny the Talmud:

Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Chapter 10 , pg.184:

"It is a mitzvah [religious duty;like the muslim Jihad], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot."

Hrm... this sounds different from the Christian belief that they need to convert the entire world (and thus, get rid of beliefs not acceptable to them), how?

Oh yeah, that's right... it doesn't. And, when Biblical Law is in effect (a condition that hasn't existed for millenia) - i.e. with the temple standing and the sanhedrin established, a person could be put to death for such things. See Deuteronomy 13, among other scriptures.


The commentary accompanying the preceding statement of Maimonides mentions that Jesus was an example of a min (plural: minnim).

That is one opinion. And if he taught what the majority of Christianity says he did, the Maimonides was right on the target.


The commentary also states that the followers of Tzadok were defined as those Jews who deny the truth of the Talmud and who uphold only the written law (i.e. the Old Testament),and that includes you Yosh!

And since when have I denied my faith?! Perhaps you are confusing me with another?


So the evidence is quite clear cut . . You are, however, free to delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

You know what, I've done my best to be courteous towards everyone on this forum, including you. You have been nothing but aarogant towards me, and i'm tired of it. *NEWS FLASH* You don't know everything, contrary to how you act. If you're going to discuss anything with me, leave the ad hominem at the door. If not, please refrain from discussion with me.

[Pythagoras]

Wiccan and Yosh,



That the religious fundamentalist Jewish leadership believes Jesus of Nazareth is indeed harkened to in the Talmud is beyond dispute. Sometimes they don't even try to hide this fact, and quite frankly acknowledge . Following link of the Lubavitcher Rebbeim shows what I mean.




http://www.noahide.com/index.htm (http://www.noahide.com/index.htm)

http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm (http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm)



"The Bible gave a warning about a dangerous, false prophet who would arise to test our faith in G-d. In Deuteronomy 13, G-d describes this false prophet as a member of the Jewish people (v. 2, 7) who would tell true prophecies and would have the power of miracles. G-d Himself would give this false prophet the power to perform miracles and reveal prophecy, but the false prophet would try to seduce the people away from G-d's Law and towards strange gods unknown to Judaism. The purpose would be to test whether we are truly committed to living under the Law, or whether we will be dazzled and fall for the temptation to join a false path to salvation (v. 3-6, 7-8, 11). In this Biblical passage, G-d repeatedly commands the Jews to kill this false prophet, lest the evil spread and destroy many souls…..

In Deuteronomy 17, this false prophet is also described as someone who would rebel against the authority of the judges of the Jewish people, and who should be put to death for his rebelliousness (v. 8-13, esp. v. 12). Who are the judges? The highest court in Israel was the Sanhedrin, which was established by Moses (Exodus 18:13-26; Numbers 11:16-29), and which lasted more than 15 centuries. The members of the Sanhedrin were the rabbis known as "Pharisees" (Pirushim, "those with the explanation"). G-d gave permanent authority to these judges to interpret the Law and G-d's Word, and it is a commandment to follow their decisions without turning even slightly to the right or the left (Deut. 17:11). But the false prophet would challenge the authority of the Sanhedrin, thus revealing himself to be an evil man….

In the book of the prophet Daniel, this false prophet is described as a king (the eleventh horn on a terrible beast) who would wage war against the Jews (the "holy ones"; see Deut. 14:2 on this term) and would change the Law including the calendar and the holidays (Daniel 7:8, 20-25). Elsewhere, this false prophet is described as a king who would disregard the G-d of his fathers, exalting himself as a god and giving honor to this new god-head (Daniel 11:36-39).

The man known today as "Jesus" fulfilled all these prophecies. He became a "king" (over the Christian church) who changed the original Law, doing away with the Hebrew calendar and the Biblical holidays (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkos the Festival of Tabernacles, Passover, etc.). He disregarded the one, infinite G-d of the Hebrew Bible in favor of a new "trinity" that included himself. And he repeatedly broke the Law by committing terrible sins, while openly challenging the G-d-given authority of the rabbis of the Sanhedrin….

Naturally, Jesus did sometimes pretend to respect the Law, but whenever he thought he could get away with it, he turned right around and broke that same Law. In Matthew 5:17-19, he declared that he came to fulfill the Law, and in Matthew 23:1-3 he defended the authority of the rabbis. But the rest of the time, he rebelled against the Law — thus showing that his occasional words of piety were meant only to hide his evil agenda. The following sins of Jesus are recorded in the "New Testament":…"


"The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of "Jesus the Nazarene":

1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).

3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh — which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).

The false, rebellious message of Jesus has been thoroughly rejected by the vast majority of the Jewish people, as G-d commanded. Unfortunately, however, this same message has brought a terrible darkness upon the world; today, over 1.5 billion gentiles believe in Jesus. These lost souls mistakenly think they have found salvation in Jesus; tragically, they are in for a rude awakening. Truth and eternal life are found directly from G-d, through performing His Law. Any "mediator" only separates man from G-d:"

Good Luck,

[InChristAlways]

The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of "Jesus the Nazarene":

1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).

3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh — which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).

The false, rebellious message of Jesus has been thoroughly rejected by the vast majority of the Jewish people, as G-d commanded. Unfortunately, however, this same message has brought a terrible darkness upon the world; today, over 1.5 billion gentiles believe in Jesus. These lost souls mistakenly think they have found salvation in Jesus; tragically, they are in for a rude awakening. Truth and eternal life are found directly from G-d, through performing His Law. Any "mediator" only separates man from G-d:"

Good Luck, Hi Pytah. Sounds like they are comparing Jesus to themselves according to God in the OC. Kind of like the "pot calling the kettle black".It appears they were already trusting in "Lying words" before God destroyed their temple and "den of thieves"[at least according to the book of revelation]. Jeremiah was told to not even PRAY for those people!! Sheesh.
I suppose their messiah will come and redeem them sometime in the future and thank God ours came and redeemed US!!!!! Thank you Jesus, Lord, King, Savior and True God!.

Jeremiah 7:8 " Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot profit. 9 "Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Baal, and walk after other gods whom you do not know, 10 "and [then] come and stand before Me in this house which is called by My name, and say, 'We are delivered to do all these abominations'? 11 "Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of thieves in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen says the LORD. 12 " But go now to My place which [was] in Shiloh, where I set My name at the first, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of My people Israel. 13 "And now, because you have done all these works," says the LORD, "and I spoke to you, rising up early and speaking, but you did not hear, and I called you, but you did not answer, 14 "therefore I will do to the house which is called by My name, in which you trust, and to this place which I gave to you and your fathers, as I have done to Shiloh. 15 "And I will cast you out of My sight, as I have cast out all your brethren -- the whole posterity of Ephraim. 16 " Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them, nor make intercession to Me; for I will not hear you.

Matt 21:[i]12 Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. 13 And He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you have made it a 'den of thieves.' " 14 Then [the] blind and [the] lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them.

[Pythagoras]

InChristAlways,


My problem is only with the [minority] hypocritical Rabbis, Scribes and Pharisees.
The vaste majority of the Jewish people are fine, outstanding , honest, sincere people. Never confuse the two. It leads to anti-Semitism which we must prevent at all costs.

Best

[InChristAlways]

InChristAlways,


My problem is only with the [minority] hypocritical Rabbis, Scribes and Pharisees.
The vaste majority of the Jewish people are fine, outstanding , honest, sincere people. Never confuse the two. It leads to anti-Semitism which we must prevent at all costs.

BestHi Pytha. I understand, and the jews of "today" in no way compare to the corrupt jewish rulers who worshipped the "temple" itself instead of God. I guess I am just saddened that they really cannot see Christ as their redeemer, but I pray everyday they eventually will. I will stay off this thread since I have no idea what the Talmud teaches, only what the Scriptures teach. God bless with Peace and Love.

jeremiah 13: 9 "Thus says the LORD: 'In this manner I will ruin the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. 10 'This evil people, who refuse to hear My words, who follow the dictates of their hearts, and walk after other gods to serve them and worship them, shall be just like this sash which is profitable for nothing.

acts 26:15 "So I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 'But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 'I will deliver you from the [Jewish] people, as well as [from] the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18'to open their eyes, [in order] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.'

[Pythagoras]

This is what Dr. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, pp. 97- 98, says:


"According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.
"The more popular accounts--which were nevertheless taken quite seriously--such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists...

"The Hebrew form of the name Jesus--Yeshu--was interpreted as an acronym for the curse, 'may his name and memory be wiped out,' which is used as an extreme form of abuse. In fact, anti-zionist Orthodox Jews (such as Neturey Qarta) sometimes refer to Herzl as 'Herzl Jesus' and I have found in religious zionist writings expressions such as "Nasser Jesus" and more recently 'Arafat Jesus." --

Best,

[Pythagoras]

Yosh,



Why don't you be so kind as to verify this with a quote?


Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10,
p. 184: "Accordingly, if we see an idolater (gentile) being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." -- The Hebrew text of the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishnah Torah states this as well.

[All the more ironical since Jewish leaders(including the wise Solomon) have since time immemorial been some of the most ardent, hardcore, irrecorrigible idolators in human history. .]



That is one opinion. And if he taught what the majority of Christianity says he did, the Maimonides was right on the target.


Thanks for being frank about it. I respect honesty.



And since when have I denied my faith?! Perhaps you are confusing me with another?


Did I ever say you denied your faith? You're a Karaite aren't you? The Talmud believing Jews don't take too kindly to your fraternity, thats all I meant by my remark.. The Karaites have been most hated and severely persecuted by orthodox Jewish rabbinate.



If you're going to discuss anything with me, leave the ad hominem at the door. If not, please refrain from discussion with me.


Are you sure you weren't accidentally separated from Wiccan at birth ? Loosen up.





I think Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, quoting Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph put it best:" Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible... God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture.The sages also made enactments of their own... anuyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."

So, to be brutally blunt, the famous warning of Jesus Christ about the traditions of men that voids Scripture(mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct refrence to the Talmud, or more specifically, the foreruner of the first part of it, the Mishna, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[Pythagoras]

Hello Wiccan,



Oh, I'm plenty chill. Nice and relaxed. I've got my coffee, and despite the rain outside, it's a beautiful day.


You mean it's sunny despite the rain?



Is every single reference you've mentioned actually speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, or have you (yet again) assumed that any point of similarity can be stretched to the identity that you choose?


The Talmud refrences I'm harkening to render their maligned as a Carpenter, a Carpenter's Son, a false prophet who got hanged(crucified), died at the age of 33, and much more.-- Can't you take a hint Wiccan?-- Dr. Israel Shahak and other scholars agree with me, not to mention many of the Jewish leadership(not that their opinion matters much).

O.K. have it your way. If not all, then how many refrences in the Talmud, in your opinion, refer to Jesus of Nazareth? Show them . Ball's in your court.


But you know, I just don't think that's the real issue here. There seems to be an overall pattern of rejecting anything associated with the Jews: the Talmudic and Mishnaic literature; the Kabbalah; Rabbinic Judaism.

On the contrary, I'm accepting what the Talmud is saying. .



Heaven knows you accuse Eliyoseph and Yosh of dishonesty every time they turn around, and you seem to assume they don't understand Hebrew as well as you do.


Don't know about Yosh, he seems to be an honest fella , but Eliyosef is a highly biased, fanatic, fundamentalist from Yeshiva University[Jewish Madrasa]. It's like asking propoganda minister Gobbles to translate Hebrew Bible into German.-- i not going to work, it will be one-sided, biased, party-line poppycock.



But this is all boiling down to one question I want to ask you: wasn't Jesus Jewish?

Ofcourse Jesus was a Jew, unless ofcourse you believe the Talmud which seems to hint that Mary committed adultury with Panthera, the Roman soldier. Jesus didn't take too kindly to these hypocrites, liars: Jewish Scribes, Pharisees and Rabbis, writers of the Talmud .

[technomage]

That the religious fundamentalist Jewish leadership believes Jesus of Nazareth is indeed harkened to in the Talmud is beyond dispute.

Now that is the crux of the issue, Py. Yes, absolutely there are some Jewish religious teachers who assume this ... but you asserted "most" in your last post, and the phrasing of this sentence could be taken as a statement that all the "religious fundamentalist Jewish leadership" believe that. You have given no proof for your assertion of proportion, which is the important part here.

As for Maimonides ...


Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Chapter 10 , pg.184:

Now, of course we may assume you're quoting this from a book, rather than from a web-site? No? Well, that's too bad, really ... because it proves, yet again, just how willing you are to leap upon any information to support your tirade against Judaism, even if that information is a lie.

Do you think you reveal something new? No, Pythagoras, this is an old lie, and it's all over the Internet already. Try the following page on Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Rabbi+Tzvi+Marx%22+%22authentic+Talmudic+texts%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)--almost 106 pages, and most of them almost word for word with the page you swiped your quoted information from in the OP.

And guess what ... repetition does not make the lie any less a lie.

First and foremost, Pythagoras, are you aware of how big the Mishneh Torah is? There has been no complete English version printed: the Yale Judaica version was started in 1949, is up to 14 volumes (so far), and isn't finished yet. Oh, but if you'd like to try, the full text of the Mishneh Talmud is here (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/0.htm). But it's in Hebrew.

Face it, Pythagoras ... in your eagerness to condemn the "religious fundamentalist Jewish leadership," you got ahold of bad information, yet again. Are you honestly so eager to condemn these people that you will attatch yourself to any lie?

Justin

[Conductor42]

That the religious fundamentalist Jewish leadership believes Jesus of Nazareth is indeed harkened to in the Talmud is beyond dispute. Sometimes they don't even try to hide this fact, and quite frankly acknowledge . Following link of the Lubavitcher Rebbeim shows what I mean.

Just because some of the Lubavitch Hasidim think that a passage may refer to him does not mean that it neccessarily does. Now that being said, I have no problem with the possiblity of Yeshua being mentioned in some of the Talmud. So far, I haven't seen any evidence of this. But let's take a look at the passages the article you mentioned has quoted...


He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

Sanhedrin 43a actually might be referring to Jesus. A good analysis of it is at:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/b_san43a.html (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/%7Ehumm/Topics/JewishJesus/b_san43a.html)


2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).

This one isn't universally agreed upon, and I don't think it refers to Jesus either - the timeline is set about 100 years before Jesus lived, during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC)

However, according to some the Yehoshua ben Perachiah mentioned in Masechet Sotah 47a was the teacher of Jesus, and Yehoshua is said to have been to harsh on Jesus, causing him to go astray.

See also:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/san107b.html (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/%7Ehumm/Topics/JewishJesus/san107b.html)
http://www.ou.org/chagim/elul/bteshuvah.htm (Parts 6 & 7)



He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh — which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).

I don't think this talks about Jesus either. I'll quote R. Gil Student on this one -

-=-=-=-
Summary
What we see from here is that there was a man named Ben Stada who was considered to be a practicer of black magic. His mother was named Miriam and also called Stada. His father was named Pappos Ben Yehudah. Miriam (Stada) had an affair with Pandira from which Ben Stada was born.

Proof
Some historians claim that Ben Stada, also known as Ben Pandira, was Jesus. His mother's name was Miriam which is similar to Mary. Additionally, Miriam was called a women's hairdresser, "megadla nashaia" [for this translation, see R. Meir Halevi Abulafia, Yad Rama, Sanhedrin ad. loc.]. The phrase "Miriam megadla nashaia" sounds similar to Mary Magdalene, a well-known New Testament figure.

Problems
1. Mary Magdalene was not Jesus' mother. Neither was Mary a hairdresser.
2. Jesus' step-father was Joseph. Ben Stada's step-father was Pappos Ben Yehudah.
3. Pappos Ben Yehudah is a known figure from other places in talmudic literature. The Mechilta Beshalach (Vayehi ch. 6) has him discussing Torah with Rabbi Akiva and Talmud Berachot 61b has Pappos Ben Yehudah being captured and killed by Romans along with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva lived during the second half of the first century and the first half of the second century. He died in the year 134. If Pappos Ben Yehudah was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva's, he must have been born well after Jesus' death and certainly could not be his father.

[Conductor42]

Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10,
p. 184: "Accordingly, if we see an idolater (gentile) being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." -- The Hebrew text of the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishnah Torah states this as well.

Ahh... so it doesn't say to let gentiles die (assuming that this is an accurate quote - i don't have the mishneh torah to verify it - Eli, can you verify this please?)

Now does he mean that in this day and age? I don't think so - he was the personal doctor of a ruler he would have probably considered an idoltarer.


Thanks for being frank about it. I respect honesty.

No problem. To be more specific, I was thinking of the belief in most of Christianity that Jesus is a god.


Did I ever say you denied your faith? You're a Karaite aren't you?

I was a Karaite. I changed affiliations during the same time that you registered your account. I posted at least one thread about it in this section.


The Talmud believing Jews don't take too kindly to your fraternity, thats all I meant by my remark.. The Karaites have been most hated and severely persecuted by orthodox Jewish rabbinate.

For the most part, that is true.


Are you sure you weren't accidentally separated from Wiccan at birth ? Loosen up.

Well, unless Justin is decades younger than he says he is... :tongue:

But seriously, the ad hominem is at the least very aggravating. I'm a very mellow person, and it drives me crazy.


I think Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, quoting Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph put it best:" Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible... God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture.The sages also made enactments of their own... anuyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."

Without an Oral Tradition, you literally cannot observe the scripture, as you wouldn't know what day of the week it was. But I'm going to wait to get into debates about the Oral Law until the site I am working on is finished.


So, to be brutally blunt, the famous warning of Jesus Christ about the traditions of men that voids Scripture(mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct refrence to the Talmud, or more specifically, the foreruner of the first part of it, the Mishna, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing.

I thought it was a reference to the tradition of washing hands before a meal? (See verse 5)

[technomage]

You mean it's sunny despite the rain?

Is there no beauty in a rainy day, Py? Though I will gladly admit that I am much more appreciative of that beauty in my house, with a warm blanket across my legs and a cup of hot coffee to hand. I don't think I'd have as easy a time being appreciative if I was out in it.


The Talmud refrences I'm harkening to render their maligned as a Carpenter, a Carpenter's Son, a false prophet who got hanged(crucified), died at the age of 33, and much more.-- Can't you take a hint Wiccan?-- Dr. Israel Shahak and other scholars agree with me, not to mention many of the Jewish leadership(not that their opinion matters much).

Oh, certainly ... what you have yet to prove is that any of these references in the Talmud actually refer to Jesus. Oh, and citing Israel Shahak is a false appeal to authority: he's not a Talmudic scholar ... his doctorate is in chemistry. (And with political views as liberal as his I'm not sure I'd trust him to tell me the time of day without referring to at least three watches.)


O.K. have it your way. If not all, then how many refrences in the Talmud, in your opinion, refer to Jesus of Nazareth? Show them . Ball's in your court.

Nope. That's called "shifting the burden of proof," and I'm not falling for it. All I have to do is establish that not all references to Balaam in teh Talmud refer to Jesus, as you asserted in your OP. If you want to go through the footwork and find all the other references that you think are speaking of Jesus, then you have lots of fun doing it ... but I'm not volunteering to do your homework for you.


On the contrary, I'm accepting what the Talmud is saying.

No you're not. You're asserting that it says one thing, but it really means something else, because if it means what you imagine it to, you can malign the Jews with a clear conscience.


Don't know about Yosh, he seems to be an honest fella , but Eliyosef is a highly biased, fanatic, fundamentalist from Yeshiva University[Jewish Madrasa]. It's like asking propoganda minister Gobbles to translate Hebrew Bible into German.-- i not going to work, it will be one-sided, biased, party-line poppycock.

Aw, wassa matter? Did Eliyosef have the temerity to refuse to bow before your "encyclopedic" knowledge ... or did he simply have the gall to refuse to be impressed by your colossal ego?


Ofcourse Jesus was a Jew, unless ofcourse you believe the Talmud which seems to hint that Mary committed adultury with Panthera, the Roman soldier.

Yosh has already given sufficient reason to recognize that the Talmud reference to "ben Stada" was not referring to Jesus ... but you posted this before he made that post, so I shan't chide you for it.


Jesus didn't take too kindly to these hypocrites, liars: Jewish Scribes, Pharisees and Rabbis, writers of the Talmud .

And what would your Jesus say of the lies that you have repeated here? Oh, I'll even accept that you innocently got some bad information and repeated it here, but you have had sufficient proof that the assertions your source made were not accurate.

As I have said to you before, an honest man in who is in error, when shown the evidence of his error, remains either an honest man or in error. The evidence that Yosh and I have presented to you shows that the information in your OP was in error. How you respond to this new evidence is, of course, up to you.

Be well, Pythagoras.

Justin

[InChristAlways]

No problem. To be more specific, I was thinking of the belief in most of Christianity that Jesus is a god. Hi. How is God suppose to atone for Israel's AND Judah's sin and "remarry" the house of Israel He divorced in the OT unless God actually "sacrifices" Himself? Does the Talmud bring up anything like that?

[Menachem]

Hi. How is God suppose to atone for Israel's AND Judah's sin and "remarry" the house of Israel He divorced in the OT unless God actually "sacrifices" Himself? Does the Talmud bring up anything like that?


There is no such thing as G-d sacrificing himself in the Tanakh nor the Talmud.

This begs the question....."Can an eternal G-d die?"

[Menachem]

Ahh... so it doesn't say to let gentiles die (assuming that this is an accurate quote - i don't have the mishneh torah to verify it - Eli, can you verify this please?)


If you want me to check the Mishneh Torah for this reference he has to give the correct Sefer name. otherwise I will be looking for a long time and I have very little time to spare as it is.

simply providing this information: "Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10,
p. 184:" does not give me ample insight as to where in the Mishneh Torah this quote is located. So my advice is for him to either shelve out the Sefer name or regard it as phony. Most of the websites with this crap twist and bend actual quotations so horribly that you could regard them as phony.

If he cant give you the Sefer Number which I am very sure the book he is quoting gives it, he does not have the book and is reading from a website.

Shalom,

[Menachem]

Aw, wassa matter? Did Eliyosef have the temerity to refuse to bow before your "encyclopedic" knowledge ... or did he simply have the gall to refuse to be impressed by your colossal ego?

I love the bolded one Justin.:thumb:

[Pythagoras]

Hi Wiccan and Yosh.,

Well, I don't know about Sefer numbers since I'm refrencing an English translation [from more than one], unbiased Jewish sources,.--

Talmud: Maimonides, Mishna Torah, Moznaim Pub. Co., Brroklyn, New York, 1990, Ch. 10, Eng. Translation, p. 184.


Above quote is kosher since the Hebrew text of the Feldheim 1981 ed. of Mishnah Torah has this also.

In anycase, bottom line is that I'm very suspicious of Eliyosef since he's a fanatic and indoctrinated(brainwashed) by fundamentalist Rabbis at YU. For example:

Baba Kamma 113a, "Jews may use lies("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile".

Hence Eliyosef's penchant for poppycock Hebrew translations.

In this regard, everyone remembers Eliyosef's attempt at direct deception when he proclaimed, five posts runing, that Rebecca had sex with Isaac at her pappy's home.

Best Wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Yosh,






I thought it was a reference to the tradition of washing hands before a meal? (See verse 5)

Nope. Much more than simply washing hands.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Wiccan.,


Is there no beauty in a rainy day, Py?

Yes there is beauty in it.


his doctorate is in chemistry.

I see. You rather go with fanatic rabbis from YU then?. If anything a Chemist is more analytical, and therefore more trustworthy. For example, do o you discount Einstein's views on God simply because he was a Scientist?




Nope. That's called "shifting the burden of proof," and I'm not falling for it. All I have to do is establish that not all references to Balaam in teh Talmud refer to Jesus, as you asserted in your OP.


Wiccan, we are not studying Math . You're asking the impossible. For instance scholars can't even prove Jesus existed as a Historical figure. But there is a probable chance that he did. Same thing applies here. Probably, those Talmudic verses apply to Jesus, when honestly scrutinized.

In anycase, unless you tell me (in your opinion) how many of those quotes from the Talmud actually harken to Jesus (if any), we cannot conduct an honest discussion. please take a position.


No you're not. You're asserting that it says one thing, but it really means something else, because if it means what you imagine it to, you can malign the Jews with a clear conscience.

My intention is not to malign the Jews.




Aw, wassa matter? Did Eliyosef have the temerity to refuse to bow before your "encyclopedic" knowledge ... or did he simply have the gall to refuse to be impressed by your colossal ego?


Eliyosef is a fanatic. And you know it.


Yosh has already given sufficient reason to recognize that the Talmud reference to "ben Stada" was not referring to Jesus ...

Many scholars disagree.




The evidence that Yosh and I have presented to you shows that the information in your OP was in error.



I don't mean to be rough , but you have provided absolutely no evidence for anything,thus far. You don't even take a position on the issue at hand!.



Be well, Pythagoras.

Diddo .... Wiccan, you have shown some character strengths over the course of our discussions. But try to relax.

best,

[technomage]

Hi Wiccan and Yosh.,

Well, I don't know about Sefer numbers since I'm refrencing an English translation [from more than one], unbiased Jewish sources,.--

Jewish sources, eh? Let's go back to the Google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Rabbi+Tzvi+Marx%22+%22authentic+Talmudic+texts%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) we did about Rabbi Tzvi, since he seems to be an authority you trust.
* Christus Rex: Catholic. Talmud Exposed (http://www.christusrex.org/www2/talmud-exposed/talmud.htm)
* Stormfront: Racist, white supremacist f***-tards. The Talmud: Judaism's holiest book documented and exposed (http://www3.stormfront.org/jewish/talmud.html)
* End Times Prophecy: Seems to be radical Christian to me. The Truth About The Babylonian Talmud (http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/%7Etttbbs/EPN-1/Articles/Articles-Cnsp/truthtal.html)

And that's just the first three ... I don't have time to go through all of them.


Talmud: Maimonides, Mishna Torah, Moznaim Pub. Co., Brroklyn, New York, 1990, Ch. 10, Eng. Translation, p. 184.

So you're referring to a book that was never published? Guess what, Chuckles ... according to Amazon, Moznaim has never published a single-volume translation of the Mishnah Torah ... the last I heard, the Moznaim translation was some 25 volumes long. (See search via Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=Maimonides+Moznaim+site:amazon.com&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&filter=0) to verify that no single-volume translation is listed.)


Above quote is kosher since the Hebrew text of the Feldheim 1981 ed. of Mishnah Torah has this also.

Oh, it does? Do tell ... what page?

You don't know? Could it be that you don't know because you snagged this information from a website? Which website, you may ask? Well, there are 118 sites that are spewing the same nonsense about the Feldman edition (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hebrew+text+of+the+Feldheim+1981+edition%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official).

Justin

[technomage]

I see. You rather go with fanatic rabbis from YU then?. If anything a Chemist is more analytical, and therefore more trustworthy.

So, a degree in chemistry will help a person read Hebrew? Cool! I'll go get a doctorate in Chemistry so I can be a Torah scholar too!


For example, do o you discount Einstein's views on God simply because he was a Scientist?

Yes ... Einstein was an agnostic.


Wiccan, we are not studying Math . You're asking the impossible. For instance scholars can't even prove Jesus existed as a Historical figure. But there is a probable chance that he did. Same thing applies here. Probably, those Talmudic verses apply to Jesus, when honestly scrutinized.

Hogwash--unless you accept folks like Stormfront as an example of "honest" scholarship.


In anycase, unless you tell me (in your opinion) how many of those quotes from the Talmud actually harken to Jesus (if any), we cannot conduct an honest discussion. please take a position.

Of the two you mentioned in the OP: precisely zero.


My intention is not to malign the Jews.

Oh, is it now? Well, you're certainly willing to malign Rabbis.


Eliyosef is a fanatic. And you know it.

So are you. And I know it.


I don't mean to be rough , but you have provided absolutely no evidence for anything,thus far. You don't even take a position on the issue at hand!.

Oh, but you must have missed post 15 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=937752&postcount=15), where I offer evidence that the sources you googled this from lied.

Have a nice day. Oh, and by the way, the next time you want to malign Rabbis, do make sure that Stormfront doesn't have the same text.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Hi Wiccan,




You don't know? Could it be that you don't know because you snagged this information from a website? Which website, you may ask? Well, there are 118 sites that are spewing the same nonsense about the Feldman edition (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hebrew+text+of+the+Feldheim+1981+edition%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official).

Justin

Are you saying 118 sites are lying ?

[Pythagoras]

P.S.,


Yes ... Einstein was an agnostic.

Obviously you haven't read his views on God.



Hogwash--unless you accept folks like Stormfront as an example of "honest" scholarship.


How does that follow?



Oh, is it now? Well, you're certainly willing to malign Rabbis.


So was Jesus. He reserved his severest criticisms for the Scribes and pharisees,hypocrites, teachers of the Law. You are so afraid to be branded an anti-Semitic you won't even take a stand.



Oh, and by the way, the next time you want to malign Rabbis, do make sure that Stormfront doesn't have the same text.


Where's the logic in that?

best,

Oh... One more thing-- Out of sheer desperation, Wiccan is now subtly implying I'm an anti-Semite. But that's not the case. A few days ago, this is what I said:

InChristAlways,


My problem is only with the [minority] hypocritical Rabbis, Scribes and Pharisees.
The vaste majority of the Jewish people are fine, outstanding , honest, sincere people. Never confuse the two. It leads to anti-Semitism which we must prevent at all costs.


I only have a problem with fanatics.

[Conductor42]

Hi. How is God suppose to atone for Israel's AND Judah's sin and "remarry" the house of Israel He divorced in the OT unless God actually "sacrifices" Himself? Does the Talmud bring up anything like that?

This subject would be better suited to a new thread. If you would like to discuss it, please create one and I will reply.

[technomage]

Are you saying 118 sites are lying ?

Yes, Pythagoras. There are 118 sites out there that are repeating this particular lie. Why should that suprise you? There are about 1,860,000 that speak of the Christian trinity--a topic that you consider to be an error at best, and a lie at worst. There are a dozen or so sites on the Internet that accuse Wiccans of conducting child sacrifice ... not nearly as many with that lie, but after all, there just aren't all that many Wiccans.

Pythagoras, the Internet can be a tremendous source of information ... but it can also be a tremendous source of mis-information, and if you're not careful, you get the misinformation: the lies, the poorly understood information, the real kooks. You already know my opinion of the people whom you got this from--they're liars.

But you don't have to be. You can abandon this unreasoning and unreasonable crusade to "prove" that today's Rabbis are hypocrites, or that the Talmud has nasty things to say about Jesus, or Gentiles.



Einstein was an agnostic.
Obviously you haven't read his views on God.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 502.

"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is." Einstein: A Life in Science, Michael White and John Gribbin, Page 262.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Albert Einstein, Banesh Hoffman (Editor), Helen Dukas (Editor).



Hogwash--unless you accept folks like Stormfront as an example of "honest" scholarship.
How does that follow?

Py, are you familiar at all with Stormfront? If not ... well, there is a Wikipedia article about the website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront). If you choose to follow the link to their website, please be advised that they have some opinions that I consider evil.



Oh, is it now? Well, you're certainly willing to malign Rabbis.
So was Jesus. He reserved his severest criticisms for the Scribes and pharisees,hypocrites, teachers of the Law.

He reserved his harshest criticism for those who taught the law but did not follow their own teachings. That is the meaning of "hypocrite," Pythagoras: Jesus condemned the teachers of the law who placed burdens on others, yet refused to carry those burdens themselves.


You are so afraid to be branded an anti-Semitic you won't even take a stand.

Cut the crap, Py. I am taking a stand: a stand for the truth.


Out of sheer desperation, Wiccan is now subtly implying I'm an anti-Semite.

I'm not implying anything: I am directly accusing you of using lies in your accusations of the Jewish Rabbinate. Did you know that these statemenst were lies when you posted the OP? I very highly doubt it. But now you know that there is question.

So what do you do? You go to the Mishnah Torah yourself and research it. Don't rely on what somebody else tells you--do the research yourself.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Hi Wiccan,




Yes, Pythagoras. There are 118 sites out there that are repeating this particular lie



And how did you come to the conclusion that it's a lie? Where's your evidence?.



Why should that suprise you? There are about 1,860,000 that speak of the Christian trinity--a topic that you consider to be an error at best, and a lie at worst.


I consider the trinity to be an error, not a lie.



There are a dozen or so sites on the Internet that accuse Wiccans of conducting child sacrifice ...


Frankly I won't be surprised if they do. I read in the papers all the time, disturbed young punks who fancy themselves Wiccans or Satanists torturing cats, dogs and other animals.




but it can also be a tremendous source of mis-information, and if you're not careful, you get the misinformation: the lies, the poorly understood information, the real kooks. You already know my opinion of the people whom you got this from--they're liars.


You keep on saying that verse is a lie but never back up your cliam. Prove it.




You can abandon this unreasoning and unreasonable crusade to "prove" that today's Rabbis are hypocrites, or that the Talmud has nasty things to say about Jesus, or Gentiles.


The Jewish leadership has always seen Jesus as their no. one enemy. They maligned him while he was alive, and never ceased. Two thousand years later, they are still at it. An honest read of the relevant Talmud passages leaves no doubt that Jesus is in view.




I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 502.

"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is." Einstein: A Life in Science, Michael White and John Gribbin, Page 262


Here's the link you got your info. from.

http://www.2think.org/einstein.shtml (http://www.2think.org/einstein.shtml)

The are other, more explicit passages,where he talks of God as the infinite. To be fair, he didn't believe in a personal Savious in the Christian conception, but he did acknowledge the existence of God. ... Do your homework.



Py, are you familiar at all with Stormfront? If not ... well, there is a Wikipedia article about the website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront). If you choose to follow the link to their website, please be advised that they have some opinions that I consider evil.

They are nuts, cuckoos, and evil. Agreed. I wish they didn't exist. But just because they quote something that I myself refrence doesn't make it false. You're comiting the fallacy of guilt by association.



He reserved his harshest criticism for those who taught the law but did not follow their own teachings. That is the meaning of "hypocrite," Pythagoras: Jesus condemned the teachers of the law who placed burdens on others, yet refused to carry those burdens themselves.


Exactly.




I'm not implying anything: I am directly accusing you of using lies in your accusations of the Jewish Rabbinate.


Where's your proof? Show that quote to be a grave distortion, otherwise hold your peace and stop accusing me falsely..



Did you know that these statemenst were lies when you posted the OP?


You keep on saying that without a shread of evidence.




So what do you do? You go to the Mishnah Torah yourself and research it. Don't rely on what somebody else tells you--do the research yourself.


You're paranoid.

Take a chill pill Wiccan.

[Pythagoras]

P.S. Wiccan,




... according to Amazon, Moznaim has never published a single-volume translation of the Mishnah Torah ... the last I heard, the Moznaim translation was some 25 volumes long. (See search via Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=Maimonides+Moznaim+site:amazon.com&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&filter=0) to verify that no single-volume translation is listed.)





Just because you coudn't find it at Amazon, it doesn't exist? You're geting to be a paranoid case Wiccan.

Is that the extent of your evidence that my quote is a lie?

[technomage]

And how did you come to the conclusion that it's a lie? Where's your evidence?.

The quote is cited to a single-volume English translation of the Mishneh Talmud by the Moznaim Publishing Company. It's true that Moznaim published an English translation of the Mishnah Talmud: what is a lie is that there is a single-volume translation. Now, Pythagoras, if the quotation is cited to a book that does not exist...?

Justin

[Pythagoras]

The quote is cited to a single-volume English translation of the Mishneh Talmud by the Moznaim Publishing Company. It's true that Moznaim published an English translation of the Mishnah Talmud: what is a lie is that there is a single-volume translation. Now, Pythagoras, if the quotation is cited to a book that does not exist...?

Justin

You're not making sense , Wiccan.

That particular quote exists also in the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishna Torah:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/reading-lists/general/section-9.html (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/reading-lists/general/section-9.html)

[technomage]

You're not making sense , Wiccan.

:doh: Ok, I'll type slower this time. Here's the citation:


Talmud: Maimonides, Mishna Torah, Moznaim Pub. Co., Brroklyn, New York, 1990, Ch. 10, Eng. Translation, p. 184.

This is a citation to a single-volume edition ... and it's not perfect at that, since a citation does not require chapter number.

The Moznaim Publishing Company edition of the English Translation of the Mishnah Torah is twenty-five volumes long. As a basis for comparison, the

There is no single-volume edition ... and never has been. The web-page that you clipped this from either originated the lie, or reproduced the lie from another website.


That particular quote exists also in the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishna Torah:

Does it? What page?

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Hi,




:doh: Ok, I'll type slower this time. Here's the citation:



This is a citation to a single-volume edition ... and it's not perfect at that, since a citation does not require chapter number.

The Moznaim Publishing Company edition of the English Translation of the Mishnah Torah is twenty-five volumes long. As a basis for comparison, the

There is no single-volume edition ... and never has been. The web-page that you clipped this from either originated the lie, or reproduced the lie from another website.



Does it? What page?

Justin

That particular quote exists also in the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishna Torah:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/reading-lists/general/section-9.html (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/reading-lists/general/section-9.html)





Stop grasping at straws. It's your paranoia agianst at least two sources.

[technomage]

That particular quote exists also in the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishna Torah:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/reading-lists/general/section-9.html (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/reading-lists/general/section-9.html)


The link you cite does not even list the Mishnah Torah: the only book by Maimonides is the Sefer HaMitzvot.

Therefore I ask again: what page of the Feldheim 1981 edition has the quote?


Stop grasping at straws. It's your paranoia agianst at least two sources.

Sounds like projection to me, Py. Or are you constitutionally incapable of admitting that the Moznaim citation is a lie?
Justin

[Pythagoras]

Hi Wiccan,


The link you cite does not even list the Mishnah Torah: the only book by Maimonides is the Sefer HaMitzvot.

Therefore I ask again: what page of the Feldheim 1981 edition has the quote?



Sounds like projection to me, Py. Or are you constitutionally incapable of admitting that the Moznaim citation is a lie?
Justin

I suggest you get a copy and find out. I'm not geting embroiled in your conspiracy theories.

Odds are that quote exists.

best,

[technomage]

I suggest you get a copy and find out. I'm not geting embroiled in your conspiracy theories.

Odds are that quote exists.

I hereby accuse you of lying, Pythagoras. The quote does not exist, you're aware that it does not exist, and you refuse to acknowledge that it does not exist.

Justin

PS: To the Moderators.

If it is deemed necessary that this quote be edited, I will not contest the decision. However, I request that the entire thread--including Py's evasions, attempts at shifting the burden of proof, and general intransigence in this thread--be taken into account.

J

[technomage]

Pythagoras, I have provided full substantiation of my accusation in a Locker Room thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48856). You may respond there.

Justin

[Conductor42]

Well, I don't know about Sefer numbers since I'm refrencing an English translation [from more than one], unbiased Jewish sources,.--

Talmud: Maimonides, Mishna Torah, Moznaim Pub. Co., Brroklyn, New York, 1990, Ch. 10, Eng. Translation, p. 184.

Above quote is kosher since the Hebrew text of the Feldheim 1981 ed. of Mishnah Torah has this also.

You have given us sources, but you have given incomplete and unverifiable sources.It would be like if someone said that in <translation name> of <name of book>, it says that <claim>. However, without all the details needed to verify the quote (volume, chapter, page, verse, and/or other applicable division), the quote is to be regarded as unreliable unless it is commonly known (Ex: Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you") or if other verifying evidence is given.

I would assume you would hold me up to the same standard if I made a claim about a quote from the New Testament, and said something like "Jesus said that we should kill our parents!" or something equally rediculous.


In anycase, bottom line is that I'm very suspicious of Eliyosef since he's a fanatic and indoctrinated(brainwashed) by fundamentalist Rabbis at YU.

And you are are less fanatical and fundamentalist?


Baba Kamma 113a, "Jews may use lies("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile".

While I begin researching your alleged quote, please cite a source for this translation.

[Conductor42]

Pythagoras,

Please take the time to look up the context (and verify) the quotes in the future. Your latest quote was taken entirely out of context - a comparable example would be "Judas went and hanged himself... go an do thou likewise." That's how out of context the quote was.

I do not have an English translation of this passage, and it would take to long for myself to read it in the original language without a translation to compare to, so I looked for information about this online.

I read the following by a certain Rabbi Sternberg at http://jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr2316.htm

"The Talmud (Bava Kamma 113a) discusses a case where an unscrupulous gentile tax-collector lays a fraudulent claim against a Jew for taxes. The situation is sensitive, since the claim is basically authorized thievery, yet, it would not be advisable to anger the gentile. The Talmud says that if the tax man drags the Jew to a Jewish Court, the Court is permitted to apply the laws most favorable to the Jew, whether Jewish law or secular law, in order to free the Jew from this fraud. If neither law is favorable to the Jew, one may use legal strategy and wisdom to find a loophole for him. The commentaries (Meiri) add that this is permitted, only where the gentile is an idol worshipping crook who is advancing force and fraud without regard to even his own laws. Otherwise, the Talmud states clearly that one may not steal from a gentile and one must abide by the law, even if unfavorable to the Jew."

[Menachem]

Need the enlgish version of Bava Kama 113a Here it is fresh off the soncino press

Talmud - Mas. Baba Kama 113a

but if he was then in town this would not be so, as there is a possibility that they might not transmit the summons to him, thinking that the usher of the Court of Law will himself surely find him and deliver it to him. Again, we do not apply this rule except where the party would not have to pass by the door of the Court of Law, but if he would have to pass by the door of the Court of Law this would not be so, as they might say that at the Court of Law they will surely find him first and deliver him the summons. Again, we do not rule thus except where the party was to come home on the same day, but if he had not to come home on the same day this would not be so, for we might say they would surely forget it altogether.

Raba stated: Where a Pethiha was written upon a defaulter for not having appeared before the court,it will not be destroyed so long as he does not [actually] appear before the court. [So also] if it was for not having obeyed the law, it will not be destroyed until he [actually] obeys the law; this however is not correct: as soon as he declares his intention to obey, we have to destroy the Pethiha.

R. Hisda said: [In a legal summons] we cite the man to appear on Monday, [then] on Thursday and [then] on the next Monday, [i.e.] we fix one date and then another date after one more date, and on the morrow [of the last day] we write the Pethiha.

R. Assi happened to be at R. Kahana's where he noticed that a certain woman had been summoned to appear before the court on the previous evening, [and as she failed to appear] a Pethiha was already written against her on the following morning. He thereupon said to R. Kahana: Does the Master not accept the view expressed by R. Hisda that [in a legal summons] we cite the defendant to appear on Monday, [then] on Thursday and [then] on the next Monday? He replied: This applies only to a man who might be unavoidably prevented, through being out of town, but a woman, being [always] in town and still failing to appear is considered contumacious [after the first act of disobedience].

Rab Judah said: We never cite a defendant to appear either during Nisan, or during Tishri, or on the eve of a holy day or on the eve of a Sabbath. We can, however, during Nisan cite him to appear after Nisan, and so also during Tishri we may cite him to appear after Tishri, but on the eve of the Sabbath we do not cite him to appear after Sabbath, the reason being that he might be busy with preparations for Sabbath. R. Nahman said: We never cite the participants of the Kallah during the period of the Kallah or the participants of the Festival sessions during the Festive Season. When plaintiffs came before R. Nahman [and demanded summonses to be made out during this season] he used to say to them: Have I assembled them for your sake? But now that there are impostors, there is a risk [that they purposely came to the assemblies to escape justice].

BUT IF THERE WAS ANYTHING [LEFT] WHICH COULD SERVE AS SECURITY, THEY WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY. Rabbi taught R. Simeon his son: The words ‘ANYTHING WHICH COULD SERVE AS SECURITY’ should not [be taken literally to] mean actual security, for even if he left a cow to plough with or an ass to drive after, they would be liable to restore it to save the good name of their father. R. Kahana thereupon asked Rab: What would be the law in the case of a bed upon which they sit, or a table at which they eat? — He replied [with the verse], Give instructions to a wise man and he will yet be wiser.

MISHNAH. NO MONEY MAY BE TAKEN IN CHANGE EITHER FROM THE BOX OF THE CUSTOMS-COLLECTORS16 OR FROM THE PURSE OF THE TAX-COLLECTORS, NOR MAY CHARITY BE TAKEN FROM THEM, THOUGH IT MAY BE TAKEN FROM THEIR [OWN COINS WHICH THEY HAVE AT] HOME OR IN THE MARKET PLACE. GEMARA. A Tanna taught: When he gives him a denar he may receive back the balance [due to him].

In the case of customs-collectors, why should the dictum of Samuel not apply that the law of the State is law? — R. Hanina b. Kahana said that Samuel stated that a customs-collector who is bound by no limit [is surely not acting lawfully]. At the School of R. Jannai it was stated that we are dealing here with a customs-collector who acts on his own authority. Some read these statements with reference to [the following]: No man may wear a garment in which wool and linen are mixed even over ten other garments and even for the purpose of escaping the customs. [And it was thereupon asked], Does not this Mishnaic ruling conflict with the view of R. Akiba, as taught: It is an [unqualified] transgression to elude the customs; R. Simeon however, said in the name of R. Akiba that customs may [sometimes] be eluded [by putting on garments of linen and wool]. Now, regarding garments of linen and wool I can very well explain their difference to consists in this, that while one master maintained that an act done unintentionally could not be prohibited, the other master maintained that an act done unintentionally should also be prohibited; but is it not a definite transgression to elude the customs? Did Samuel not state that the law of the State is law? — R. Hanina b. Kahana said that Samuel stated that a customs-collector who is bound by no limit [is surely not acting lawfully]. At the School of R. Jannai it was stated that we were dealing here with a customs-collector who acted on his own authority.

Still others read these statements with reference to the following: To [escape] murderers or robbers or customs-collectors one may confirm by a vow a statement that [e.g.] the grain is terumah or belongs to the Royal Court, though it was not terumah and though it did not belong to the Royal Court. But [why should] to customs-collectors [not] apply the statement made by Samuel that the law of the State has the force of law? R. Hanina b. Kahana said that a customs-collector who is bound by no limit [is surely not acting lawfully]. At the school of R. Jannai it was stated that we were dealing here with a customs-collector who acted on his own authority. But R. Ashi said: We suppose the customs-collector here to be a heathen publican as it was taught: ‘Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: ‘This is our law’; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] ‘This is your law’; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him. This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name. Now according to R. Akiba the whole reason [appears to be,] because of the sanctification of the Name, but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him! Is then the robbery of a heathen permissible? Has it not been taught that R. Simeon stated that the following matter was expounded by R. Akiba when he arrived from Zifirin: ‘Whence can we learn that the robbery of a heathen is forbidden? From the significant words: After that he is sold he may be redeemed again,

[Pythagoras]

Mr. Justin,


I hereby accuse you of lying, Pythagoras. The quote does not exist, you're aware that it does not exist, and you refuse to acknowledge that it does not exist.

Justin

PS: To the Moderators.

If it is deemed necessary that this quote be edited, I will not contest the decision. However, I request that the entire thread--including Py's evasions, attempts at shifting the burden of proof, and general intransigence in this thread--be taken into account.

J

You accuse me of lying with skimpy, homemade, dishonest argument. Odds are, that quote exists.

You may go.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Yosh.,

At least Eliyosef has come clean, for a change. Following is from his quote:


"Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: ‘This is our law’; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] ‘This is your law’; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him. This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that we should not attempt to circumvent him on account of the sanctification of the Name."

One comes away with the understanding that if a Jew is unable to prosecute a gentile tax collector(etc.) in a Jewish court, he sholud use subterfuges to circumvent the gentile. (In a gentile court the Jew would be at a disadvantage, and similarily, in a Jewish court the gentile is at a disadvantage.) This Bava Kamma 133a assumes Jews can never get a fair trial in a gentile court. But I would venture so far as to admit that in the olden days, Jews almost always didn't get a fair shake in gentile courts, so I tend to agree, to a point. But in today's world, this kind of thinking should be taboo under all circumstances, because Jews generally are treated quite fairly in the courts of the gentiles..

But the morally pure R. Akiba seems to be averse to the use of subterfuges!

let's dissect Rabbi Sternberg's words:



The Talmud (Bava Kamma 113a) discusses a case where an unscrupulous gentile tax-collector lays a fraudulent claim against a Jew for taxes


Who decides whether the gentile is unscrupulous.




The situation is sensitive, since the claim is basically authorized thievery, yet, it would not be advisable to anger the gentile.


I can actually see this point of view, since gentiles have often persecuted Jews, and robbed them.




The Talmud says that if the tax man drags the Jew to a Jewish Court, the Court is permitted to apply the laws most favorable to the Jew, whether Jewish law or secular law, in order to free the Jew from this fraud


The Rabbi basically admits Jewish courts are biased in favour of Jews.


If neither law is favorable to the Jew, one may use legal strategy and wisdom to find a loophole for him.

In other words, the Jew must always come up ahead in a court of law, otherwise he may take advantage of loopholes to meet his ends.



The commentaries (Meiri) add that this is permitted, only where the gentile is an idol worshipping crook who is advancing force and fraud without regard to even his own laws.


Now if that really were the case,I would agree wholeheartedly. But Bava Kamma 113a doesn't say that!



Otherwise, the Talmud states clearly that one may not steal from a gentile and one must abide by the law, even if unfavorable to the Jew


Can you show me an instance in the Talmud where it clearly says Jews may not steal from gentiles?

Yosh., I understand Gentiles have ripped off Jews over the centuries, the pertinent Talmudic passages are simply defense mechanisms to protect the Jewish people from theivery. But stealing is wrong,-- "Thou shall not steal'.

To be fair, I'm not going to take a position one way or other on this issue. While I cannot condone thievery ,I cannot also accept, in good conscience, persecution of the Jewish people. Bava Kamma 133a puts one in a moral quandary.

best,

[technomage]

You accuse me of lying with skimpy, homemade, dishonest argument.

Skimpy? And tell me, Py, if a ten word sentence will suffice to prove a thousand word thesis is based on dishonest citations, why should I waste my time and effort padding the refutation?

Homemade? Aww, poor widdle Py! Since I did my research and reasoning for myself and didn't cut and paste it from some web-site, yes, that could be construed as "homemade."

Dishonest? Dear me, are we sitting on the fence again, or are we afraid to come out and say it? Am I lying? Are you actually working with an English translation, or are you quote-mining from racist websites?


Odds are, that quote exists.

Odds are you believe the sentiment whether or not the quote exists. Odds are you know the quote does not exist, but just don't care. And--as has happened so many times in your posting career here--odd are you're once again attempting to disguise your ignorance with bluster.


You may go.

And then again, I may not. The last I knew, you were neither a moderator nor an administrator of this board, so I just don't feel the need to respect your authority. You have none.

Now, you can be a man about the whole thing, admit that you were wrong about the Maimonides quote ... or you can continue to bluff and bluster. It makes no difference to me.

Justin

[Conductor42]

One comes away with the understanding that if a Jew is unable to prosecute a gentile tax collector(etc.) in a Jewish court, he sholud use subterfuges to circumvent the gentile.

And what are these "subterfuges"? loopholes in the law - and as was noted, it was only done in cases in which there is a fraudulent claim being made against the Jew.


This Bava Kamma 133a assumes Jews can never get a fair trial in a gentile court.

And where does it assume that, in the text? Where does it say that?


The Rabbi basically admits Jewish courts are biased in favour of Jews.

In this sort of scenario, they are dealing with a tax-collector who is not staying within the bounds of proper taxation. Of course you are going to do everything you can do to favor the oppressed.


In other words, the Jew must always come up ahead in a court of law, otherwise he may take advantage of loopholes to meet his ends.

In the scenario above, as I just reminded you, yes.


Now if that really were the case,I would agree wholeheartedly. But Bava Kamma 113a doesn't say that!

It doesn't? Perhaps you should read the last 3 paragraphs of what Eli copied and pasted. Let's bring up the complete sentence from your initial misquote.

"But R. Ashi said: We suppose the customs-collector here to be a heathen publican as it was taught: ‘Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: ‘This is our law’; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] ‘This is your law’; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him."


Can you show me an instance in the Talmud where it clearly says Jews may not steal from gentiles?

Did you read the very last lines of eli's copy and paste of the ancient socino translation?

Here's the full quote, taking from where eli's copy and paste left off:

"And who permits stealing from a gentile? Doesn't it say: R. Shimon said that R. Akiva taught this when he came from Zephirin: From where do we know that theft from a gentile is forbidden "After he has been sold he shall have a redemption." We see from here that the Jewish court cannot take him away and he will leave his gentile owner."

Other than that, here's a bunch of Rabbinic literature that says that:

Anyone who steals even a minor amount violates the prohibition of [Leviticus 19:11] "You shall not steal" and is required to repay [the amount stolen] whether one steals from a Jew or a gentile. --Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) Choshen Mishpat 348:2

It is forbidden to rob or to cheat even a minor amount from either a Jew or a gentile. --Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 359:1

And it is biblically forbidden to steal even a minor amount; even a gentile - it is forbidden to steal from him or to cheat him. And if you stole from him or cheated him you must return the stolen money or object.
--Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Gezeilah 1:2

Maimonides of blessed memory wrote that if one lies in his measures and thereby overcharges even to an idolatrous gentile one violates a negative commandment and must return the money. Similarly, it is forbidden to mislead the gentiles in calculating prices as it says [Leviticus 25:50] "he shall make a reckoning with his purchaser" [see below] even if he is subjugated to your authority; even more so if the gentile is not subjugated to your authority and it says [Deuteronomy 25:16] "For an abomination to the Lord, you G-d, are all who do this."
--Sefer HaChinuch, 259

It is worse to steal from a gentile than from a Jew because of desecration of [G-d's] name. --Tosefta Bava Kamma 10:8

All of the above quotes are courteousy R. Gil Student, who further writes: (bold and underline emphasis mine, italics are from the original quote)


Going back to the prohibition of stealing from a gentile, there is a debate regarding this prohibition. Some scholars contend that this prohibition is biblical, as seems evident from the derivation from biblical verses [see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Geneivah 1:1, 7:8, Hilchot Gezeilah 1:1; R. Yechezkel Landau, Noda BiYehudah I Y"D 81; R. Yom Tov Algazi, Hilchot Bechorot 2:17; R. Chaim of Volozhin, Responsa Chut Hameshulash, 14, 17; R. Ephraim Navon, Machaneh Ephraim, Hilchot Gezeilah, 3; R. Yair Bachrach, Chavot Yair, 79; R. Tzvi Ashkenazi, Chacham Tzvi, 26]. Others believe that theft from gentiles is biblically permitted but the rabbis, using their own authority, prohibited this act for all Jews [see Rashi, Sanhedrin 57a; R. Nissim of Gerona, Chiddushei HaRan, Sanhedrin 57a]. However that may be, we see that Jewish law clearly forbids stealing from anyone whether Jew or gentile.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Yosh.,

Thanks for your calm and informed comments. I tend to agree Jews are not permitted to steal from gentiles, unless in self-defense.

best,

[Conductor42]

Hi Pythag,

Anymore comments? Have I shown adequately that Rabbinic Literature (Talmud, Midrash, Legal works, etc.) forbid stealing from all human - Jewish or otherwise? If not, could you explain why?

Also, I'm confused what you mean by "Jews are not permitted to steal from gentiles, unless in self-defense". How is stealing related to self-defense? (Maybe in a time of war, but other times?)

[Pythagoras]

Hi Yosh.,



Also, I'm confused what you mean by "Jews are not permitted to steal from gentiles, unless in self-defense". How is stealing related to self-defense? (Maybe in a time of war, but other times?)

Rabbi Sternberg says a Jew may not steal from a gentile unless the gentile is a thief, and 'lays a fraudulent claim against a Jew for taxes'. Sounds like self-defense to me. He goes on to say "Otherwise, the Talmud states clearly that one may not steal from a gentile and one must abide by the law, even if unfavorable to the Jew."The operative word being otherwise.

But I don't know if today's [gentile] court-system would buy this line of defense. An Israeli court might rule otherwise!

P.S. Yes you have shown adequately that Jewish literature prohibits stealing from all human beings with the following evidences:


Anyone who steals even a minor amount violates the prohibition of [Leviticus 19:11] "You shall not steal" and is required to repay [the amount stolen] whether one steals from a Jew or a gentile. --Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) Choshen Mishpat 348:2

It is forbidden to rob or to cheat even a minor amount from either a Jew or a gentile. --Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 359:1

And it is biblically forbidden to steal even a minor amount; even a gentile - it is forbidden to steal from him or to cheat him. And if you stole from him or cheated him you must return the stolen money or object.
--Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Gezeilah 1:2

etc.

Unless ofcourse the gentile is a crook.....

[technomage]

Greetings, Pythagoras,


Rabbi Sternberg says a Jew may not steal from a gentile unless the gentile is a thief, and 'lays a fraudulent claim against a Jew for taxes'. Sounds like self-defense to me. He goes on to say "Otherwise, the Talmud states clearly that one may not steal from a gentile and one must abide by the law, even if unfavorable to the Jew."The operative word being otherwise.

That's not theft: that's using subterfuge to prevent theft. This was a defensive action: in other words, the advice is given to the Jewish person as a defendant against a fraudulent claim, not as instigating any claim, fraudulent or otherwise.

The situation you depict would be forbidden, as demonstrated by the comentaries you quoted:


Anyone who steals even a minor amount violates the prohibition of [Leviticus 19:11] "You shall not steal" and is required to repay [the amount stolen] whether one steals from a Jew or a gentile. --Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) Choshen Mishpat 348:2

It is forbidden to rob or to cheat even a minor amount from either a Jew or a gentile. --Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 359:1

And it is biblically forbidden to steal even a minor amount; even a gentile - it is forbidden to steal from him or to cheat him. And if you stole from him or cheated him you must return the stolen money or object.
--Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Gezeilah 1:2

Justin

[Conductor42]

Thanks for pointing that out, Justin.

[Pythagoras]

Witch,


Greetings, Pythagoras,



That's not theft: that's using subterfuge to prevent theft. This was a defensive action: in other words, the advice is given to the Jewish person as a defendant against a fraudulent claim, not as instigating any claim, fraudulent or otherwise.

The situation you depict would be forbidden, as demonstrated by the comentaries you quoted:



Justin

Stop getting excited.There's no substance to your post. It doesn't deserve comment.

In any case, this is what Rambam has to say about your kind.

"One who performs witchery is liable to stoning, provided that he performed an act of witchery, but if he rubbed his eye and appeared to do something but didn't he is flogged because of a Rabbinical decree and not because the Torah says so, for the sin of witchery mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:10-11 is punishable by stoning and not by flogging, for it is written, "You shall not allow a witch to live".

Now depart.

Remember, in the past I've had the privilege to cast out many a demon from witch and the like ; my travels through China and India.

[technomage]

Stop getting excited.There's no substance to your post. It doesn't deserve comment.

I wasn't getting excited. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt after our previous discussion that you were going to be willing to engage in honest discourse. Well, you've disappointed me, even though you've not suprised me.


Now depart.

Remember, in the past I've had the privilege to cast out many a demon from witch and the like ; my travels through China and India.

Pythagoras, you have no authority nor power over me. I'm not "departing" anywhere. I will dog your steps on this forum like the conscience you've seared, and if you state lies, I will point them out. Pure and simple.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Yosh,




Thanks for pointing that out, ...

. Read the sentence carefully: "Otherwise, the Talmud states clearly that one may not steal from a gentile and one must abide by the law, even if unfavorable to the Jew."

As stated in my earlier post, the word otherwise is operative.

In other words, one may steal from a crooked gentile, otherwise, if he's honest, one may not.

[technomage]

Read the sentence carefully: "Otherwise, the Talmud states clearly that one may not steal from a gentile and one must abide by the law, even if unfavorable to the Jew."

As stated in my earlier post, the word otherwise is operative.

In other words, one may steal from a crooked gentile, otherwise, if he's honest, one may not.

Wrong again ... will you never learn, Pythagoras?

You are twisting R. Sternbergs statement into something it does not say. Sternberg notes that it is permissible to use subterfuge to evade theft by a dishonest man. It is not permissible to steal from a Gentile, and unless the laws are specifically designed to oppress the Jews, the law must be obeyed.

Justin

[kofh2u]

Hi Yosh.,



You can deny it until the cows come home, but it's pretty obvious who this Ballam is. Anyway your own Maimonides doesn't even bother with codewords , he goes straight for the jugular.

Immediately after Maimonides' admonition that it is a duty for Jews not to save a drowning or perishing Gentile(and non-Torah believing Jew), he informs us of the Talmudic duty for Jews towards Christians, and also towards Jews who deny the Talmud:

Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Chapter 10 , pg.184:

"It is a mitzvah [religious duty;like the muslim Jihad], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot."

The commentary accompanying the preceding statement of Maimonides mentions that Jesus was an example of a min (plural: minnim). The commentary also states that the followers of Tzadok were defined as those Jews who deny the truth of the Talmud and who uphold only the written law (i.e. the Old Testament),and that includes you Yosh!


So the evidence is quite clear cut . . You are, however, free to delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

best,


Hello pythagorus,

I returned to this first initial string of posting because I see the bickering into which it gradually culminated. I observe that you seem to have offered verses to support the known fact that, from early on, the rabbi taught their young people to oppose arguments that Jesus was the returned Elijah, working miracles, resurrecting the Kohanim, and revealing the Kabbalah, even resurrecting the dead.

We all know that this is true, don't we? It is true is it not, that the Jews are taught, even today, to oppose, criticize, deny, even disparage the story in the gospels?
Why would your suspicion, here, about these verses, be so roundly dismissed?

I mean, are Jews taking a new position, that "I'm OK,they're OK?"
Christianity is NOT the enemy of Judaism, the religion?

Are Jews saying that they do not teach that Christianity is a lie?

Or, is the taunting and adversarial commentary you receive here just bad behavior and poor academic discussion?

2) I note that informed Jews can easily find ready retort ftom the past writings of Jews and rabbi who have argued against Christian proseltyzings ever since 32AD.

I would say, that it is a draw, as far as debates go.

And, one other important observation, which is that in such debate lies the seed of a failure to reach an end. The arguments can, have, and might go on long enough that one life, in anyone generation, is too short to reach an end to this form of discussion.

What is the issue here? Do not the Jews contend, even to this day, that the intent of the secret induendo you uncover is really there?
And, if not previously intended, do not Jews support its reading in their present opinion on the subject?

[technomage]

Are Jews saying that they do not teach that Christianity is a lie?

Greetings, David,

I have never said that the Jews do not consider Christianity to be idolatrous. My contention is that Pythagoras is using a false quotation of Maimonides in his argument against Judaism. He is also using several genuine quotes ... yet he has removed them from context, twisted the meaning and intent, and has in general provided a dishonest argument. Pythagoras' argument, summarized, is that not only do the Jews reject Jesus (quite true), but that their teachings also encourage theft and dishonesty towards Gentiles (false).

I have repeatedly established that the book Pythagoras is supposedly referencing does not exist: yet he only insists that "Odds are, the quote is there," refusing to acknowledge any error in his post. One who does that in the face of evidence to the contrary is lying: hence my statement that Pythagoras is a liar.

Justin

[InChristAlways]

Greetings, David,

I have never said that the Jews do not consider Christianity to be idolatrous. My contention is that Pythagoras is using a false quotation of Maimonides in his argument against Judaism. He is also using several genuine quotes ... yet he has removed them from context, twisted the meaning and intent, and has in general provided a dishonest argument. Pythagoras' argument, summarized, is that not only do the Jews reject Jesus (quite true), but that their teachings also encourage theft and dishonesty towards Gentiles (false).

I have repeatedly established that the book Pythagoras is supposedly referencing does not exist: yet he only insists that "Odds are, the quote is there," refusing to acknowledge any error in his post. One who does that in the face of evidence to the contrary is lying: hence my statement that Pythagoras is a liar.

JustinHi Justin. Why do the jews say christians are "idolatrous"? Just because we worship God in the 'Name" of Jesus? Which has more authority concerning the Word of God, the scriptures themselves or the Talmud? Another words, one can not one "understand scripture" without resorting to external writings? I suppose that is what is confusing to me and with that, I will leave this topic as it appears KOFU may be right. I do hope and pray the jew's "messiah" comes soon as He did for us "idolatrous christians".Good bye and God bless.

kofh2u

And, one other important observation, which is that in such debate lies the seed of a failure to reach an end. The arguments can, have, and might go on long enough that one life, in anyone generation, is too short to reach an end to this form of discussion.

What is the issue here? Do not the Jews contend, even to this day, that the intent of the secret induendo you uncover is really there?
And, if not previously intended, do not Jews support its reading in their present opinion on the subject?

Micah 5:1 Now gather yourself in troops, O daughter of troops; He has laid siege against us; They will strike the judge of Israel with a rod on the cheek. 2 " But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, [Though] you are little among the thousands of Judah, [Yet] out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth [are] from of old, From everlasting." 3 Therefore He shall give them up, Until the time [that] she who is in labor has given birth; Then the remnant of His brethren Shall return to the children of Israel. 4 And He shall stand and feed [His flock] In the strength of the LORD, In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God; And they shall abide, For now He shall be great To the ends of the earth;

[technomage]

Hi Justin. Why do the jews say christians are "idolatrous"? Just because we worship God in the 'Name" of Jesus?

That is their take on it, to the best of my understanding, yes.


Which has more authority concerning the Word of God, the scriptures themselves or the Talmud? Another words, one can not one "understand scripture" without resorting to external writings? I suppose that is what is confusing to me and with that, I will leave this topic as it appears KOFU may be right.

And in that, you and I agree: I don't see the point of the Talmud or the purpose of "making a fence around the law." However, I am not arguing for the Talmud, but against the lies of Pythagoras, who would condemn the Rabbinate for a quote attributed falsely to Maimonides, and for twisting the words of the Talmud into something that they don't say.


I do hope and pray the jew's "messiah" comes soon as He did for us "idolatrous christians".Good bye and God bless.

May you be blessed in all your ways,

Justin

[Menachem]

Hi Justin. Why do the jews say christians are "idolatrous"? Just because we worship God in the 'Name" of Jesus?

That and worshipping a Human being and the cross and a few other things in churches especially Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches that could be considered Idolatrous. So there you have it!



Which has more authority concerning the Word of God, the scriptures themselves or the Talmud? Another words, one can not one "understand scripture" without resorting to external writings? I suppose that is what is confusing to me and with that, I will leave this topic as it appears KOFU may be right. I do hope and pray the jew's "messiah" comes soon as He did for us "idolatrous christians".Good bye and God bless.


The Talmud is a compilation of the Oral Law. This Oral Law was revealed at Sinai by G-d to Moses to explain things written in the Written Torah. The two arbogate the same amount of authority. The Talmud is not extra-biblical. Only christians claim that it is because they think they have the perfect interpretation of the entire Tanakh in the words of jesus. Not so! Many of his(jesus') teachings are Talmudic Teachings from Sinai that are codified in the Talmud and tought by Rabbis who came before him.

Otherwise Inchrist, let me ask you a couple of questions as well as everyone else in here and lets see the volumes of answers we get.

How is work defined in the Torah in regards to Shabbat(Sabbath observance)?

How did G-d want the fringes(Tzitzit) tied on the four corners of our garments or Tallisim?

Everyone please feel free to answer these questions. Then you will understand why G-d gave us an Oral Torah at Sinai to explain these things.

Shalom,

[technomage]

The Talmud is a compilation of the Oral Law. This Oral Law was revealed at Sinai by G-d to Moses to explain things written in the Written Torah.

Shalom, Eliyosef,

I understand the above as the religious basis of the Talmud: however, I do tend to take a historical-critical view of both Judaic and Christian scriptures. From my best understanding, there was no "stable" Oral Law until such time as the Talmudim (Palestinian and Babylonian) were compiled.

Please realize that this is not an attempt to attack your faith in this particular detail: I merely wish to advise you of the difference in your point-of-view and mine, so that we may better understand each other. I would not wish you to be confused if such a discussion came up later.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Hi Kfu,

Greetings.



I observe that you seem to have offered verses to support the known fact that, from early on, the rabbi taught their young people to oppose arguments that Jesus was the returned Elijah, working miracles, resurrecting the Kohanim, and revealing the Kabbalah, even resurrecting the dead.


The Rabbis are implacable enemies of Jesus Christ. It is dishonest to claim otherwise. However we must be careful to distinguish between them and the Jewish people. Mel Gibson was accused of anti-semitism with the airing of Passion of the Christ for daring to suggest the Jewish Sanhedrin(Rabbis) was mostly responsible killing Jesus.




We all know that this is true, don't we? It is true is it not, that the Jews are taught, even today, to oppose, criticize, deny, even disparage the story in the gospels?


Yes, the Jews are taught-- operative words . These self proclaimed teachers of the law, are truly 'whitewashed tombs', as Jesus said 2000 years ago.



Why would your suspicion, here, about these verses, be so roundly dismissed?


Those verses in the Talmud definately refer to Jesus, as already proved..



I mean, are Jews taking a new position, that "I'm OK,they're OK?"
Christianity is NOT the enemy of Judaism, the religion?


Hardly. Kfu, infact these fundamentalists Rabbis are less averse to Islam than they are to Christianity.



Or, is the taunting and adversarial commentary you receive here just bad behavior and poor academic discussion?


I'm not dealing with a full deck of cards here. For instance, I've got a crazy witch (with an agenda) trailing me like a puppy dog, spewing hogwash, and making up lies about me. Reminds me of the unfortunate witch in Acts. Let's see.




Are Jews saying that they do not teach that Christianity is a lie?


Good question.

Here's another one:

Rambam.


Laws of Kings, Laws 11:10-12(Capach Edition): ".. Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? That all the prophets spoke that the Messiah will redeem Israel and save them, and gather their dispersed and strengthen their Mitzvot, and this Jesus caused the Jews to be destroyed by the sword, and scattered their remnants and humbled them, and exchanged the Torah,and caused the majority of the world to err to serve a god other than the Lord. Nevertheless, the thoughts of the creator of the world are not within the power of man to reach them, 'for our ways are not His ways, nor are our thoughts His thoughts.' And all these matters of Jesus of Nazareth and that of the Ishmaelites who arose after him are only to straighten the way of the king Messiah and to fix the entire world, to serve God as one, as it is stated(zephaniah 3:9), 'For then I will turn to the peoples(into) clear speech, to all call in the name of G-d and serve Him unanimously. How(will this come about)? The entire world has already become filled with the mention of the Messiah, with words of Torah and words of mitzvos and these matters have spread to the furthermost isles, to many nations of uncircumcised hearts,and they discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah...."

I

best,
Accusation of lying.

[technomage]

Those verses in the Talmud definately refer to Jesus, as already proved..

You have "proved" nothing--you have only made assertions.


I'm not dealing with a full deck of cards here. For instance, I've got a crazy witch (with an agenda) trailing me like a puppy dog, spewing hogwash, and making up lies about me.

Substantiate that I am "making up lies," or retract the statement.


Reminds me of the unfortunate witch in Acts. Let's see.

Do you feel so? Then how about this. If you feel I am demonized, cast the demon out. From where I sit, my Gods are certainly more powerful than your lies.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Hi Kfu and InChrist,

I always suspected it, but to hear it from the horse's mouth..






The Talmud is a compilation of the Oral Law. This Oral Law was revealed at Sinai by G-d to Moses to explain things written in the Written Torah. The two arbogate the same amount of authority. The Talmud is not extra-biblical. Only christians claim that it is because they think they have the perfect interpretation of the entire Tanakh in the words of jesus. Not so! Many of his(jesus') teachings are Talmudic Teachings from Sinai that are codified in the Talmud and tought by Rabbis who came before him.


Shalom,

Any comments?

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hi Kfu,

Greetings.



The Rabbis are implacable enemies of Jesus Christ. It is dishonest to claim otherwise. However we must be careful to distinguish between them and the Jewish people. Mel Gibson was accused of anti-semitism with the airing of Passion of the Christ for daring to suggest the Jewish Sanhedrin(Rabbis) was mostly responsible killing Jesus.




Yes, the Jews are taught-- operative words . These self proclaimed teachers of the law, are truly 'whitewashed tombs', as Jesus said 2000 years ago.



Those verses in the Talmud definately refer to Jesus, as already proved..



Hardly. Kfu, infact these fundamentalists Rabbis are less averse to Islam than they are to Christianity.



I'm not dealing with a full deck of cards here. For instance, I've got a crazy witch (with an agenda) trailing me like a puppy dog, spewing hogwash, and making up lies about me. Reminds me of the unfortunate witch in Acts. Let's see.




Good question.

Here's another one:

Rambam.


Laws of Kings, Laws 11:10-12(Capach Edition): ".. Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? That all the prophets spoke that the Messiah will redeem Israel and save them, and gather their dispersed and strengthen their Mitzvot, and this Jesus caused the Jews to be destroyed by the sword, and scattered their remnants and humbled them, and exchanged the Torah,and caused the majority of the world to err to serve a god other than the Lord. Nevertheless, the thoughts of the creator of the world are not within the power of man to reach them, 'for our ways are not His ways, nor are our thoughts His thoughts.' And all these matters of Jesus of Nazareth and that of the Ishmaelites who arose after him are only to straighten the way of the king Messiah and to fix the entire world, to serve God as one, as it is stated(zephaniah 3:9), 'For then I will turn to the peoples(into) clear speech, to all call in the name of G-d and serve Him unanimously. How(will this come about)? The entire world has already become filled with the mention of the Messiah, with words of Torah and words of mitzvos and these matters have spread to the furthermost isles, to many nations of uncircumcised hearts,and they discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah...."

I

best,

And this has to do with the false quote in what way? Yes, Rambam was very prejudiced against Christianity, and he was fighting against Jewish being assimulated by Christainity. The amusing thing, he also is much quoted by the fundies when it comes to trying to 'prove' that isiaih 53 is a messanic passage.

[InChristAlways]

The Talmud is a compilation of the Oral Law. This Oral Law was revealed at Sinai by G-d to Moses to explain things written in the Written Torah. The two arbogate the same amount of authority. The Talmud is not extra-biblical. Only christians claim that it is because they think they have the perfect interpretation of the entire Tanakh in the words of jesus. Not so! Many of his(jesus') teachings are Talmudic Teachings from Sinai that are codified in the Talmud and tought by Rabbis who came before him.
If anyone had the perfect interpretations of the Words in the scriptures, then why are the rabbis and teachers in Israel as divided as the churches of christianity?

If the jews want to take out the messianic prophecies of Isaiah 53 and substitute themselves, then far be it from me to condemn them for it as they are still waiting on the messiah.
Ironic that the same word for "pen" is also used in condemnation of Judah in Jeremiah 17. Is Jeremiah talking about the scirptures, or oral writings outside of scripture [christian, jew or muslim]. Does the Koran and Talmud resembel each other in any way, as far as interpretation of scripture? Why does Islam also believe that Jesus did indeed come but Israel fails to see Him in the OC?

Jeremiah 8:8 " How can you say, 'We [are] wise, And the law of the LORD with us'? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood.

Jeremiah 17:1 "The sin of Judah [is] written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond [it is] engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars, [i]2 While their children remember Their altars and their wooden images By the green trees on the high hills.

[Pythagoras]

Well said InChrist,


If anyone had the perfect interpretations of the Words in the scriptures, then why are the rabbis and teachers in Israel as divided as the churches of christianity?

.

Just one example: After consulting the Talmud, some Rabbis come away with the impression that Abraham intended to kill his son Issac dead, while other Rabbis mantain just the opposite.

.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Folks,

Here's something interesting from Rambam's Laws of Kings, Laws 11:10-12(Capach Edition)


Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity?..

Stumbling Block!

Now read what the Apostle Paul had to say :

“For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. . . . For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Geeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18, 21-25, 27)

best wishes

[kofh2u]

Hi Kfu and InChrist,

I always suspected it, but to hear it from the horse's mouth..



Any comments?

Hello pythagorus,

I delayed in responding to eli's comment about the Oral Language, ... which I am not ceratin Eli meant. He said Oral Law.

Furthermore, he would be unimpressed by anything I might say, of course, anyway. But, since you ask this is my take on this.

It has been a matter of belief that some oral component to the Torah existed from the days of Moses. This idea seems to have been the source used by those who infer this oral component is like our Christian sermons. I believe Eli is trying to say that. Eli sees the Talmud as the: The Interpretation.

What I think can be demonstrated is that, at least Genesis, was not read out to the congregation, it was told from memory... sort of. Genesis can be shown to fit into an orderly memory system that has an organizational key to it. The pattern of this order serves a couple of purposes. It is a cuing system and a mnemonic for the men who told the story. What they did was a group presentation and we might call it a "play" today. The men who were trained to learn this "oral language" of cues and order "facts" were called Kohanim.

Now in response to Eli's insistence that the Talmud is the Oral Law, I hope he doesn't mean it replaces any need to refer to the Bible, implying it replaces it.

That would place his oral law on the same level as the Koran, the Book of Mormon. And, it would challange the earlier Babylonian Talmud.

[kofh2u]

Well said InChrist,



Just one example: After consulting the Talmud, some Rabbis come away with the impression that Abraham intended to kill his son Issac dead, while other Rabbis mantain just the opposite.

.

Remember the way the Jews treated Elijah,... Jesus was the Jewish Elijah... remember how they treated him.

Because, first to the Jew. The Christian messiah reminds us that organized religion will oppose any messiah.

The moderaters on Tweb tell me that Orthodox Christian dogma teachs that Christ can and will come a second time, but He will be denied the privilege, the power, the glory, the blessing, the honor, and the riches if comes announcing himself!
His church, they say, must condemn him for the second time, and for exactly the blasphemy of self-announcing, self annointing himself:
Matt. 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

[Conductor42]

Why do the jews say christians are "idolatrous"?

Because you worship a created thing - a man - as G-d.


Another words, one can not one "understand scripture" without resorting to external writings?

ICA, In Dueteronmy 12:21 it tells us that we are to slaughter our flocks as G-d commanded us to. Where in scripture is this?

[kofh2u]

And this has to do with the false quote in what way? Yes, Rambam was very prejudiced against Christianity, and he was fighting against Jewish being assimulated by Christainity. The amusing thing, he also is much quoted by the fundies when it comes to trying to 'prove' that isiaih 53 is a messanic passage.


Do you say pythagorus misquoted or misinterpreted?

I read his quote to say that is someone sues you, you can oppose them.

The language is confusing and the semantics appropriate to another age.

[kofh2u]

Because you worship a created thing - a man - as G-d.



ICA, In Dueteronmy 12:21 it tells us that we are to slaughter our flocks as G-d commanded us to. Where in scripture is this?


The worship of Jesus is not a violation of the commandment against worshipping graven images.

What Christians are doing is worshipping an image not carved by human hands, an Image crdated by God himself, of Himself:

Gen. 1:26 And God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Force), said, (in proclamation), Let us, (these Natural Laws, in pantheistic expression, the very Spirit of God), make man, (through the process of gradual evolution),.. Let us make man, (as a micro cosmos reflection of the Universe, in his mind, an Immanent reflection of God), IN OUR IMAGE, (after the spirit of our orderly pantheistic organization): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[Menachem]

Hi Kfu and InChrist,

I always suspected it, but to hear it from the horse's mouth..



Any comments?

LOL...this coming from someone who misquotes Maimonides from a stupid biggot website entitled "Talmud exposed" then provides a reference to a non-existant single volume of the Mishneh Torah.

Hey pythagoras, Where in the Mishneh Torah was that quote again? Sefer Name and location please. LOL...I'm not expecting that anytime soon..

Justin Wiccan caught you on the lie and exposed you for what you are.

Everything you said I expected to come from your untruthful mouth.

Shalom,

[InChristAlways]

LOL...this coming from someone who misquotes Maimonides from a stupid biggot website entitled "Talmud exposed" then provides a reference to a non-existant single volume of the Mishneh Torah.

Hey pythagoras, Where in the Mishneh Torah was that quote again? Sefer Name and location please. LOL...I'm not expecting that anytime soon..

Justin Wiccan caught you on the lie and exposed you for what you are.

Everything you said I expected to come from your untruthful mouth.

Shalom,Hi Eli. How does the "Talmud" view Isaiah 28 concerning the "Precious Cornerstone" then wrath on Jerusalem? Is this not a messianic prophecy? The only one I know of that can be the fulfillment of this is Jesus. Just curious.


Isaiah 28: 14 Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scornful men, Who rule this people who [are] in Jerusalem, 15 Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we are in agreement. When the overflowing scourge passes through, It will not come to us, For we have made lies our refuge, And under falsehood we have hidden ourselves." 16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily.

[kofh2u]

You have "proved" nothing--you have only made assertions.

Substantiate that I am "making up lies," or retract the statement.

Do you feel so? Then how about this. If you feel I am demonized, cast the demon out. From where I sit, my Gods are certainly more powerful than your lies.

Justin

1) Hello
2) Am I to understand that you gs are really angry over the comments back and forth? I find you both intelligent reflective and informed people. Such people are a very small part of the world community.
It seems that with so little available to "know" one another, only words between you, this anger is uncalled for, don't you think?

3) If I understand the issue of invalid source references, assuming Pyth did use them, I would go with the possibility he was/is convinced the sources were/are valid. mIf he can verify or withdraw his reference that ought be acceptable. And, such an error doesn't invalidate him or comments made previously unrelated to such discussion in the matter at hand. Do you agree?

5) You challange to drive out the false worship, lol....
Jesus, the returned Elijah and messiah ben Joseph was the kabbalahistic miracle worker. He does that kind of work. Only his spirit in you can drive away other motivators in your thunking.

But, I wonder about this. It is my contention that man is born with a powerful drive to survive and his dispodition is that self centerness and selfishness helps if not assures such ends.

Christ informs and argues that Altruism is the tool for eternal salvation.

How does this relate to your Gods?

[technomage]

1) Hello

Greetings, David,


2) Am I to understand that you gs are really angry over the comments back and forth?

Not anger on my side: amusement and contempt, to be sure, but those emotions are for Py's actions, not for Py as a person.


3) If I understand the issue of invalid source references, assuming Pyth did use them, I would go with the possibility he was/is convinced the sources were/are valid. mIf he can verify or withdraw his reference that ought be acceptable. And, such an error doesn't invalidate him or comments made previously unrelated to such discussion in the matter at hand. Do you agree?

Well, there's a problem with that: Py directly lied, by asserting that he was referencing a text. The particular lie that he told (the bogus Maimonides quotation) is a major anough issue, for it asserted falsely that it is a religious duty to murder "Jewish traitors." Yet he used this lie to support another lie: that the Talmud blasphemes Jesus.


5) You challange to drive out the false worship, lol....

That was in direct response to the statement by Pythagoras that I remind him of "the unfortunate witch in Acts," and his boast: " Remember, in the past I've had the privilege to cast out many a demon from witch and the like." Frankly, I do not believe his boast any more than I believe the bogus quote.

Pythagoras should take some lessons from this interaction:

* if one lies, this damages one's witness. Pythagoras lied about the Maimonides quote.
* If one boasts, then fails to follow through, this damages one's witness: Pythagoras boasted that he had cast out many a demon from witch and the like, yet has made no move to touch so much as a single hair on my head.


How does this relate to your Gods?

David, I tell you the truth: Pythagoras' "god" is the one whom you would call the Devil, and the verse most applicable to his status is John 8:44. Pythagoras' repeated and unrepented lies are the acts of his father, the devil, and I can only assume that Py's actions are pleasing to his father. But by the commandment of my Gods, I oppose Pythagoras' father: therefore, I oppose Pythagoras.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Hi Kfu,

.I see an interesting dynamic developing on this thread. Justin and Eliyosef(Sophomore Rabbi) have formed an alliance of sorts. I suppose not much has changed since the time of Christ -- witches and rabbis on one side and Christ and the Saints on the other. .

.The witch Justin keeps on saying quote in question doesn't exist, but it has yet to furnish real reasons for this belief.-- keeps on harping about some nonsense over single volume etc.

[technomage]

Hi Kfu,

.I see an interesting dynamic developing on this thread. Justin and Eliyosef(Sophomore Rabbi) have formed an alliance of sorts. I suppose not much has changed since the time of Christ -- witches and rabbis on one side and Christ and the Saints on the other. .

If you had anything to do with Christ, you would do His works, rather than telling lies. Instead, your lies demonstrate who you align yourself with.


.The witch Justin keeps on saying quote in question doesn't exist, but it has yet to furnish real reasons for this belief.-- keeps on harping about some nonsense over single volume etc.

The quote you make does not exist, because the book you claim to have pulled it from does not exist. Yet SacRam has suggested a way out of the accusation: post the ISBN of the book that you claim this quote came from.

Simplicity itself ... if one is as honest as you are not.

Justin

PS: I'm still waiting for you to "exorcise" me, liar.

J

[Conductor42]

The witch Justin keeps on saying quote in question doesn't exist, but it has yet to furnish real reasons for this belief.-- keeps on harping about some nonsense over single volume etc.

You've got logic backwards.

You claimed the quote exists, you have to prove it exists.

He's demonstrated quite clearly that the quote you pulled from some anti-semetic website was at the best falsely attributed. If you have any honor at all - if you know what that word means - you'll either withdraw your claim or find the quote and source it!

[kofh2u]

Inspite of the demands for validation in regard to pythagorus' references, I return to this thread theme.

1) I was particularly interested in the statement, (unreferenced), that the Jews support their protest against Christianity by condemning the observation of Jesus as a transfiguration into the Son of God.

Idolatry was the term used, violation against making graven images and worshipping them.

What does the Talmud say regarding this accusation?

2) I also wonder what Jews say about Elijah, who never died, worked really miracles by calling upon the power of God, the Father.

(A) Is Elijah still expected to return to the Jew?

(B) Is it tradition or scripture or Tulmud that demands a returned Elijah raise the dead, heal the sick, cast out evil spirits, reveal the Kabbalah, resurrect the original Aaronic priesthood?

3) I am saying, in the light of intellectual integrity so rightfully demanded of Pythagorus, do the experts here on Talmud admit to any support for Elijah = Jesus? Or, will they list every Talmudic requirement for this verse:

Mal. 4:5 Behold, (in 32 AD), I will send you Elijah the prophet, (to
make straight the way) before the (second) coming of the great and
dreadful day of the LORD: [Rev 5:5]

[Menachem]

Hi Eli. How does the "Talmud" view Isaiah 28 concerning the "Precious Cornerstone" then wrath on Jerusalem? Is this not a messianic prophecy? The only one I know of that can be the fulfillment of this is Jesus. Just curious.


Isaiah 28: 14 Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scornful men, Who rule this people who [are] in Jerusalem, 15 Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we are in agreement. When the overflowing scourge passes through, It will not come to us, For we have made lies our refuge, And under falsehood we have hidden ourselves." 16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily.


There are two opinions that I can cite for you and then I will cite the Targum to this as an Example.

The first opinion comes from Grammarian and commentator Radak(Rabbi David Kimchi) he says that this particular reference(Isaiah 28:16) is about Hezekiah. On the other Hand Rashi(Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak) says that it is about King Messiah.

The Targum reads:

בְכֵין כִדנָן אְמַר יוי אְלֹהִים הָאְנָא מְמַנֵי בְצִיוֹן מַלַך
מַלַך תַקִיף גִיבָר וְאֵימְתָן אִתַקְפִינֵיה אַתְקִפִינֵיה
וְאַחסנִנֵיה אְמַר נְבִיָא וְצַדִיקַיָא דְהֵימִינוּ בִאִלֵין
בְמֵיתֵי עָקָא לָא יִזדַעזְעוּן׃

And translates as follows:

Therefore HaShem G-d said "Behold I will appoint in Zion a king. A Strong, mighty and terrible king. I will strengthern him and harden him," the prophet said, "and the rightous who believe these things will not be disturbed when distress comes."


The Targum makes this out to be about "a king" but it is unclear if this is about the King Messiah. It very well could be or it could be just as Radak claimed about Hezekiah.

I have not ahd time to look in the Talmud for such But I will as soon as I can.

Shalom,

[Menachem]

I have got to post this and Yosh, Justin see if anything looks familiar:


Moses Maimonides: Advocate of Extermination

Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10, English Translation), p. 184:cordingly, if we see an idolater (gentile) being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." The Hebrew text of the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishnah Torah states this as well.



Immediately after Maimonides' admonition that it is a duty for Jews not to save a drowning or perishing gentile, he informs us of the Talmudic duty of Jews towards Christians, and also towards Jews who deny the Talmud. Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Chapter 10), p. 184:



"It is a mitzvah [religious duty], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot."

The Jewish publisher's commentary accompanying the preceding statement of Maimonides states that Jesus was an example of a min (plural: minnim).

He copied this word for word....lol.. the underlined in the quote is the reference he gave later and is located on this website.

Locate these in Post #5





Jesus in the Talmud:

Horrible Blasphemies Against Jesus Christ


"The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus the Nazarene':

1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).

3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh, which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).

End quote from http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm (Lubavitch website) June 20, 2000.

[Note: we have printed and preserved in our files a hard copy of this statement from the Lubavitch"Noah's Covenant Website," as it appeared on their website at http://www.noahide.com on June 20, 2000, in the event that denials are later issued and the statement itself suppressed].

This look familiar he posted it in one of his posts to Yoshiyah in particular
these are all found in Post#8 which pythagoras posted.



Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery: "It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry...He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone."

another of Pythagoras claims in this thread




According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.

"The more popular accounts--which were nevertheless taken quite seriously--such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists...

"The Hebrew form of the name Jesus--Yeshu--was interpreted as an acronym for the curse, 'may his name and memory be wiped out,' which is used as an extreme form of abuse. In fact, anti-zionist Orthodox Jews (such as Neturey Qarta) sometimes refer to Herzl as 'Herzl Jesus' and I have found in religious zionist writings expressions such as "Nasser Jesus" and more recently 'Arafat Jesus." --Dr. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, pp. 97- 98, 118.

Look familiar this in Pythagoras post#12


Jews May Lie to Non-Jews

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

look familiar it came from post#23

all of these quotes Pythagoras gave I pulled from this website. And word for word what Pythagoras posted.

Read it yourselves and then decide how truthful he is.
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

[Pythagoras]

Hi,




You've got logic backwards.

You claimed the quote exists, you have to prove it exists.

!

I've already furnished the full source note to prove it exists. At least 118 web links concour. Now if someone comes along and still says that source is 'phoney', without providing any real evidence, then that's not my problem, is it?.

Take Care,

[InChristAlways]

Moses Maimonides: Advocate of Extermination

Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10, English Translation), p. 184:cordingly, if we see an idolater (gentile) being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." The Hebrew text of the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishnah Torah states this as well.

Immediately after Maimonides' admonition that it is a duty for Jews not to save a drowning or perishing gentile, he informs us of the Talmudic duty of Jews towards Christians, and also towards Jews who deny the Talmud. Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Chapter 10), p. 184:

"It is a mitzvah [religious duty], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot."

The Jewish publisher's commentary accompanying the preceding statement of Maimonides states that Jesus was an example of a min (plural: minnim).
Hmm. Sounds a lot like the Muslim's Koran. Maybe the jews and muslims need to get together and harmonize the Talmud and Koran, throw out what isn't written in the scriptures, and leave the rest.
Anyone know what the correct translation of vs 3 is concerning the "one" will take you away with it? I assume since there aren't any priests today in Israel [since they and their TEMPLE were wiped by God in the first century for Idolatry], there can't be a curse on them, so I guess it just applies for anyone Israeli unfortunate enough to call themselves a priest in the future.

Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take [it] to heart. [i]3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread Dung on your faces, The Dung of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it.

[technomage]

I've already furnished the full source note to prove it exists. At least 118 web links concour.

And I have provided the evidence that the book cited on those websites does not exist, and that you (and the authors of those websites) are lying.So far, your only response to the evidence that I have provided has been unevidenced denial and invective.

And yet you persist in your lies, even when your dishonesty is displayed for all to see. Truly, Pythagoras, you are of your father, the devil.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Every refrence to Jesus in the Talmud and in the writings of the Jewish Sages invariably betrays an insatiable hatred towards the Christ. For instance,we have already seen how 'Rambam' viewed the Master and his works. The Jewish religious leadership has always maligned,hated and despised Christ. They have seen him as a stumbling block, to use Rambam's word. It was this kind of Jewish leadership which unlitmately crucified Christ. I shan't mince words. The immoral Sanhedrin which was hopelessly beholden to the Roman masters for political and religious power, urged Pontius Pilate to exterminate Christ at the instigation of the chief priest(chief crook, more aptly). And these 'religious men' didn't relent until they got their wish.

The Jews are God's choosen people. Christ himself proclaimed, "Salvation is of the Jews." Christ was a Jew. For anyone to truly believe in Jesus Christ and yet harbour anti-Semitic sentiments is logically inconsistent and fatal to salvation. Paul cautioned us not to boast against the 'natural branches'. It would bode well for Christians to always keep this in mind. Honour the Jews, but not the anti-Christian religious teachers who to this very day spew unceasing venom against Christ in their Midrasas. Remember, Christ reserved his severest rebukes for the Scribes, Pharises, Teachers of the Law and hypocrites.

[Pythagoras]

Unfortunately the witch has provided no real evidence that the book cited on those websites does not exist.

[technomage]

Remember, Christ reserved his severest rebukes for the Scribes, Pharises, Teachers of the Law and hypocrites.

Hypocrites like you, who attempt to up-hold the so-called "truth" with lies?

Justin

[technomage]

Unfortunately the witch has provided no real evidence that the book cited on those websites does not exist.

The volume you mention does not exist in the Moznaim catalog, nor on Amazon, nor is it available for sale on any site that sells new or used books. Yet you have twice been shown a way that you can prove your claim and end all dispute ... post the ISBN number for this book.

If you cannot, then we can only assume that the book does not exist, and that you are a liar.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Now the witch is making things up.

[technomage]

Now the witch is making things up.

And precisely what am I making up? Or is this yet another lie--or more appropriately, yet another deed of your father, the Devil?

Justin

[Pythagoras]

In a previous post the witch admitted Moznaim translation exists.

"It's true that Moznaim published an English translation of the Mishnah Talmud: what is a lie is that there is a single-volume translation."

Now consider my original citation:

Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10, English Translation),


Where does it say above is from a single volume translation?

As is it's custom, the witch mixes truth with falsehood to deceieve the unweary.

[technomage]

In a previous post the witch admitted Moznaim translation exists.

"It's true that Moznaim published an English translation of the Mishnah Talmud: what is a lie is that there is a single-volume translation."

Now consider my original citation:

Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10, English Translation),


Where does it say above is from a single volume translation?

Because it does not cite a volume number. In addition, Pythagoras, you've changed it: you took out the page citation,p. 184.

But that's easily taken care of ... I'm in the process of contacting some friends of mine who may have a copy of the Moznaim translation. If they have it, I'm sure they'll have no trouble going through those volumes and verifying that your quote does not exist. If I talk really nice to them, they may even be willing to scan and send me page 184 from all the volumes.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

The witch now seems to be suggesting I neglected to write p.184 on purpose.

In anycase, it would bode well for the witch to get all the facts together before throwing out wild, false accusations.

Regards,

[technomage]

The witch now seems to be suggesting I neglected to write p.184 on purpose.

Oh, mere carelessness on your part, then?


In anycase, it would bode well for the witch to get all the facts together before throwing out wild, false accusations.

There is only one accusation that I am truly interested in: that you lied about citing the Maimonides quote from an existing text resource. Post the ISBN, liar! :lol:

Justin

[Conductor42]

I was particularly interested in the statement, (unreferenced), that the Jews support their protest against Christianity by condemning the observation of Jesus as a transfiguration into the Son of God.

Idolatry was the term used, violation against making graven images and worshipping them.

What does the Talmud say regarding this accusation?

It was unreferenced because it needed no reference, for the same reasons you don't need to reference things when I ask you what your beliefs are.

The Rabbinical writings would condemn the worship of any created thing (Idolatry). I believe this is the main reason the Rambam wrote (before the Reformation) that Christianity is Avodah Zarah - Forbidden Worship - and Idolatary. I think that is the main objection Muslims have against it as well. The sects of Christianity that do not worship Jesus, however, are not considered as such.


(A) Is Elijah still expected to return to the Jew?

Jews believe that Elijah will return, as it is written in the book of Malachi. (Chapter 4, verse 5 in your bible)


resurrect the original Aaronic priesthood?

You'll have to ask Eli on the rest of those, but the Kohanim are not lost. Some people, however, incorrectly believe they are kohanim, and others incorrect think that they are not. Before the coming of the Messiah, however, Eliyahu HaNavi will return and inform each Israelite of his lineage, as it is written:

"He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness."


do the experts here on Talmud admit to any support for Elijah = Jesus?

I am not sure what you are talking about? Are you saying that Jesus is Elijah?

[Conductor42]

I've already furnished the full source note to prove it exists. At least 118 web links concour. Now if someone comes along and still says that source is 'phoney', without providing any real evidence, then that's not my problem, is it?.

You have not furnished a full source.

[technomage]

I am not sure what you are talking about? Are you saying that Jesus is Elijah?

That is the usual position of Christian doctrine: that Jesus has fulfilled some of the Messianic prophecies, and will fulfill the others during his second coming.

Justin

[Conductor42]

Pythagorus,

If you are not lying, provide a full source - either the ISBN number of the book, or the volume number will suffice.

Else, I have no reason to consider you anything else but lier and a bigot.

[kofh2u]

Hi,





I've already furnished the full source note to prove it exists. At least 118 web links concour. Now if someone comes along and still says that source is 'phoney', without providing any real evidence, then that's not my problem, is it?.

Take Care,

If I am following this correctly, the are atacking your academic integrity. The charge is that you stated incorrect facts that they say either you made up or from another third party source that is disreputable.

Ely supplied a link to what seems to be an anti-semitic organization.

Nevertheless, this is all a rant that you quoted something that is wrong. I don;t think you should be crucified if that is true. Here, t ough you argue that it isn't true as far as you know. You are saying that " At least 118 web links concur."

OK. Enough already.

Nevertheless, justin says he admits that the Jews condemn Christians for the idolatry of worshipping Jesus.

I don't get that.

Idol worship is forbidden, except man is himself the Image of God.

We fall down before t e final Adam, the finished product of God's creation, the son of God, made in the Image of God.

[technomage]

Nevertheless, justin says he admits that the Jews condemn Christians for the idolatry of worshipping Jesus.

I don't get that.

Idol worship is forbidden, except man is himself the Image of God.

We fall down before t e final Adam, the finished product of God's creation, the son of God, made in the Image of God.

Greetings, David,

The Jewish condemnation of Christianity does not fall under the second commandment of "idol worship," but under the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me." It is the assertion of the Jews that Jesus is not God, and therefore should not be worshipped.

And even at that, the Jews have little or no problems with those Christians who worship only the Father. To the best of my understanding, people like Arius, the bishop of Baucalus, who stated that Jesus was the son of God but was not himself God, would receive little or no condemnation from the Rabbis, precisely because they do not worship Jesus.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Pythagorus,

If you are not lying, provide a full source - either the ISBN number of the book, or the volume number will suffice.

Else, I have no reason to consider you anything else but lier and a bigot.

Frankly Mr. Yosh(now King Arthur) , I could care less what you or your witch friend think of me.

I've already furnished a refrence for that quote. At least 118 other web sites agree .

This will be my last word on the issue.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Kfu,


If I am following this correctly, the are atacking your academic integrity. The charge is that you stated incorrect facts that they say either you made up or from another third party source that is disreputable.

Ely supplied a link to what seems to be an anti-semitic organization.

Nevertheless, this is all a rant that you quoted something that is wrong. I don;t think you should be crucified if that is true. Here, t ough you argue that it isn't true as far as you know. You are saying that " At least 118 web links concur."

.

By now it should be clear to everyone that I'm a formidable 'threat' to our resident anti-Christians here. Hence their ceaseless assaults. I rejoice and jump for joy. If that's all the witches and anti-Christ Rabbis have on me, I'm in pretty good shape, indeed.

In anycase, in the past this same witch Justin has suggested the Apostles lied in the Gospels about Jesus's nature and resurrection . Witch claims the Gospel writers falsely attributed sayings to Jesus ,and wrote fifty years after the fact..


best,

[Conductor42]

Then you are nothing but a lier, and in the words of the messiah you claim to follow, a son of the devil as well.

And on the "at least 118 other web sites agree" argument, millions of websites also claim quotes that show the bible is in error, millions say that Christianity is the most murderous religion that earth has ever faced, etc. Do you agree with them too, just because they claim something?

[Pythagoras]

King Arthur,


Then you are nothing but a lier, and in the words of the messiah you claim to follow, a son of the devil as well.

And on the "at least 118 other web sites agree" argument, millions of websites also claim quotes that show the bible is in error, millions say that Christianity is the most murderous religion that earth has ever faced, etc. Do you agree with them too, just because they claim something?

Calm down. I don't want you to have a heart-attack.

I hope one day you come to the realization that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

best,

[technomage]

I hope one day you come to the realization that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Does Jesus Christ need you to go around telling lies as part of your witness for him?

Case closed, Pythagoras. You are a liar, and I defy both you and your false "God."

Justin

[Conductor42]

By now it should be clear to everyone that I'm a formidable 'threat' to our resident anti-Christians here.

Threats imply an actual capability of being able to do something. I would compliment DDW and call her a threat to my arguments against Jesus' Messiahship, because when we have debate the issue she has been able to bring solid evidence against mine, causing me to revise my arguments (for example, I dropped my argument against כארו when she pointed out that it wasn't completely uncommon for an aleph to be added to words)


Hence their ceaseless assaults.

"You shall not curse the deaf nor place a stumbling block before the blind; you shall fear your God - I am your Lord." (Leviticus 19:14)

This command, a figure of speach prohibiting where "blind" means any person or group that is unaware, unsuspecting, ignorant, or morally blind. Individuals are prohibited from decieving them, taking advantage of them, or tempting them to do wrong.

You are attempting to decieve others with misquotes from false sources which most users of this forum will not be able to verify for themselves. You are a troll and a lier, and that (according to the Messiah you claim to follow) makes you a son of the Devil.

This will be also posted in the Locker Room.

[Pythagoras]

My sixth sense tells me King Arthas(aka Yosh) and Justin Witch are one and the same person .

best wishes,

[technomage]

My sixth sense tells me King Arthas(aka Yosh) and Justin Witch are one and the same person .

best wishes,
:lol:

Your sixth sense is as inaccurate as your citation is a lie. If you require verification that Yosh and I are different people, ask one of the moderators to verify our IP addresses.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

How difficult is it for one witch to use two IP addresses?

[kofh2u]

Justin, thank u for the clarity here.

1) First, you infer that the Jews have no issue with seeing Jesus, aka Elijah, as the Image of God. Idol-atry being Idol worship de facto of its definition. Man, is the Image of our Hebrew-Christian-Moslem God, and falling down and worshipping before this idol is no breach in the 10 Commandments.

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God


2) The Trinity concept seems to be the sticky point here, you say.

THEN, this pertains directly to the heart of the issue Jesus brought to bear before the Jews of 32 AD.

Jesus argued that Judaism missed the meaning of the Torah message. Jesus was saying something equivalent to "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man."

In other words, Man was not made to serve God, but to serve man, the image of God.

Matt. 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

So, yes, in essence, the difference in interpretation between the Pharisees and Christ concerns just this matter of ritualized supposed worship of God, the father, in sacrifice without the mercy and compassion he teaches to bestow upon his own image in other men.

In this, Jesus re-focuses us on the reflection of the Father in him and equates the two.

Here, the Jews hold to charges of blasphemy while Jesus accuses them of the perversion of false worship.

Matt. 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

Matt. 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

Matt. 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Matt. 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

[technomage]

Justin, thank u for the clarity here.

1) First, you infer that the Jews have no issue with seeing Jesus, aka Elijah, as the Image of God.

No, David, that's not what I'm trying to suggest: however, for a knowledgeable discourse on this topic, you'd have to ask Eliyoseph or Yoshi. I don't know enough about Judaism to know more than broad generalities on what is or is not proper, but I do know enough to know that your interpretation of scripture is radically different from theirs--or from mine. Different enough that I do not understand your interpretation.

Be well, David.

[technomage]

How difficult is it for one witch to use two IP addresses?

Now who's getting paranoid and inventing conspiracies? :lmbo:

Pythagoras, I've treated you rather roughly during the course of these threads--that's been deliberate, and I have absolutely no regrets or remorse for it. My treatment of you has not been due to any dislike of you, or anger towards you: my treatment is solely and simply because of the lie that you told, and have repeatedly defended.

Py, all that needs to be done is for you to recant your lying claim that Maimonides made it a "religious duty" to kill Christian Jews, and to refrain completely from making future false and lying claims. If you cannot do that, then I have no further use for you, or for any thing you have to say, or for whatever god you claim to worship.

It's as simple as that.

Best,

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Hi Kfu,

Did you know Paul made the connection between the resurrection of Jesus and the Patriarchal blessing in his sermon at Antioch of Pisidia?

"And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise was made unto the fathers, God has fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he has raised up Jesus again; as it is written in the second Psalm, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you." (Acts 13:32-33)

[Pythagoras]

Somewhere down the line, I must have hurt Justin's feelings. People don't get personal to such an extent unless they have an axe to grind.

[technomage]

Somewhere down the line, I must have hurt Justin's feelings. People don't get personal to such an extent unless they have an axe to grind.

:lmbo:

Pythagoras, you just don't get it, do you? It's not all about you ... as a matter of fact, very little of this is about you. It's about the lie that you told, and are continuing to defend. Have you even once read the motto in my signature? Veritas versus Mundi! I'll leave you to figure out the translation ... let me know if you need any help.

Meanwhile, if you or any other interested party wants to go through the history, below are the threads where you and I have interacted. Tell you what, Pythagoras, why don't you go through them and see who's been personal for large portions of our interaction?

Could a Christian become a Pagan??? (showthread.php?t=44965&highlight=Justin)
Challenge: Pythagoras vs. Justin on [Lots of Stuff] (showthread.php?t=45435&highlight=Justin)
GYM DEBATE: The Trinity (Justin vs. Pythagoras) (showthread.php?t=46081&highlight=Justin)
Wiccan Views of Deity (showthread.php?t=44978&highlight=Justin)
Pythagoras now a non-Christian? (showthread.php?t=47948&highlight=Justin)
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18) (showthread.php?t=47759)
Dishonesty and the lack of integrity in knowledge of "Hebrew" (showthread.php?t=47534&highlight=Justin)
Jesus in the Talmud (showthread.php?t=48719&highlight=Justin)
Pythagoras: Substantiation of Accusations (showthread.php?t=48856&highlight=Justin)

Try again,

Justin

[Faramir]

For a minute I thought I was in the Locker Room. That is the proper place for such an exchange of insults and polemics. But this is Judiasm. We need to at least have some substance.

In other words, play nice, or take it to the Locker Room.

Also there have been several accusations of lying. Such accusations must be supported. Note, that TWeb defines a lie as an intentional misrepresentation of what a person believes or knows to be true. I have glanced this thread and the Locker Room, and have found no proof that anyone intentionally stated something that they believed or knew to be untrue.

These accusation will be edit out until such time as they are retracted, or supported. If you are one of the ones who made the accusation of lying, and beleive that it is supported in this thread, PM me with a specific post. (I do not have time to read the entire thread with a fine tooth comb). Otherwise take it to the Locker Room.

[Sacrificial Ram]

self deleted

[kofh2u]

Fara,

I applaud your proper use of moderation.

This thread has gotten away from the issues.

Jews have long focused upon their objections to Christian views concerning who Jesus was.

1) They argue that Jesus could not be from the line of David, ..

2) ...that the virgin birth is a myth,
3) ...that Jesus broke the law of Torah.

But, from their own perspective, Jesus fits perfectly with equation to ELIJAH.

Jesus, as the prophesied return of Elijah, meets all the traditional Jewish requirements.

1) His genealogy is no problem because Elijah's genealogy is unknown.

2) The miracluous conception is no problem since Elijah never died, transcended as miracluously to heaven as he miraculously appears in a pregnant virgin.

3) He worked miracles a required of Elijah,...

4) ... and raises the dead.

5) He resurrected the full art of the laying on of hands, a Kohanim holy "art" still practiced in skeleton form today.

6) And, he revealed to the apostles the "keys" of the Kabbalah as traditional expected.

7) He came before the terrible Day of the Lord to come... we are waiting... still...

That the Jewish Elijah corresponds to the first coming of the Christian messiah might be opposed further because Jews hold to charges that to fall down before either Elijah or Jesus is idolatry.

However, Jesus is not an Idol carved nor graven, not an Idol made by man.

Christ (or Elijah, to Jews) was created by God, IN THE IMAGE of God. His the living Idol of Judaism. They ought bow to Him.


Furthermore, Jews argue that Gentiles have invented the Trinity, making Jesus God. This, they claim, violates the first commandment, "Have no other Gods before me"...

But...here we must defer to our human inability of distinguishing between God and His identical image.

And, actually, it underlines the basic message of their messenger from God, Elijah telling them:

Matt. 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe (to the First Commandment) of mint (in ritual observance of the God you ought worship by obeying his call to serve the least among you) and anise (in proseltyzing membership in useless Sabbath meetings) and cummin (proclaiming your brotherhood with self-judged right acting men), and have omitted (the sum of the remaining Law and the prophets) weightier matters of the law (forgiveness), judgment (equality), mercy (Charity), and faith (in bread cast upon waters of men): these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other (ritual practices) undone.


WHAT SAY THE JEWS?

[Sacrificial Ram]

Fara,

I applaud your proper use of moderation.

This thread has gotten away from the issues.

Jews have long focused upon their objections to Christian views concerning who Jesus was.

1) They argue that Jesus could not be from the line of David, ..

2) ...that the virgin birth is a myth,
3) ...that Jesus broke the law of Torah.

But, from their own perspective, Jesus fits perfectly with equation to ELIJAH.

Jesus, as the prophesied return of Elijah, meets all the traditional Jewish requirements.

1) His genealogy is no problem because Elijah's genealogy is unknown.

2) The miracluous conception is no problem since Elijah never died, transcended as miracluously to heaven as he miraculously appears in a pregnant virgin.

3) He worked miracles a required of Elijah,...

4) ... and raises the dead.

5) He resurrected the full art of the laying on of hands, a Kohanim holy "art" still practiced in skeleton form today.

6) And, he revealed to the apostles the "keys" of the Kabbalah as traditional expected.

7) He came before the terrible Day of the Lord to come... we are waiting... still...

That the Jewish Elijah corresponds to the first coming of the Christian messiah might be opposed further because Jews hold to charges that to fall down before either Elijah or Jesus is idolatry.

However, Jesus is not an Idol carved nor graven, not an Idol made by man.

Christ (or Elijah, to Jews) was created by God, IN THE IMAGE of God. His the living Idol of Judaism. They ought bow to Him.


Furthermore, Jews argue that Gentiles have invented the Trinity, making Jesus God. This, they claim, violates the first commandment, "Have no other Gods before me"...

But...here we must defer to our human inability of distinguishing between God and His identical image.

And, actually, it underlines the basic message of their messenger from God, Elijah telling them:

Matt. 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe (to the First Commandment) of mint (in ritual observance of the God you ought worship by obeying his call to serve the least among you) and anise (in proseltyzing membership in useless Sabbath meetings) and cummin (proclaiming your brotherhood with self-judged right acting men), and have omitted (the sum of the remaining Law and the prophets) weightier matters of the law (forgiveness), judgment (equality), mercy (Charity), and faith (in bread cast upon waters of men): these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other (ritual practices) undone.


WHAT SAY THE JEWS?

However, according to the Jews, you are looking at the wrong criteria.

The Jews weren't looking for the return of elijiah, they were looking for a human king, decended from the direct male line from David through Solomon, who would free them from foreign rule. It is your obsession about Eljiah and Jesus, not a Jewish one.

There are a number of Messanic requirements in the Tanakh. In the Jewish view, Jesus did not meet a number of them.

The Jews were not interested in seeing miracles. They were interested in other matters. The messiah wasn't supposed to bring back the dead, nor be a god.

The Jews got upset when the Romans insisted that the Ceasars were to be worshiped as gods. They didn't believe in a God in the form of a man. Jesus is no exception to that. They were consistant that way. God is not a man.
God is not the son of man.

And, of course, in the Jewish point of view, the writings of Matthew is irrelavent.

[kofh2u]

However, according to the Jews, you are looking at the wrong criteria.

The Jews weren't looking for the return of elijiah, they were looking for a human king, decended from the direct male line from David through Solomon, who would free them from foreign rule. It is your obsession about Eljiah and Jesus, not a Jewish one.

There are a number of Messanic requirements in the Tanakh. In the Jewish view, Jesus did not meet a number of them.

The Jews were not interested in seeing miracles. They were interested in other matters. The messiah wasn't supposed to bring back the dead, nor be a god.

The Jews got upset when the Romans insisted that the Ceasars were to be worshiped as gods. They didn't believe in a God in the form of a man. Jesus is no exception to that. They were consistant that way. God is not a man.
God is not the son of man.

And, of course, in the Jewish point of view, the writings of Matthew is irrelavent.


Tam, you make my int so clearly...

...I ought get your take on what I am trying to say before posting!


RAM:
"The Jews weren't looking for the return of elijiah,"...


KOFHY:
And, tell the Jews to be patient.
He's coming now. Elijah was messiah ben Joseph, David is what they are seeing, "Him" coming right now,... 144,000 Christian soldiers in the Middle East are hearlding his soon to come appearance.

Elijah has made the path to tnese ends.

[InChristAlways]

However, according to the Jews, you are looking at the wrong criteria.

The Jews weren't looking for the return of elijiah, they were looking for a human king, decended from the direct male line from David through Solomon, who would free them from foreign rule. It is your obsession about Eljiah and Jesus, not a Jewish one.

There are a number of Messanic requirements in the Tanakh. In the Jewish view, Jesus did not meet a number of them.

The Jews were not interested in seeing miracles. They were interested in other matters. The messiah wasn't supposed to bring back the dead, nor be a god.

The Jews got upset when the Romans insisted that the Ceasars were to be worshiped as gods. They didn't believe in a God in the form of a man. Jesus is no exception to that. They were consistant that way. God is not a man.
God is not the son of man.

And, of course, in the Jewish point of view, the writings of Matthew is irrelavent.

Tam, you make my int so clearly...

...I ought get your take on what I am trying to say before posting!


RAM:
"The Jews weren't looking for the return of elijiah,"...


KOFHY:
And, tell the Jews to be patient.
He's coming now. Elijah was messiah ben Joseph, David is what they are seeing, "Him" coming right now,... 144,000 Christian soldiers in the Middle East are hearlding his soon to come appearance.

Elijah has made the path to tnese ends.
Hmm, If Jesus wasn't suppose to raise the dead, how the heck is God suppose to open up the graves as in Ezekiel 37??? It appears that Spirit in vs 14 was the one poured out at pentecost and up to now , so is Israel still awaiting to have their "graves opened"?

Ezekiel 37:[i]13 "Then you shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. 14 "I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken [it] and performed [it,"] says the LORD.' "

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hmm, If Jesus wasn't suppose to raise the dead, how the heck is God suppose to open up the graves as in Ezekiel 37??? It appears that Spirit in vs 14 was the one poured out at pentecost and up to now , so is Israel still awaiting to have their "graves opened"?

Ezekiel 37:[i]13 "Then you shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. 14 "I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken [it] and performed [it,"] says the LORD.' "

One of the Jewish interpretations is that we will be dead until God brings out of our graves. It is not a prophecy saying the messiah will do that, because, remember, in Jewish tradition, the messiah is only going to be a man.

[InChristAlways]

One of the Jewish interpretations is that we will be dead until God brings out of our graves. It is not a prophecy saying the messiah will do that, because, remember, in Jewish tradition, the messiah is only going to be a man.Hi SR. Thanks for clarifying that. But that "man" will also have to redeem both Israel and Judah[jews], and atone for their sins, which is what Jesus "the lamb of God" did, otherwise, how can Israel and Judah become one again? Something or someone has to be "sacrificed" for that and it appears just as "Jesus" was sacrificed, so were the jews and the temple in the first century[just from my view of revelation].
Does the Talmud speak of anything concerning the wrath of God being against the first century temple anywhere? How do they view the "sacrifice prepared" upon the Day of the Lord in Zeph 1? Just curious.

zeph 1:6 Those who have turned back from [following] the LORD, And have not sought the LORD, nor inquired of Him." 7 Be silent in the presence of the Lord GOD; For the day of the LORD at hand, For the LORD has prepared a sacrifice; He has invited His guests.


[i]Reve 5:5 But one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals." 6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Revelation 11:1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hi SR. Thanks for clarifying that. But that "man" will also have to redeem both Israel and Judah[jews], and atone for their sins, which is what Jesus "the lamb of God" did, otherwise, how can Israel and Judah become one again? Something or someone has to be "sacrificed" for that and it appears just as "Jesus" was sacrificed, so were the jews and the temple in the first century[just from my view of revelation].
Does the Talmud speak of anything concerning the wrath of God being against the first century temple anywhere? How do they view the "sacrifice prepared" upon the Day of the Lord in Zeph 1? Just curious.

zeph 1:6 Those who have turned back from [following] the LORD, And have not sought the LORD, nor inquired of Him." 7 Be silent in the presence of the Lord GOD; For the day of the LORD at hand, For the LORD has prepared a sacrifice; He has invited His guests.


[i]Reve 5:5 But one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals." 6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Revelation 11:1 Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.

Well, I am not going to make a comment about the quotes from the Revelation of John, since it was commentary about Jesus after the execution, but in Zephaniah, there is no indication that the sacrifice
will be a man. Indeed, many in the Jewish Tradition interpret Genesis 22
as a promise from God never to need a human sacrifice. In the minds of many, that would include the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

As for Zeph 1:6, the footnote that is in copy of the tanakh I have is the 'sacrificial feast' is actually the 'slaughter of sinners'. In other words, Zephaniah is warning Israel that they have yet again strayed from the path to God, and again have started worshpping Baal (see zeph 1:4), and that God is angry at Israel for starting to worship foreign Gods again.

It seems to me a lot of the books of the Prophets deal with Israel starting to stray and worship other Gods, and body is appointed to remind Israel to go back to worshipping the God of Israel, and that god alone.

[Pythagoras]

I request people get back on topic . We're discussing Jesus in the Talmud.


best wishes,

[InChristAlways]

I request people get back on topic . We're discussing Jesus in the Talmud.


best wishes,Hi Pytha. Sorry about that. But who or what is shown in the Talmud as being the only one or thing that can redeem and atone for both Judah's and Israel's sins? The Name God in the OC or the Name of God in the NC? It is obvious the jews of today are not the "crown of glory" or a "royal diadem" as that honor will belong to the "sceptre of Judah" as shown in Gen 49. Is this not a messianic prophecy and how is this shown in the Talmud? It shows Judah, not Israel, so is there a difference? Thanks.

Genesis 49:1 And Jacob called his sons and said, "Gather together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days: 10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him [shall be] the obedience of the people.

Isaiah 62:1 For Zion's sake I will not hold My peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, Until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, And her salvation as a lamp [that] burns. 2 The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, And all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, Which the mouth of the LORD will name. 3 You shall also be a crown of glory In the hand of the LORD, And a royal diadem In the hand of your God.

[kofh2u]

Hmm, If Jesus wasn't suppose to raise the dead, how the heck is God suppose to open up the graves as in Ezekiel 37??? It appears that Spirit in vs 14 was the one poured out at pentecost and up to now , so is Israel still awaiting to have their "graves opened"?

Ezekiel 37:[i]13 "Then you shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. 14 "I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken [it] and performed [it,"] says the LORD.' "

Hello Inchrist...

I was hoping that knowledgeable Jewish posters would confirm the criteria for recognition of Elijah, returned.

(I did find a website that listed the requirements I enumerated.)

The point here for discussion is that Jews insist Jesus be identified with messiah ben David in accord with their own well known criteria. But, if they examine their traditional understanding of the messiah ben Joseph they are without excuse.

[Sacrificial Ram]

The point here for discussion is that Jews insist Jesus be identified with messiah ben David in accord with their own well known criteria. But, if they examine their traditional understanding of the messiah ben Joseph they are without excuse.

How nice of you to interpret the Jewish tradition for the Jews.

[Richbee]

This topic is old news, and I addressed a few of the false accounts brought up bt Newsweek Magazine's Jon Meachman:

Jewish Babylonian Talmud charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation:



“The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera”.

The article mentions, Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., who produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His True Discourse (c. A.D. 178) was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera. (Note the recycled lie w/the liar and the original source)

[kofh2u]

How nice of you to interpret the Jewish tradition for the Jews.


Hi Ram,

1) I am a genetic Jew.

2) I do welcome the Jewish expert opinion/update on the Two Messiah Tradition.

3) This source below has supplied a detail argument that goes beyond what I have asked for:

Yair Davidiy
POB 595
Jerusalelm Israel
91004
email: britam@netvision.net.il


Are you familiar with his point of view?

The MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH in Jewish Tradition in later generations was taken to be a symbolic figure. The MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH was understood to represent an historical process in which the Jewish people would return to their land and rebuild themselves by natural means. Later the MESSIAH SON OF DAVID would appear and impart a spiritual dimension to the physical-material political structure that the process represented by the MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH had prepared. This does not nullify the belief that the MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH is to be a real person. It merely supplements it. It adds to it. It helps us understand it. The MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH was to appear before the MESSIAH SON OF DAVID. In some sources the MESSIAH SON OF JOSEPH is called “The First Redeemer.” The “Second Redeemer” will be the Messiah son of David.

[Menachem]

This topic is old news, and I addressed a few of the false accounts brought up bt Newsweek Magazine's Jon Meachman:

Jewish Babylonian Talmud charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation:



“The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera”.

The article mentions, Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., who produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His True Discourse (c. A.D. 178) was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera. (Note the recycled lie w/the liar and the original source)


LOL...nice try at placing that to pointing to jesus...LOL. Big Laugh! Big Laugh!

if parthenos is such a word then why is it used twice for someone who definately is not. Genesis 34:2-5 it is used for Dinah who was raped by Shechem.

Shalom,

[InChristAlways]

The article mentions, Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., who produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His True Discourse (c. A.D. 178) was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera. (Note the recycled lie w/the liar and the original source)

I found this interesting also. The place where the King of the jews was laid as a baby was an animal trough!!!
Egads. I wonder if that was prophecied in the bible also? Poor Jesus.

Luke 2: When they arrived in Bethlehem, the village was so full that they couldn’t find anywhere to sleep! Finally, they found a cave where animals were kept. Mary had her baby there, in the cave, in the middle of the night. They named the baby “Jesus,” just as the angel had said. Joseph wrapped the baby in clean linen cloths, and laid him in the feeding trough where the animals ate.

5336 phatne fat'-nay from pateomai (to eat); a crib (for fodder):--manager, stall.

But look at what He looks like in revelation!!!! Pretty awsome.


Reve 1:12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; 13 and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. 14 His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. 15 His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters.

[kofh2u]

LOL...nice try at placing that to pointing to jesus...LOL. Big Laugh! Big Laugh!

if parthenos is such a word then why is it used twice for someone who definately is not. Genesis 34:2-5 it is used for Dinah who was raped by Shechem.

Shalom,

1) Does the Talmud call Jesus a bastard?

2) Is there any pre-70AD source supporting such a claim?

3) I find it hard to believe that anyone would care, Joseph having stuck around at least 12 years after the birth, and Jesus virtually a nobody until age 32.

4) It seems reasonable that the miracluous birth was, at some point, admited to by Mary, the only one who could know for sure. And, if many people knew earlier, stoning was sort of mandatory in those times, was it not?

5) AND... this admission by Mary could only conceivably have been offered up after the resurrection, as both evidence and her "excuse" that Jesus was ELIJAH, returning.

6) After rising from the grave, like ELIJAH who had never died, Mary's confirmation of her strange virgin pregnancy would be acceptable... for an Elijah. We do not accept any lower criteria today, ourselves.

7) Before the resurrection, regardless of the truth, no woman would have been able to say she was pregnant, but innocent. After the resurrection, she probably couldn't wait to proclaim her innocence. Especially, if some few, like her mom, or Elizabeth had known the circumstances.

8) This all supports Virgin Birth, Elijah returned, and the resurrection of Jesus.

For Mary, willingly, to own up on the record, to be proud, to claim her herself special in God's eyes, many, many people must have been totally certain of the resurrection!

[Pythagoras]

LOL...nice try at placing that to pointing to jesus...LOL. Big Laugh! Big Laugh!

if parthenos is such a word then why is it used twice for someone who definately is not. Genesis 34:2-5 it is used for Dinah who was raped by Shechem.

Shalom,

Actually parthenos means virgin in the Greek , as every sane person knows. But Bethula is used about 50 times in the OT(60, if we include the form Bethulot), and only in about 23 cases does it mean virgin. In passages like Joel 1:8 Bethulah certainly means a non-virgin.

So Isaiah's Almah of 7:14, which the Septuagint Jews translated Pathhenos brings the virgin birth across, quite succinctly.


best,

[technomage]

Actually parthenos means virgin in the Greek , as every sane person knows. But Bethula is used about 50 times in the OT(60, if we include the form Bethulot), and only in about 23 cases does it mean virgin. In passages like Joel 1:8 Bethulah certainly means a non-virgin.

So Isaiah's Almah of 7:14, which the Septuagint Jews translated Pathhenos brings the virgin birth across, quite succinctly.

Hmmm. One wonders what the LXX translation of Gen 34:2-5 is...?


Verse: 2 καὶ (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103B903')) εἶδεν (javascript:ci(8,'B503B903B403B503BD03')) αὐτὴν (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403B703BD03')) Συχεμ (javascript:ci(8,'C303C503C703B503BC03')) ὁ (javascript:ci(8,'BF03')) / υἱὸς (javascript:ci(8,'C503B903BF03C303')) Εμμωρ (javascript:ci(8,'B503BC03BC03C903C103')) ὁ (javascript:ci(8,'BF03')) Χορραῖος (javascript:ci(8,'C703BF03C103C103B103B903BF03C303')) ὁ (javascript:ci(8,'BF03')) ἄρχων (javascript:ci(8,'B103C103C703C903BD03')) τῆς (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703C303')) γῆς (javascript:ci(8,'B303B703C303')) καὶ (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103B903')) λαβὼν (javascript:ci(8,'BB03B103B203C903BD03')) αὐτὴν (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403B703BD03')) ἐκοιμήϑη (javascript:ci(8,'B503BA03BF03B903BC03B703D103B703')) / μετ (javascript:ci(8,'BC03B503C403'))' αὐτῆς (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403B703C303')) καὶ (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103B903')) ἐταπείνωσεν (javascript:ci(8,'B503C403B103C003B503B903BD03C903C303B503BD03')) αὐτήν (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403B703BD03')).
Verse: 3 καὶ (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103B903')) προσέσχεν (javascript:ci(8,'C003C103BF03C303B503C303C703B503BD03')) τῇ (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703')) ψυχῇ (javascript:ci(8,'C803C503C703B703')) / Δινας (javascript:ci(8,'B403B903BD03B103C303')) τῆς (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703C303')) ϑυγατρὸς (javascript:ci(8,'D103C503B303B103C403C103BF03C303')) Ιακωβ (javascript:ci(8,'B903B103BA03C903B203')) καὶ (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103B903')) ἠγάπησεν (javascript:ci(8,'B703B303B103C003B703C303B503BD03')) τὴν (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703BD03')) παρϑένον (javascript:ci(8,'C003B103C103D103B503BD03BF03BD03')) καὶ (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103B903')) ἐλάλησεν (javascript:ci(8,'B503BB03B103BB03B703C303B503BD03')) / κατὰ (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103C403B103')) τὴν (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703BD03')) διάνοιαν (javascript:ci(8,'B403B903B103BD03BF03B903B103BD03')) τῆς (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703C303')) παρϑένου (javascript:ci(8,'C003B103C103D103B503BD03BF03C503')) αὐτῇ (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403B703')).
Verse: 4 εἶπεν (javascript:ci(8,'B503B903C003B503BD03')) δὲ (javascript:ci(8,'B403B503')) Συχεμ (javascript:ci(8,'C303C503C703B503BC03')) / πρὸς (javascript:ci(8,'C003C103BF03C303')) Εμμωρ (javascript:ci(8,'B503BC03BC03C903C103')) τὸν (javascript:ci(8,'C403BF03BD03')) πατέρα (javascript:ci(8,'C003B103C403B503C103B103')) αὐτοῦ (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403BF03C503')) λέγων (javascript:ci(8,'BB03B503B303C903BD03')) Λαβέ (javascript:ci(8,'BB03B103B203B503')) μοι (javascript:ci(8,'BC03BF03B903')) τὴν (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703BD03')) παιδίσκην (javascript:ci(8,'C003B103B903B403B903C303BA03B703BD03')) / ταύτην (javascript:ci(8,'C403B103C503C403B703BD03')) εἰς (javascript:ci(8,'B503B903C303')) γυναῖκα (javascript:ci(8,'B303C503BD03B103B903BA03B103')).
Verse: 5 Ιακωβ (javascript:ci(8,'B903B103BA03C903B203')) δὲ (javascript:ci(8,'B403B503')) ἤκουσεν (javascript:ci(8,'B703BA03BF03C503C303B503BD03')) ὅτι (javascript:ci(8,'BF03C403B903')) ἐμίανεν (javascript:ci(8,'B503BC03B903B103BD03B503BD03')) ὁ (javascript:ci(8,'BF03')) υἱὸς (javascript:ci(8,'C503B903BF03C303')) Εμμωρ (javascript:ci(8,'B503BC03BC03C903C103')) / Διναν (javascript:ci(8,'B403B903BD03B103BD03')) τὴν (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703BD03')) ϑυγατέρα (javascript:ci(8,'D103C503B303B103C403B503C103B103')) αὐτοῦ (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403BF03C503'))· οἱ (javascript:ci(8,'BF03B903')) δὲ (javascript:ci(8,'B403B503')) υἱοὶ (javascript:ci(8,'C503B903BF03B903')) αὐτοῦ (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403BF03C503')) ἦσαν (javascript:ci(8,'B703C303B103BD03')) μετὰ (javascript:ci(8,'BC03B503C403B103')) τῶν (javascript:ci(8,'C403C903BD03')) κτηνῶν (javascript:ci(8,'BA03C403B703BD03C903BD03')) / αὐτοῦ (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403BF03C503')) ἐν (javascript:ci(8,'B503BD03')) τῷ (javascript:ci(8,'C403C903')) πεδίῳ (javascript:ci(8,'C003B503B403B903C903')), παρεσιώπησεν (javascript:ci(8,'C003B103C103B503C303B903C903C003B703C303B503BD03')) δὲ (javascript:ci(8,'B403B503')) Ιακωβ (javascript:ci(8,'B903B103BA03C903B203')) ἕως (javascript:ci(8,'B503C903C303')) τοῦ (javascript:ci(8,'C403BF03C503')) ἐλϑεῖν (javascript:ci(8,'B503BB03D103B503B903BD03')) / αὐτούς (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403BF03C503C303')).
Cited from Titus text repository (http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/grie/sept/sept.htm).

Hmmm. Dinah, after having been raped, was still a virgin (τὴν (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703BD03')) παρϑένον (javascript:ci(8,'C003B103C103D103B503BD03BF03BD03')))?

Justin

[kofh2u]

Hmmm. One wonders what the LXX translation of Gen 34:2-5 is...?


Verse: 2 ?a? (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103B903')) e?de? (javascript:ci(8,'B503B903B403B503BD03')) a?t?? (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403B703BD03')) S??eµ (javascript:ci(8,'C303C503C703B503BC03')) ? (javascript:ci(8,'BF03')) / ???? (javascript:ci(8,'C503B903BF03C303')) ?µµ?? (javascript:ci(8,'B503BC03BC03C903C103')) ? (javascript:ci(8,'BF03')) ????a??? (javascript:ci(8,'C703BF03C103C103B103B903BF03C303')) ? (javascript:ci(8,'BF03')) ????? (javascript:ci(8,'B103C103C703C903BD03')) t?? (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703C303')) ??? (javascript:ci(8,'B303B703C303')) ?a? (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103B903')) ?aß?? (javascript:ci(8,'BB03B103B203C903BD03')) a?t?? (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403B703BD03')) ????µ??? (javascript:ci(8,'B503BA03BF03B903BC03B703D103B703')) / µet (javascript:ci(8,'BC03B503C403'))' a?t?? (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403B703C303')) ?a? (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103B903')) ?tape???se? (javascript:ci(8,'B503C403B103C003B503B903BD03C903C303B503BD03')) a?t?? (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403B703BD03')).
Verse: 3 ?a? (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103B903')) p??s?s?e? (javascript:ci(8,'C003C103BF03C303B503C303C703B503BD03')) t? (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703')) ???? (javascript:ci(8,'C803C503C703B703')) / ???a? (javascript:ci(8,'B403B903BD03B103C303')) t?? (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703C303')) ???at??? (javascript:ci(8,'D103C503B303B103C403C103BF03C303')) ?a??ß (javascript:ci(8,'B903B103BA03C903B203')) ?a? (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103B903')) ???p?se? (javascript:ci(8,'B703B303B103C003B703C303B503BD03')) t?? (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703BD03')) pa?????? (javascript:ci(8,'C003B103C103D103B503BD03BF03BD03')) ?a? (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103B903')) ?????se? (javascript:ci(8,'B503BB03B103BB03B703C303B503BD03')) / ?at? (javascript:ci(8,'BA03B103C403B103')) t?? (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703BD03')) d?????a? (javascript:ci(8,'B403B903B103BD03BF03B903B103BD03')) t?? (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703C303')) pa?????? (javascript:ci(8,'C003B103C103D103B503BD03BF03C503')) a?t? (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403B703')).
Verse: 4 e?pe? (javascript:ci(8,'B503B903C003B503BD03')) d? (javascript:ci(8,'B403B503')) S??eµ (javascript:ci(8,'C303C503C703B503BC03')) / p??? (javascript:ci(8,'C003C103BF03C303')) ?µµ?? (javascript:ci(8,'B503BC03BC03C903C103')) t?? (javascript:ci(8,'C403BF03BD03')) pat??a (javascript:ci(8,'C003B103C403B503C103B103')) a?t?? (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403BF03C503')) ????? (javascript:ci(8,'BB03B503B303C903BD03')) ?aß? (javascript:ci(8,'BB03B103B203B503')) µ?? (javascript:ci(8,'BC03BF03B903')) t?? (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703BD03')) pa?d?s??? (javascript:ci(8,'C003B103B903B403B903C303BA03B703BD03')) / ta?t?? (javascript:ci(8,'C403B103C503C403B703BD03')) e?? (javascript:ci(8,'B503B903C303')) ???a??a (javascript:ci(8,'B303C503BD03B103B903BA03B103')).
Verse: 5 ?a??ß (javascript:ci(8,'B903B103BA03C903B203')) d? (javascript:ci(8,'B403B503')) ????se? (javascript:ci(8,'B703BA03BF03C503C303B503BD03')) ?t? (javascript:ci(8,'BF03C403B903')) ?µ?a?e? (javascript:ci(8,'B503BC03B903B103BD03B503BD03')) ? (javascript:ci(8,'BF03')) ???? (javascript:ci(8,'C503B903BF03C303')) ?µµ?? (javascript:ci(8,'B503BC03BC03C903C103')) / ???a? (javascript:ci(8,'B403B903BD03B103BD03')) t?? (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703BD03')) ???at??a (javascript:ci(8,'D103C503B303B103C403B503C103B103')) a?t?? (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403BF03C503'))? ?? (javascript:ci(8,'BF03B903')) d? (javascript:ci(8,'B403B503')) ???? (javascript:ci(8,'C503B903BF03B903')) a?t?? (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403BF03C503')) ?sa? (javascript:ci(8,'B703C303B103BD03')) µet? (javascript:ci(8,'BC03B503C403B103')) t?? (javascript:ci(8,'C403C903BD03')) ?t???? (javascript:ci(8,'BA03C403B703BD03C903BD03')) / a?t?? (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403BF03C503')) ?? (javascript:ci(8,'B503BD03')) t? (javascript:ci(8,'C403C903')) ped?? (javascript:ci(8,'C003B503B403B903C903')), pa?es??p?se? (javascript:ci(8,'C003B103C103B503C303B903C903C003B703C303B503BD03')) d? (javascript:ci(8,'B403B503')) ?a??ß (javascript:ci(8,'B903B103BA03C903B203')) ??? (javascript:ci(8,'B503C903C303')) t?? (javascript:ci(8,'C403BF03C503')) ???e?? (javascript:ci(8,'B503BB03D103B503B903BD03')) / a?t??? (javascript:ci(8,'B103C503C403BF03C503C303')).
Cited from Titus text repository (http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/grie/sept/sept.htm).

Hmmm. Dinah, after having been raped, was still a virgin (t?? (javascript:ci(8,'C403B703BD03')) pa?????? (javascript:ci(8,'C003B103C103D103B503BD03BF03BD03')))?

Justin

Hello Justin,

I wonder about your reaction to my point, "Just how did this miraculous birth story get going unless Mary confessed it?"

It is my argument that tge Christian are ignorant to the prophecy for a returned Elijah. While the Jews use their ignorance to avoid the issue.

A miravle birth would be beevable for a returned ELIJAH.And, it would explain why Jews refuse to recognize ELIJAH in place of a King, a man from the line of David, yet to come restore the Jews to Israel, make peace, etc.

[Pythagoras]

Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.

[technomage]

Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.

So, what? You couldn't "exorcise" me, so are you gonna kill me now? :lmbo:

Justin

[technomage]

I wonder about your reaction to my point, "Just how did this miraculous birth story get going unless Mary confessed it?"

Or unless the author of Matthew made a confused reference to a verse in Isaiah that didn't apply, and Luke followed suit. David, this is not an argument that will be settled here--or probably anywhere else--and to be quite blunt about it, this is not an argument that I'm terribly concerned with.

I'm not saying you should abandon your belief in Jesus Christ in general, and the Virgin Birth in particular--I'm simply saying I don't share that belief.

Justin

[kofh2u]

Justin (Wiccan:

Or unless the author of Matthew made a confused reference to a verse in Isaiah that didn't apply, and Luke followed suit.

KOFHY:
Well, that is as bad as supplying a false reference in that we can deny the valid ones, don't you think?

Justin (Wiccan:
David, this is not an argument that will be settled here--or probably anywhere else--

KOFHY:
Agreed. The people against taking the witness of these writings (scripture), under any circumstances, will not do so.

I respond to these posts because others who already concur with me may be supported by what I say.

I DO NOT think for one second that anyone here entertains a change in the attitude and disposition. That change is the essence of a born again experience.

We are all born with an election towards a set philosophical outlook.
The Myers/Briggs Personality Inventory, (that Randy held is such high esteem, for instance), bears me out. That "MBTT" psychological test has ONLY a dozen or so groups all coded by the permutations of four letters symbolizing the Four Jungian Functions of Thinking.

This is part of the kabbalah, the "hidden manna" to be found in scripture. We humans come in twelve basic flavors.

Justin (Wiccan:
..and to be quite blunt about it, this is not an argument that I'm terribly concerned with.

KOFHY:
I can believe that. Y
ou are a die in the wool wiccan, right?
But, in responding to you, I was of the mistaken opinion that you came to these forums with academic interest.

You reply to the issue, as have I.
To be perfectly blunt, I see most people, especially the Orthodox Christians, ready to run, hide their heads in the sand of an haughty superior ostracism, and stupidly hold to the principle: "You can't change my mind, because I will not see your point of view, nor hear one different from my own.

Isn't this all a confirmation of the validity we discuss, about scripture?

Matt. 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.


Justin wicca:
I'm not saying you should abandon your belief in Jesus Christ in general, and the Virgin Birth in particular--I'm simply saying I don't share that belief.

KOFHY:
Certainly.

Elijah came to save the lost.

Messiah ben David will not care:


Rev. 22:11 He (who, in that smallest 6% part of the world population) that is unjust, (in the economic distribution of resources), let him be unjust still (in this present socio-political economic global system): and he which is filthy (with the sexual manipulation of the cultural institutions), let him be filthy still: and he that be (so self-right),
righteous, (and so self assured in his own political and/or religious conceits), let him be (self) righteous still: and he that is holy, (altruistic), let him be holy, (different and separated out) still.

[technomage]

Justin (Wiccan:

Or unless the author of Matthew made a confused reference to a verse in Isaiah that didn't apply, and Luke followed suit.

KOFHY:
Well, that is as bad as supplying a false reference in that we can deny the valid ones, don't you think?

I'm sorry: I think I expressed myself unclearly. My sentence above probably should have been in "sarcasm" tags--it was intended to illustrate the futility of the argument at this point.

My point is this (and it's one that I think you've already grasped): To those who believe, no proof is necessary: to those who do not believe, no proof is possible. The only thing that the endless arguments here accomplish is the endless re-hashing of hostilities, disagreements, misunderstandings ... it's all noise and no signal.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Witch:


In John 8:58, the Gospel writer records Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was I am."


Do you still think the gospel writer made this particular Jesus saying up?

[technomage]

Witch:


In John 8:58, the Gospel writer records Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was I am."


Do you still think the gospel writer made this particular Jesus saying up?

To those who believe, no proof is necessary: to those who do not believe, no proof is possible.

And that, my dear Pythagoras, is all you need to know ... or are capable of understanding.

Justin

[kofh2u]

Witch:


In John 8:58, the Gospel writer records Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was I am."


Do you still think the gospel writer made this particular Jesus saying up?

Hello pythagy,
This verse is one of a number which interpretors have long been forced to explain with metaphysics.

Without our modern understandings about so many concepts, the ancient were left with little else then surrealism, myth, meta- insteada-physics.
Mythological-type, out of this world, with assumptions of heavens, the realm of God, angels and a whole cast of devils were really just "invented," through necessity, to mother the scriptures that could not be explained.

We can call it theology, or claim it is literally supported. But, to a person not enculturated from childhood in our Western Christianity, it would be hard to swallow.

I can hardly fault Justin for taking the easy way out, here.

How, in the medievil mind could anyone explain how Jesus might possibily "be" before Abraham, who died way before Moses, even?

You gotta admire the way the dark age people explained this to their kids.
You gotta respect the ingeniuity they used, to make sure their ideas dove tailed with other bible passages, even in other books, too.

But, I see this, rather, as simple as if a Modern Homo sapien might have been reminding an intelligent Neanderthal. "Before even Homos of millennia back, I, the Homo of the present was. My species "was. "
Much unchanged and quite the same, Modern Homo sapiens of 20,000 years ago were very, very much like us.

Jesus was saying, I am the first born among you, a new evolution of the species, Homoiousios sapien. But, I am merely a refined and more thoroughly processed continuation from Adam. Even pre-Adam.

I am, the way you see me, as men from Adam are, to this day.
I am the first Adam and the last.
I am the beginning, before Abraham, and...
I am the last, Homoioudios sapien, the first born completed Son of God.

1Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (the final moment of the second coming): for the trumpet (that sounds from our own awakened Unconscious Mind) shall sound (as in the Transfiguration), and the "dead," (i.e.; genetically preserved, Collective Unconscious Minds stored in ever re-manufacured brain of the new born), shall be raised, (mentally) incorruptible, (as spirit-like thoughts), and we shall (evolve to a new level of humanity), be changed (into Homoiousian beings).

[Conductor42]

So, what? You couldn't "exorcise" me, so are you gonna kill me now? :lmbo:

Justin

Justin, you should know better than to expect quality discussion from a troll such as pythagorus.

[technomage]

Justin, you should know better than to expect quality discussion from a troll such as pythagorus.
Oh, Yosh, I must disagree--this is the most quality entertainment I've had in a long time!

Justin

[Pythagoras]

To those who believe, no proof is necessary: to those who do not believe, no proof is possible.

And that, my dear Pythagoras, is all you need to know ... or are capable of understanding.

Justin

The witch dare not answer with a yes or no.

Remember Christ's word's, "Let your yes be yes and no be no, anything else is from the Evil One."

[Pythagoras]

Justin, you should know better than to expect quality discussion from a troll such as pythagorus.

I don't understand why you're getting worked up.. All I did was quote the OT. I never even said another word.

Here it is again:

Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.

[technomage]

The witch dare not answer with a yes or no.

Remember Christ's word's, "Let your yes be yes and no be no, anything else is from the Evil One."

Oh? So since citing a quote to a nonexistant book is neither a yes, nor a no ...

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Oh? So since citing a quote to a nonexistant book is neither a yes, nor a no ...

Justin

The witch will not answer.

Do you still believe the writer of John was misleading readers when he made Jesus say the following words?

'Before Abraham was I am' .

[technomage]

The witch will not answer.

What answer do I owe you, who first evaded answering my questions?

Nevertheless, just to take away the latest drum that you wish to bang, let me give you an answer now.


Do you still believe the writer of John was misleading readers when he made Jesus say the following words?

'Before Abraham was I am' .

"Misleading" implies that the author of John deliberately lied about something he knew was false.

I can honestly tell you that I have no idea whether or not Jesus said these words. If Jesus did not say this, then I have no idea if the author honestly (but mistakenly) believed that Jesus had said this, or if he dishonestly put the words in Jesus' mouth.

In other words, the answer to your question is a very honest I do not know.

Justin

[Faramir]

There have been accusation of lying in this thread regarding Pythagorus and the existance of a one volume work.

Accusations of lying are strong, and must be supported, or removed.

This issue has been discussed with the Admin Team (AA's and higher), and the conlusion is that there the accusation is suffeciently substantiated to let it stand.


This is assesment is based on the siuation as the admin teams sees it.

1. Pythagorus made a claim that he got a quote from a particular book.
2. Justin, King A (and maybe a few others) stated that the book said no such thing.
3. Py gave a cite without a volume number.
4. Justin, King A, et. al. stated (and proved barring confimation of this mysery one volume book) that such a one volume printing of this book does not exist.
5. Py continued to insist that it did, and "poved" it by providing a link to where he got the quote.
6. This link did contain the quote, but not the "one volume" cite.
7. As of the writing of this notice, Py has failed to provide any source that list this one volume work.
8. Justin, King A, and co. have every reason to believe that this work (or even a cite to it since Py has not produced one) is non-existance.
9. Therefore, Justin and King A have reasonable cause the think that Py is lying.

While this does not prove that Pythagorus is lying, it certainly proves that Justin, King A and others have a reasonable cause to suspect that he is.

Note that this is a very long thread, and while diligent care was given to review all releveant post and links, it is possible that one was missed. All the admins are volunteers and do not have time to review every thread with a fine tooth comb. If this is the case and you feel that Pythagorus did provide a link with the cite for this one volume book, please notify me via PM

Note the cite does not have to be to a real book. It just has to show that Py did not make this up, and based his statement on what he believed to be true.

Thanks,

On behalf of the Admin Team,

Faramir
:sig:

[InChristAlways]

Jesus was saying, I am the first born among you, a new evolution of the species, Homoiousios sapien. But, I am merely a refined and more thoroughly processed continuation from Adam. Even pre-Adam.

I am, the way you see me, as men from Adam are, to this day.
I am the first Adam and the last.
I am the beginning, before Abraham, and...
I am the last, Homoioudios sapien, the first born completed Son of God.

1Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (the final moment of the second coming): for the trumpet (that sounds from our own awakened Unconscious Mind) shall sound (as in the Transfiguration), and the "dead," (i.e.; genetically preserved, Collective Unconscious Minds stored in ever re-manufacured brain of the new born), shall be raised, (mentally) incorruptible, (as spirit-like thoughts), and we shall (evolve to a new level of humanity), be changed (into Homoiousian beings). Hi Kofu. You may be partly correct. After all, Adam was the first man, Jesus was the second man.So if Jesus is "adam" then He was indeed before Abraham [all symbolic of course]. I don't have time to really read all the books outside the bible, so if it isn't in scripture, I tend to ignore it and try to reconcile the scriptures instead and just hope scripture isn't written with the "false pen of a lying scribe" somewhere and the translation is correct and accurate. [Jerem 8].
So what do you feel Isaiah 43/Jerem 31 means by a "new thing" God is making and any idea what the Talmud says on it? Could the "heavenly Adam" be the new thing by any chance? Thanks

Isaiah 43:19 Behold, I will do a new thing, Now it shall spring forth; Shall you not know it? I will even make a road in the wilderness [And] rivers in the desert.


1 corin 15:45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man [was] of the earth, [made] of dust; the second Man the Lord from heaven. [i]48 As [was] the [man] of dust, so also [are] those [who are made] of dust; and as the heavenly [Man,] so also [are] those [who are] heavenly. [i]49 And as we have borne the image of the [man] of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [Man.]

[b]jeremiah 31:22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth -- A woman shall encompass a man."

[Sacrificial Ram]

Witch:


In John 8:58, the Gospel writer records Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was I am."


Do you still think the gospel writer made this particular Jesus saying up?

Yep, Sure do. When it comes to the imagination of man, all is possible.

It is also possible that Jesus made that statement, and it was only partially given, or it is not understood properly by those people who are interpreting it.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
If interested English readers cannot conveniently search at least one good English translation of the complete Talmud (both the Jerusalem and Babylonian versions) via the Internet then the Jews should make rectifying that problem very high on their list of things to do.

Excuses like "it's too big" or "it's only true in Hebrew" don't cut it with me. Given their belief that the words have great worth and realizing the widespread interest, they should get right to it. Perhaps they already have.

Then discussions on the Internet concerning quotes in the Talmud should quote from that reference so the rest of us can quickly check by clicking on the link. See how smart that is?

John Powell

[InChristAlways]

Pytha
Witch:
In John 8:58, the Gospel writer records Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was I am."
Do you still think the gospel writer made this particular Jesus saying up?
Witch
Yep, Sure do. When it comes to the imagination of man, all is possible.

It is also possible that Jesus made that statement, and it was only partially given, or it is not understood properly by those people who are interpreting it.
POWELL:
If interested English readers cannot conveniently search at least one good English translation of the complete Talmud (both the Jerusalem and Babylonian versions) via the Internet then the Jews should make rectifying that problem very high on their list of things to do.

Excuses like "it's too big" or "it's only true in Hebrew" don't cut it with me. Given their belief that the words have great worth and realizing the widespread interest, they should get right to it. Perhaps they already have.

Then discussions on the Internet concerning quotes in the Talmud should quote from that reference so the rest of us can quickly check by clicking on the link. See how smart that is?

John PowellHi JP. Interesting. I can see why converts to judaism can be overwhelmed by it.
So could it be possible the scriptures the jews use could have come from the Talmud instead of the Talmud coming from the scriptures? It seems an unfair deal to try and reconcile things from the Talmud or even the muslim's Koran to the scriptures, so in essence, WHAT SAYETH THE SCRIPTURES not man.

I don't have time to really read all the books outside the bible, so if it isn't in scripture, I tend to ignore it and try to reconcile the scriptures instead and just hope scripture isn't written with the "false pen of a lying scribe" somewhere and the translation is correct and accurate. [Jerem 8].
SO how does the Talmud interpret these 2 passages inIsaiah 43/Jerem 31 about the "new thing" God is making? Could the "heavenly Adam" be the new thing by any chance? Thanks

Isaiah 43:19 Behold, I will do a new thing, Now it shall spring forth; Shall you not know it? I will even make a road in the wilderness [And] rivers in the desert.


1 corin 15:45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man [was] of the earth, [made] of dust; the second Man the Lord from heaven. [i]48 As [was] the [man] of dust, so also [are] those [who are made] of dust; and as the heavenly [Man,] so also [are] those [who are] heavenly. [i]49 And as we have borne the image of the [man] of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [Man.]

[b]jeremiah 31:22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth -- A woman shall encompass a man."

[Sacrificial Ram]

Pytha Witch Hi JP. Interesting. I can see why converts to judaism can be overwhelmed by it.
So could it be possible the scriptures the jews use could have come from the Talmud instead of the Talmud coming from the scriptures? It seems an unfair deal to try and reconcile things from the Talmud or even the muslim's Koran to the scriptures, so in essence, WHAT SAYETH THE SCRIPTURES not man.

I don't have time to really read all the books outside the bible, so if it isn't in scripture, I tend to ignore it and try to reconcile the scriptures instead and just hope scripture isn't written with the "false pen of a lying scribe" somewhere and the translation is correct and accurate. [Jerem 8].
SO how does the Talmud interpret these 2 passages inIsaiah 43/Jerem 31 about the "new thing" God is making? Could the "heavenly Adam" be the new thing by any chance? Thanks

Isaiah 43:19 Behold, I will do a new thing, Now it shall spring forth; Shall you not know it? I will even make a road in the wilderness [And] rivers in the desert.


1 corin 15:45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man [was] of the earth, [made] of dust; the second Man the Lord from heaven. [i]48 As [was] the [man] of dust, so also [are] those [who are made] of dust; and as the heavenly [Man,] so also [are] those [who are] heavenly. [i]49 And as we have borne the image of the [man] of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [Man.]

[b]jeremiah 31:22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth -- A woman shall encompass a man."

I don't think you understand what the Talmud actually is. It is basically a list of the rules in the Torah, and how to apply it in different situations. There are many opinions about it, and sometimes there are different opinons on how to apply the law in different curcumstances.

The first Talmud was written down around 200 C.E. by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
He basically did it to preserve the oral law, since the Temple did not exist anymore,
and he did it for the sake of preservation. That is the Palastine Talmud.

So, from the viewpoint of 'what is the Talmud', your comment is meaningless.


You have to remember you are looking at the scriptures through translations and a cultural bias that is not the same cultural bias as the people who wrote the scriptures.
You are looking at the scriptures through your cultural bias, reading words of people who translated things from the original using THEIR cultural bias. Even people who
can read it in the origininal language bring a cultural bias to the interpretation.

[Pythagoras]

3. Py gave a cite without a volume number.
4. Justin, King A, et. al. stated (and proved barring confimation of this mysery one volume book) that such a one volume printing of this book does not exist.




Only one problem .

The cite I refrence does not suggest a one volume printing.

[InChristAlways]

I don't think you understand what the Talmud actually is. It is basically a list of the rules in the Torah, and how to apply it in different situations. There are many opinions about it, and sometimes there are different opinons on how to apply the law in different curcumstances.

The first Talmud was written down around 200 C.E. by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
He basically did it to preserve the oral law, since the Temple did not exist anymore,
and he did it for the sake of preservation. That is the Palastine Talmud.

So, from the viewpoint of 'what is the Talmud', your comment is meaningless.
You have to remember you are looking at the scriptures through translations and a cultural bias that is not the same cultural bias as the people who wrote the scriptures.
You are looking at the scriptures through your cultural bias, reading words of people who translated things from the original using THEIR cultural bias. Even people who
can read it in the origininal language bring a cultural bias to the interpretation.
Hi SR. Cultural bias?? I am quoting scripture itself and am just asking how the jews view the "new thing" God was making. If it is a messianic prohecy, then it is very important to understand, as God said He would pour out His spirit upon the coming of the messiah. If that wasn't Jesus, then what do the jews of today think about these passages? I am reading the same scripture here that is in the jews scriptures I think and after all, the jews are still awaiting on their own messiah, since ours already came as prophecied. I just want a view on this. Thanks.

Isaiah 43:19 Behold, I will do a new thing, Now it shall spring forth; Shall you not know it? I will even make a road in the wilderness [And] rivers in the desert.


1 corin 15:45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam a life-giving spirit. [i]46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man [was] of the earth, [made] of dust; the second Man the Lord from heaven. [i]48 As [was] the [man] of dust, so also [are] those [who are made] of dust; and as the heavenly [Man,] so also [are] those [who are] heavenly. [i]49 And as we have borne the image of the [man] of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [Man.]

[b]jeremiah 31:22 How long will you gad about, O you backsliding daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing in the earth -- A woman shall encompass a man."

And if the NC is coming, the jews will never have to worry about sacrifices again as it will not be like the old one. Why would God want to put the same burdens on the jews again as He did with the OC because of their transgressions? And why is Judah missing in vs 10?

8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 "For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people

[John Powell]

InChristAlways:
Hi JP. Interesting. I can see why converts to judaism can be overwhelmed by it.

So could it be possible the scriptures the jews use could have come from the Talmud instead of the Talmud coming from the scriptures?


POWELL:
Jewish scribes may have changed the wording of some parts of the Tanakh to be better in line with what they thought was true.


InChristAlways:
It seems an unfair deal to try and reconcile things from the Talmud or even the muslim's Koran to the scriptures, so in essence, WHAT SAYETH THE SCRIPTURES not man.


POWELL:
When they feel their commentators are inspired then apologists have an obligation to defend their words too.


InChristAlways:
I don't have time to really read all the books outside the bible, so if it isn't in scripture, I tend to ignore it and try to reconcile the scriptures instead and just hope scripture isn't written with the "false pen of a lying scribe" somewhere and the translation is correct and accurate. [Jerem 8].
SO how does the Talmud interpret these 2 passages inIsaiah 43/Jerem 31 about the "new thing" God is making? Could the "heavenly Adam" be the new thing by any chance? Thanks


POWELL:
I don't know how the Talmud interpretes those two passages. Is there a good English version of the Talmud that we can do an Internet search on?

I also prefer to look at the Tanakh rather than the Talmud when trying to understand what the Tanakh writers meant, but when the issue is what the Talmud writers said or meant then, of course, it's important to have those to read.

John Powell

[technomage]

Is there a good English version of the Talmud that we can do an Internet search on?

There's an abridgement of the Babylonian Talmud at Sacredtexts.com (http://sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm).

Justin

[InChristAlways]

There's an abridgement of the Babylonian Talmud at Sacredtexts.com (http://sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm).

JustinHi Justin. Thanks for that. If the jews are required to keep all the laws of Moses, it appears God is most interested in keeping His sabbath Holy. This appears to one of the main commandments in the scriptures and the most holiest of them. Does this mean every jew that live in Jerusalem has to stop work completely on the sabbath? Jesus said a person could heal and do good on the sabbath, but not perfrom any other kind of work. The temple was destroyed in the first century because it appears they were desecrating His sabbaths, and isn't that happening today in Jerusalem?

Ezekiel 17:21 'Thus says the LORD: "Take heed to yourselves, andbear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring in by the gates of Jerusalem; [i]22 "nor carry a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, nor do any work, but hallow the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers. 23 "But they did not obey nor incline their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear nor receive instruction. 24 " And it shall be, if you heed Me carefully," says the LORD, "to bring no burden through the gates of this city on the Sabbath day, but hallow the Sabbath day, to do no work in it, 25 "then shall enter the gates of this city kings and princes sitting on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their princes, accompanied by the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and this city shall remain forever.


And if the NC is coming, the jews will never have to worry about sacrifices again as it will not be like the old one. Why would God want to put the same burdens on the jews again as He did with the OC because of their transgressions? And why is Judah missing in vs 10?

8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 "For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people

[Pythagoras]

Folks,

Here's a Jewish perspective on Jesus in the Talmud:





http://www.jewfaq.org/looking.htm (http://www.jewfaq.org/looking.htm)





What does the Talmud say about Jesus?

Does the Talmud say anything about Jesus? That is open to debate.

Rambam and many other prominent Jewish scholars believed that the stories of Jesus are based on Yeshu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeshu ha-Notzri ("Jesus the Branch," a reference to Isaiah 11:1, a passage about the messiah). Yeshu is discussed in parts of the Talmud that were censored by the Catholic Church. The Talmud claims that this Yeshu was the son of a Jewish woman named Miriam (Mary) who was betrothed to a carpenter (more accurately, their marriage was in the stage of kiddushin, where she is legally his wife but not yet living with him or having sexual relations with him; see Marriage (http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm#K&N)). She was either raped or voluntarily slept with a Greek or Roman soldier known as Pandeira, and Yeshu was the product of that union. Because of the status of Miriam's marriage, Yeshu is considered to be a mamzer (usually mistranslated as "bastard", it means the product of an adulterous or incestuous relationship). Some say that he was also a ben-niddah (conceived through intercourse with a woman in a state of menstrual impurity, which is also said to leave a stain on the offspring). The Talmud describes Yeshu as a heretic who dabbled in sorcery and lead the people astray (into idolatry). He was stoned to death by the Sanhedrin for his crimes, and in accordance with the procedure for heretics, his dead body was hung in a tree until nightfall after his death.

Were Jesus and Yeshu the same person? Many Jewish sages in history believed so. One modern commentator recently went so far as to translate the name "Yeshu" as "Jesus of Nazereth," even though the word "Nazereth" does not appear in the original text (it appears in Rambam's commentary on the text). It's probably worth noting that this commentator is selling a book about early Jewish-Christian relations.

[technomage]

And yet you missed the most significant paragraph of the page.


The main problem with identifying Yeshu with Jesus is timing: the Sanhedrin did not have the power to impose the death penalty at the time that Christians say Jesus died, at the time when Roman procurators like Pilate were running the show. Historian Josephus seems to confirm that Jesus died during the time of Pilate, so the problem cannot be resolved by simply changing the date. For this reason, some Jews today believe that the Jesus mentioned in Josephus became confused with the story of Yeshu ha-Notzri (the name "Yeshu" was quite common in that time) and the melded story was the basis for Christianity"
(http://www.jewfaq.org/looking.htm)

[Sacrificial Ram]

Only one problem .

The cite I refrence does not suggest a one volume printing.

The cite you reference does not appear to exist at ALL.. much less be a one volume printing.

[Pythagoras]

Witch,


And yet you missed the most significant paragraph of the page.

Me thinks rather you missed the most significant paragraph of the page.

The identification of Yeshu of Talmud with Jesus of Nazareth might not pass full proof muster with some, but to many prominent Jewish scholars through the ages, it's a done deal:

"Rambam and many other prominent Jewish scholars believed that the stories of Jesus are based on Yeshu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeshu ha-Notzri ("Jesus the Branch," a reference to Isaiah 11:1, a passage about the messiah)."


If it's good enough for 'Rambam' and the like , well then.....

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

The cite you reference does not appear to exist at ALL.. much less be a one volume printing.

Now that's a bit much isn't it, scapegoat?

[Sacrificial Ram]

Now that's a bit much isn't it, scapegoat?

Nope. It isn't. Can you show that book actually exists outside of a bunch of quotes from anti-semetic web sites?

[Pythagoras]

Nope. It isn't. Can you show that book actually exists outside of a bunch of quotes from anti-semetic web sites?

Now you're lying. Even the witch admits Moznaim has published a translation of the Talmud. The only thing [supposedly] missing from the below is a volume number. No one has yet furnished evidence to show quote in question doesn't exist.


Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10, English Translation), p. 184

Anyhow,keep clutching at straws

[technomage]

Now you're lying. Even the witch admits Moznaim has published a translation of the Talmud. The only thing [supposedly] missing from the below is a volume number. No one has yet furnished evidence to show quote in question doesn't exist.

What would qualify--in your opinion--as evidence?

Justin

[Sacrificial Ram]

Now you're lying. Even the witch admits Moznaim has published a translation of the Talmud. The only thing [supposedly] missing from the below is a volume number. No one has yet furnished evidence to show quote in question doesn't exist.


Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10, English Translation), p. 184

Anyhow,keep clutching at straws

Yes,.. look at their catalog. That book is not in there. Golly gee wiz, I wonder why?

Not only that, each and every web site I saw that had the combination of the words 'Moznaim Publishing Corporation' and "Mishnah Torah' had the exact same words you cut/paste above, including page number, and except for some forums, each and every one was an anti-semetic web site.

Do you have a REAL source that makes that claim that isn't an anti-semetic web site? YOu know.. a link to where this volumn could be published, a library where it could be checked out, or even a link to the publishing company that acknowledges it exists?

Yes, I see lots of web sites, who mirror the same bloody arguements, practically word for word, all claiming a vast jewish conspiracy to slander Jesus.

It appears you have let your prejudice get you suckered into a lie. I can't find a reference to this book except for these anti-semetic web sites that have such titles as 'The Talmud Exposed', and 'Devil Worshping Jew Cult'.

So, tell me, do you have any sources for this book that are not anti-semetic web sites? Acceptable sources would be
1) The ISBN number
2) A link to the catalogue where it can be bought.
3) A link to a library web site so it could be checked out.
4) A link to amazon or something like that.
5) References to it from a web site that is not anti-semetic or a bulliten board, and something other than the reference to page 184.

That is plenty of criteria. I certainly couldn't find anything with looking for it. That is why I think you got suckered into a lie. Can you demonstrate I am incorrect?

[John Powell]

There's an abridgement of the Babylonian Talmud at Sacredtexts.com (http://sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm).

Justin

POWELL:
Thanks, Justin. Actually, I've already used that resource.

That helps, but I want the whole thing on the Internet (both the complete Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds) where those discussing these things in English can easily access them.

John Powell

[technomage]

POWELL:
Thanks, Justin. Actually, I've already used that resource.

That helps, but I want the whole thing on the Internet (both the complete Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds) where those discussing these things in English can easily access them.

No dice there. Heck, the Moznaim translation is 27 volumes long--think an Encyclopedia Brittanica, all of it in Medieval Hebrew, and translators and publishers who would like to get paid for their work.

However, there is hope: Mechon Mamre is working on an on-line edition. Click here for more information (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/).

Justin

[Conductor42]

POWELL:
If interested English readers cannot conveniently search at least one good English translation of the complete Talmud (both the Jerusalem and Babylonian versions) via the Internet then the Jews should make rectifying that problem very high on their list of things to do.

Excuses like "it's too big" or "it's only true in Hebrew" don't cut it with me. Given their belief that the words have great worth and realizing the widespread interest, they should get right to it. Perhaps they already have.

Then discussions on the Internet concerning quotes in the Talmud should quote from that reference so the rest of us can quickly check by clicking on the link. See how smart that is?

A translation of part of the Talmud is avaliable from the Sacred Texts website, and the entire original Aramaic is avaliable online on other sites.

That being said, for someone to undergo a translation of the Talmud to produce online would not only take years but they would also need funding in order for such a project to be completed.

[Conductor42]

Only one problem .

The cite I refrence does not suggest a one volume printing.

Then you should have no problem telling us what volume it is in.

Tell me the volume it is in, and I will personally purchase it and then scan and upload a copy of the page referenced for all to see. I give you my word. My next paycheck is on the 23rd. I will purchase it online that very night.

[Conductor42]

Witch,



Me thinks rather you missed the most significant paragraph of the page.

The identification of Yeshu of Talmud with Jesus of Nazareth might not pass full proof muster with some, but to many prominent Jewish scholars through the ages, it's a done deal:

"Rambam and many other prominent Jewish scholars believed that the stories of Jesus are based on Yeshu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeshu ha-Notzri ("Jesus the Branch," a reference to Isaiah 11:1, a passage about the messiah)."


If it's good enough for 'Rambam' and the like , well then.....

best wishes,

You're still missing it.

They believed the stories about Jesus were based upon Yeshu - not the other way around. IOW, they did not believe Jesus existed, but believed he was built upon another mythic figurel.

[Conductor42]

Jewish scribes may have changed the wording of some parts of the Tanakh to be better in line with what they thought was true

Not likely. The Masoretes were Karaites.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Then you should have no problem telling us what volume it is in.

Tell me the volume it is in, and I will personally purchase it and then scan and upload a copy of the page referenced for all to see. I give you my word. My next paycheck is on the 23rd. I will purchase it online that very night.

The source he is using doesn't say. Of course, the reason he won't link to his source is that it appears that all the sites I have seen that use it are very anti-semetic.

Of course, I would be happy to see any information for him to post that would show that he is not taking things from antisemetic web sites.. and rather a good scholarly source. I await with baited breath of being shown
a valid scholarly source for this.

[Pythagoras]

The source he is using doesn't say. Of course, the reason he won't link to his source is that it appears that all the sites I have seen that use it are very anti-semetic.

Of course, I would be happy to see any information for him to post that would show that he is not taking things from antisemetic web sites.. and rather a good scholarly source. I await with baited breath of being shown
a valid scholarly source for this.



Well, I've gone throught in detail some of the web sites which do mention the particular quote. It is fair to conclude , for the most part , those sites are pretty anti-Semitic as you suggest. But what's done is done. I wish I had not used that quote ( if that will make you feel any beter now.)

I'm not an anti-Semitic even though you would like to paint me as one.

Sorry if I have hurt your feelings, scapegoat.

best,

P.S. But no one has yet proved that quote is bogus!

[InChristAlways]

No dice there. Heck, the Moznaim translation is 27 volumes long--think an Encyclopedia Brittanica, all of it in Medieval Hebrew, and translators and publishers who would like to get paid for their work.

However, there is hope: Mechon Mamre is working on an on-line edition. Click here for more information (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/).

JustinI just looked at that link and all I have to say is> thank you JESUS for fulfilling the Law for me and bringing your Spirit and Light into my life as you promised!!!! AMEN

Among the groups in the various topics, some groups include the detailed laws of a single Biblical commandment, when the commandment comes with many oral traditions that make up a single topic; and other groups include the detailed laws of many Biblical commandments, when all the commandments are on one topic: For the organization of this work is according to topics, and is not according to the counting of commandments, as will be clear to one who reads it.

45 The total number of Torah commandments that are obligatory for all generations is 613: 248 of them are positive commandments, whose mnemonic is the number of parts in the human body; 365 of them are negative commandments, whose mnemonic is the number of days in the solar year.

[technomage]

I'm not an anti-Semitic even though you would like to paint me as one.

Pythagoras, the problem is not that we believe that you are anti-semitic: the problem is that you seem to sincerely believe that all Rabbis hate Jesus.

Did Maimonides hate Jesus? Well, I know that he and his family were living in a time where Jews were heavlily persecuted by Christians, though I don't remember him suffering any specific persecution. It can be assumed that Maimonides disagreed with Christianity ... but then again, considering that during that time "Christianity" in Western Europe was the Roman Catholic Church, you would have disagreed with the Christians of that time as well.

Did the writers of the Babylonian or Palestinian Talmuds hate Jesus? Pythagoras, the author of the Jerusalem Talmud does not mention Jesus. The references that you feel apply to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud are anachronistic for Jesus, as they apply to a Yeshu who lived at a time that the Sanhedrin had authority to order a death sentence for criminals. Such was not the case during Jesus' lifetime. And the assertions that references to Balaam are really references to Jesus are completely unwarranted.

Do I believe that you are lying when you make the assertions about Yeshu and Balaam in the talmud referring to Jesus? No: I assume that you are sincerely deceived. But your complete and total unwillingness to evaluate or even listen to dissenting views make me feel taht this is an irrational belief on your part.

In other words, this is just like our debate on the historical progression of the Doctrine of the Trinity: you mind is made up, and you refuse to even consider facts that dispute your beliefs. Your beliefs are false (in that they do not correspond to reality), but you have chosen to be intransigent, and you have repeatedly refused to listen to correction. Frankly, for all I care you may stay in your false beliefs, if you so choose ... I simply hope that you will choose otherwise.

Justin

[Conductor42]

Well, I've gone throught in detail some of the web sites which do mention the particular quote. It is fair to conclude , for the most part , those sites are pretty anti-Semitic as you suggest. But what's done is done. I wish I had not used that quote ( if that will make you feel any beter now.)

I'm not an anti-Semitic even though you would like to paint me as one.

Sorry if I have hurt your feelings, scapegoat.

best,

P.S. But no one has yet proved that quote is bogus!

Sacrificial Ram hasn't accused you of anti-semetism, though you all but do so IMO. She (He?) has accused you of using anti-semetic sources.

[Conductor42]

It's actually more than that ICA. The following scripture quote if from a christian/messianic website.

Psalm 111:9 - He has sent redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant forever; Holy and awesome is His name.


I just looked at that link and all I have to say is> thank you JESUS for fulfilling the Law for me and bringing your Spirit and Light into my life as you promised!!!! AMEN

Among the groups in the various topics, some groups include the detailed laws of a single Biblical commandment, when the commandment comes with many oral traditions that make up a single topic; and other groups include the detailed laws of many Biblical commandments, when all the commandments are on one topic: For the organization of this work is according to topics, and is not according to the counting of commandments, as will be clear to one who reads it.

45 The total number of Torah commandments that are obligatory for all generations is 613: 248 of them are positive commandments, whose mnemonic is the number of parts in the human body; 365 of them are negative commandments, whose mnemonic is the number of days in the solar year.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Jewish scribes may have changed the wording of some parts of the Tanakh to be better in line with what they thought was true


King Arthas:
Not likely. The Masoretes were Karaites.


POWELL:
So I imply "possibly yes." You imply "possibly yes." We seem to be in agreement to that extent.

You, however, also imply "probably no."

Why do you think that Karaite scribes would probably leave in the Tanakh that which they believed to be false?

Why do you think that pre-Masoretic scribes would probably leave in the Tanakh that which they believed to be false?

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'm in the wrong forum. :eek:

I'll be in Apologetics 301 if you want to respond.

John Powell

[Sacrificial Ram]

Well, I've gone throught in detail some of the web sites which do mention the particular quote. It is fair to conclude , for the most part , those sites are pretty anti-Semitic as you suggest. But what's done is done. I wish I had not used that quote ( if that will make you feel any beter now.)

I'm not an anti-Semitic even though you would like to paint me as one.

Sorry if I have hurt your feelings, scapegoat.

best,

P.S. But no one has yet proved that quote is bogus!

Well, finally we are getting a bit closer.. however, since the reliablity of those web sites are .. how should I say, doubtful at best, the next step is to try to find a reliable source that can quote that accurately.. and which you can give a good enough reference to let others independantly verify
the quote.

Now, I can quote anything I want, and give references to a book you can't find anyplace, and I could say "P.S, no one has proved that quote bogus". However, that would be a logical fallacy known as 'Shifting the burden of proof'.

You have made the postive claim that the quote exists. The only place it seems to exist is antisemitic web sites. It is up to you to show that the quote is accurate. Do you understand how that works?

[InChristAlways]

It's actually more than that ICA. The following scripture quote if from a christian/messianic website.

Psalm 111:9 - He has sent redemption to His people; He has ordained His covenant forever; Holy and awesome is His name.Hi. That redemption couldn't come until God sent His begotten Son, themessiah to redeem Israel and bring the gentiles into His fold. And if that happened with Jesus, the NC is in effect and it is that covenant that is forever.
After viewing revelation as the destruction of Jerusalem and bringing the 2 nations of Israel and Judah together, I myself feel the Bible is fulfilled biblically, as I aso feel as the jews feel, once the Messiah came, all would be fulfilled, so I am of course at odds with most of the churches, as I believe that happened at the destruction of the temple in the first century as prophecied. In fact revelation even has a prayer in it for the first century saints "in Jesus". Pretty interesting.

The 12 tribes are not in order of the births (Judah is at the top here).Now notice what happens when the meaning of the names of the tribes are combined, in the same order, into a paragraph.

"I will praise the Lord for He has looked on me and granted good fortune. Happy am I because my wrestling God is making me to forget. God hears me and is joined to me. He has purchased me a dwelling. God will add to me the Son of His right hand."

1. Judah= "I will praise the Lord" 2. Reuben= "He has looked on me" 3. Gad= "Granted good fortune" 4. Asher= "Happy am I" 5. Naphtali= "My wrestling" 6. Manasseh= "Making me to forget" 7. Simeon= "God hears me" 8. Levi = "Joined to me" 9. Issachar= "Purchased Me"10. Zebulun= "Dwelling" 11. Joseph = "God will add to me" 12. Benjamin= "Son of His right hand"

I put Levi and Joseph in blue, because it appears Dan and Ephraim replace them in the land division and shows them as the ones "attacking" Israel. I think a lot of christians were thinking that Dan was the "antichrist" and the reason he was not in there.

Jeremiah 4:15 For a voice declares from Dan And proclaims affliction from Mount Ephraim: 16 "Make mention to the nations, Yes, proclaim against Jerusalem, [That] watchers come from a far country And raise their voice against the cities of Judah.

[kofh2u]

InChristAlways:

Hi Kofu.
You may be partly correct. After all, Adam was the first man, Jesus was the second man.So if Jesus is "adam" then He was indeed before Abraham [all symbolic of course].

KOFHY:
The concept set forth using Theistic Evolution thematics is that Jesus was the finished product of man started in Adam.

Jesus was the first "bud" on that branch on the Biological Tree of Living Organisms which will be to Modern Homo sapiens what he, Homo, was to Neanderthal.

This line from Adam, evolving in a series of humanoid links, is what is meant by "sons of God." Sons of God is the implication of the idea of being created in God's image, referring to the spiritual (mental) image.


InChristAlways:
So what do you feel Isaiah 43/Jerem 31 means by a "new thing" God is making and any idea what the Talmud says on it?

KOFHY:
The whole chapter Isaiah 43 must be read since it supports the identification of the "new thing" and it disparages the Talmud.

So, whatever thd Talmud says, Isaiah 43 invalidates the "guesses" of those ancient "sages" even thought they were very smart. mSmart enough to brain wash the idea that their man made up interpretations were divinely revealed.
What they did was claim that their interpretations were handed down right from the time of Moses. But, remembe , these guys had lost the Urim and Thummim, the Book of Deut, the hidden manna in Genesis, the Ark of the Covenant, all the sacred vessels of the first temple, even the two temples. They have NO credibility even without Isaiah 43's condemnation of Talmud.


InChristAlways:
Could the "heavenly Adam" be the new thing by any chance? Thanks

KOFHY:
Nog according to TE. And :heavenly: refers to the mind as distinct from the body, it isn't exactly dualism, though. It more physical brain/ electromagnetic mind analogoy with Computer Hradware vs Software.

InChristAlways:
Isaiah 43:19 Behold, I will do a new thing, Now it shall spring forth; Shall you not know it? I will even make a road in the wilderness [And] rivers in the desert.

KOFHY:
Yeah, you gotta read from 43:1 to understand this.

InChristAlways:
1 corin 15:45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being... (a physical humanoid on the emerging biological branch).

"The last Adam a life-giving spirit ...(meaning a mind able to image Reality, which is the basis for the Truth attributed to Jesus)...

. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural,... (PHYSICAL/HARDWARE)...

and afterward the spiritual ... (SOFTWARE).
]
47 [b]The first man [was] of the earth (PHYSICALLY CONCRETE)..., [made] of dust;

...the second Man the Lord from heaven... (MENTAL WORLD)....

[i]48 As [was] the [man] of dust, so also [are] those [who are made] of dust; and as the heavenly [Man,] so also [are] those [who are] heavenly. [i]49 And as we have borne the image (IN THE PHYSICAL EVOLVING SEED OF THE BRAIN)...i of the [man] of dust, ...


we shall also bear the image of the heavenly (MENTAL ASPECT OF MAN)... [Man.]

[InChristAlways]

Hi Kofu. Make sure you don't apply those bracketed quotes to me in 1 corinthians LOL. I just simply like the "mind of Christ" better. BTW, what did you think of the 12 tribes in revelation being a "prayer"?

[Conductor42]

Why do you think that Karaite scribes would probably leave in the Tanakh that which they believed to be false?

The Karaite scribes were virulently opposed to any additions to the scriptures, moreso than the Talmudic regulations.


Why do you think that pre-Masoretic scribes would probably leave in the Tanakh that which they believed to be false?

You're assuming that they believed things in the Tanakh to be false, which I do not.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Sacrificial Ram hasn't accused you of anti-semetism, though you all but do so IMO. She (He?) has accused you of using anti-semetic sources.

It's a HE. You are quite correct. I have not accused him of being anti-semetic... but using anti-semetic sources. Everyone uses bad sources on occation. I found it very promising that he finally looked at the sources, and admitted they were anti-semetic.

There is a lot of good information out on the web, and there is a lot of garbage out there too. My rule of thumb when looking at a source about
religion, I look for a source BY that religion, or a relatively neutral site, rather than a site that is of a competing religion, and is being critical. If I want to find out what the Jewish religion feels, I look at a Jewish site. If I want to find out what the scholarship about Christianty says, I do not go to an Islamic site. And I don't go to Jack CHick to find out about Islam.

I hope that Pythagoras learns from this about good sources and bad sources.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Witch,

, they did not believe Jesus existed, but believed he was built upon another mythic figurel.

Rambam certainly believed Jesus existed... Nice try though. But won't fly.

[Conductor42]

Rambam certainly believed Jesus existed... Nice try though. But won't fly.

1) I'm not a witch

2) You haven't shown that at all

[Pythagoras]

Hi king Artus,






2) You haven't shown that at all

If the following doesn't convince you that Rambam considered Jesus of Nazareth to be a real person, then nothing will:


Laws of Kings, Laws 11:10-12(Capach Edition): ".. Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? That all the prophets spoke that the Messiah will redeem Israel and save them, and gather their dispersed and strengthen their Mitzvot, and this Jesus caused the Jews to be destroyed by the sword, and scattered their remnants and humbled them, and exchanged the Torah,and caused the majority of the world to err to serve a god other than the Lord. Nevertheless, the thoughts of the creator of the world are not within the power of man to reach them, 'for our ways are not His ways, nor are our thoughts His thoughts.' And all these matters of Jesus of Nazareth and that of the Ishmaelites who arose after him are only to straighten the way of the king Messiah and to fix the entire world, to serve God as one, as it is stated(zephaniah 3:9), 'For then I will turn to the peoples(into) clear speech, to all call in the name of G-d and serve Him unanimously. How(will this come about)? The entire world has already become filled with the mention of the Messiah, with words of Torah and words of mitzvos and these matters have spread to the furthermost isles, to many nations of uncircumcised hearts,and they discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah...."

good luck,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Administration:

In light of the following evidence presented by JP, the Witch Wiccan and King Artus have been proved to be the true liars! My sixth sense always advised me the quote in question existed, and it now seems that it does!

God has prepared a table for me in the presence of my enemies.


POWELL:
Maybe I found something.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Jes...pologetics.html (http://www.preteristarchive.com/Jesus_is_Israel/th_apologetics.html)


Judaism and Jewish Apologetics

By Guido G.B. Deimel

. . .

However that may be, as usual, Rabbi Maimonides, one of the greatest exegetes of the Talmud, has made unmistakably clear the importance of saving a non-Jewish soul in his Mishneh Torah:

"We must not make a covenant with idolaters, to agree on keeping peace with them or accept them practising idolatry, because it says (Deut 7:2) Thou shalt not make a covenant with them. Either they give up idolatry or they are killed. And it is forbidden to pity them, since it says (ibid.): Nor shalt thou shew mercy unto them.

Therefore: If you see a non-Jewish idolater perishing or drowning, you are not to help him; if you see him in danger of life or doomed, you should not save him [sic!]. But to put him to death with your own hands or pushing him down into a pit or the like, is forbidden, in so far as we are not at war with him.

To what sorts of people apply these words? To non-Jews. But in the case of Jewish informers or mînîm (heretics) and `appîqôrôsîm (heretics) it is a Commandment to put such a one to death with your own hands and to push him into the pit of doom, since they bring trouble to Israel and seduce the people from the L[ORD], such like Yeshûa han-Nôçrî and his followers and such like Zadok and Beithos and their followers – May the name of blasphemers rot!" [112]

. . .

Notes:

[112] Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah (The Book of Knowledge), Abodah zara X,1. Quoted in Maier 1993, 85. My translation.

See also Moses Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Brooklyn/New York: Moznaim 1990, 184:

"Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him. It is, however, forbidden to cause one of them to sink or push him into a pit or the like, since he is not waging war against us. To whom does the above apply? To gentiles. It is a mitzvah, however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot."





POWELL:
It would seem that the proper volume is the one called something like "The Book of Knowledge."

I wonder if this is the original citation that the other sites are dependent upon which neglects to indicate the specific volume because it's implied by Deimel's earlier reference. Apparently, Deimel quoted the Moznaim translation to assure the readers that his translation was not out of line. Perhaps the other websites just copied the reference without checking it and choosing it over Deimel's translation.

John Powell


The Lady and Lord of Wiccan are useless idols next to my God. May His name be praised.

[kofh2u]

Hi Kofu. Make sure you don't apply those bracketed quotes to me in 1 corinthians LOL. I just simply like the "mind of Christ" better. BTW, what did you think of the 12 tribes in revelation being a "prayer"?


Prayer?
Revelation 14?
Your idea?
No? Another source? Who?
I did not read any post concerning this.

In reference to mistaking my bracketed postings, only a newbie might. Your style is a little verse from here, a little verse from there, right...LAU :)

Sav, lasav, kav, lakav,...

[kofh2u]

Hello Pythagoras,
I didn't follow this thread completely so I don't know the actual purpose of this quote.

I find it very interesting for my own purposes. It testifies to the shorted sightness of 2000 years ago, sort of excuses the Choosen People, too, as being all to humanly impatient and uncreative.

The perspective from he and now is that all that which was argued as reasons for dismissing Jesus as messiah have, now, albeit 2 millenia coming... coming true!

Laws of Kings, Laws 11:10-12(Capach Edition): ".. Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? (GREATER THAN THE STONE, CHRIST, WHICH THEY FORGOT?) That all the prophets spoke that the Messiah will redeem Israel (WHICH CHRISTIANITY IS NOW DOING IN THE MIDDLE EAST) and save them, (WHICH, WITHOUT EVANGELICAL AMERICAN SUPPORT WESTERN EUROPE AND RUSSIA WOULD HAVE LONG AGO DESEETED THEM TO THE FAITH OF ISLAM) and gather their dispersed (1948 AD!) and strengthen their Mitzvot, and this Jesus caused the Jews to be destroyed by the sword, and scattered their remnants and humbled them, (WHICH PROSELTYZED THE NOW USEFUL EVANGELICAL CHFISTIAN ALLIES) and exchanged the Torah, (WRONG! AUGMENTED TORAH) and caused the majority of the world to err to serve a god other than the Lord. (ERR? 1.44 BILLION CHRISTIANS EMBRACE THE HOLY LAND, THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, AND WOULD BE EMBARRASSED BEFORE A SECOND COMING OF A JEW MESSIAH TO REPORT THEY ALLOWED ALL THE CHOSEN PEOPLE TO DISAPPEAR FROM THE PLANET.) Nevertheless, the thoughts of the creator of the world are not within the power of man to reach them, 'for our ways (MEN NOT LIKE GOD IN THEIR THOUGHTS) are not His ways, nor are our thoughts His thoughts. (BECAUSE ONLY JESUS IS A TRUE SON IN THE IMAGE OF GOD... KNOWING HIS THOUGHTS AS HIS OWN ALA THE SAME IMAGE) And all these matters of Jesus of Nazareth and that of the Ishmaelites who arose after him are only to straighten the way of the king Messiah (EXACTLY! THE STRANGE THING GOD WILL DO, HAVE CHRISTIANS DEFEND JEWS AGAINST THE OLD TESTAMENT ENEMIES NOW ALL ISLAMIC!) and to fix the entire world, to serve God as one, (EXACTLY!) as it is stated (zephaniah 3:9), 'For then I will turn to the peoples (into) clear speech, to all call in the name of G-d and serve Him unanimously. How(will this come about)? (JUST AS IT IS TURNING OUT RIGHT NOW!) The entire world has already become filled with the mention of the Messiah, (YA HA! EXACTLY!) with words of Torah and words of mitzvos (AND WORDS OF NEW TESTAMENT) and these matters have spread to the furthermost isles, to many nations of uncircumcised hearts,and they discuss these matters (SEE WHAT I MEAN?) and the mitzvot of the Torah...."

[InChristAlways]

Prayer?
Revelation 14?
Your idea?
No? Another source? Who?
I did not read any post concerning this.

In reference to mistaking my bracketed postings, only a newbie might. Your style is a little verse from here, a little verse from there, right...LAU :)

Sav, lasav, kav, lakav,...Hi Kofu. LOL. nOoB. Yak Yak Yak. Anyhow>>>>>>>>>>Unto the PRAYER IN REVELATION TO THE FIRSTFRUIT SAINTS IN JESUS OF THE FIRST CENTURY. Maybe a place can be found in the Talmud for this in the future? :eek:

Notice the 12 tribes of the144,000 redeemed saints["2 witnesses"-Word of God+Testimony of Jesus] in revelation chapt 7 are not in order of the births (Judah is at the top here).Now notice what happens when the meaning of the names of the tribes are combined, in the same order, into a paragraph, a comforting Prayer!!!!

"I will praise the Lord for He has looked on me and granted good fortune. Happy am I because my wrestling God is making me to forget. God hears me and is joined to me. He has purchased me a dwelling. God will add to me the Son of His right hand."

1. Judah= "I will praise the Lord" 2. Reuben= "He has looked on me" 3. Gad= "Granted good fortune" 4. Asher= "Happy am I" 5. Naphtali= "My wrestling" 6. Manasseh= "Making me to forget" 7. Simeon= "God hears me" 8. Levi = "Joined to me" 9. Issachar= "Purchased Me"10. Zebulun= "Dwelling" 11. Joseph = "God will add to me" 12. Benjamin= "Son of His right hand"

I put Levi and Joseph in blue, because it appears Dan and Ephraim replace them in the land division and shows them as the ones "attacking" Israel. I think a lot of christians were thinking that Dan was the "antichrist" and the reason he was not in there.

Jeremiah 4:15 For a voice declares from Dan And proclaims affliction from Mount Ephraim: 16 "Make mention to the nations, Yes, proclaim against Jerusalem, [That] watchers come from a far country And raise their voice against the cities of Judah.

[technomage]

Hi Administration:

In light of the following evidence presented by JP, the Witch Wiccan and King Artus have been proved to be the true liars!

It ain't over yet, bunkie.

Justin (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=951203&postcount=19):

There's a problem with that: the Abodah Zara is not part of the Mishneh Torah, but of the Talmud: it only has five chapters, not ten as cited above. And this quote is nowhere in the Abodah Zara. (The entire Abodah Zarah is available here (http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah/index.html).)

Now, it looks like Deimel's quoting from a secondary source: Johann Maier, Friedensordnung und Kriegsrecht im mittelalterlichen Judentum. Dargestellt auf der Basis der Schriften des Maimonides (German), Barsbüttel: Inst. für Theologie und Frieden 1993. (Translation of the title is "Peace-Order and Martial Law in Medieval Judaism. Represented on the basis of the writings of Maimonides." Translation from Altavista.) I have absolutely no context for the book or for Herr Maier, and would have to rely on someone conversant with German scholarship, and the Mishneh Torah.

Now, would you like to retract the accusation that I have lied, or would you like to flounder some more?


The Lady and Lord of Wiccan are useless idols next to my God. May His name be praised.

We shall see, Pythagoras. We shall see....

Justin

[kofh2u]

Inchrist, you have a point of scripture that is excellent.

I am not advocating this position which follows, at least not now. But, if you are familar with the two messiah tradition of the Jews, ben Joseph and ben David, that list of tribes ignoring Ephraim and Dan can be explained.

(Note, Christians also have a traditional understanding of two messiahs, but they are both Jesus as opposed two different Christs.)

1) The MESSIAH, SON OF JOSEPH was to be a descendant of Joseph, from the Tribe of Ephraim. Note, there is no "tribe of Joseph."
Tribe of Joseph implies one is either a Mannassehian or an Ephraimian. So, Tribe of Joseph suggests a special part of Ephraim since Manasseh is distinctly mentioned innRev 7 & 14.

According to the Biblical Commentary known as the Malbim (1809-1879), the MESSIAH, SON OF JOSEPH, was to head the Lost Ten Tribes in the latter days in the period leading up to the return of the Lost Ten Tribes and their eventual re-unification with Judah.

Since Rev 7;14 ignor to mention Ephraim, but enumerate Manasseh, Joseph suggests faithful sons as opposed to the entire membership of Ephraim.

2) Judah is now the besieged State of Israel, meaning the people from the twelve tribes who remained under the Kingdom of Judah during the two kingdom era. So, these 12 tribes are the dispersed of the Kingdom of Israel.

3) The above reasoning accounts for all but Dan, i.e.; Joseph means a select membership from Ephraim.
These are the 12 from the lost kingdom of Israel.

4) Where is the lost tribe of Dan? Where did that tribe emmigrate in the Assyrian dispersion? Why would they not be part of the re-unifying force? Or, would they merely be tardy, come later?

5) Consider this commentary from the same source I have used above:

"The descendants of Dan are to be found today mainly amongst the people of Denmark and amongst descendants of the Irish overseas."

Hmmmm... Irish terrorism and its recently revealed complicity with Islamic Jihad... the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

[Conductor42]

Hi king Artus,

If the following doesn't convince you that Rambam considered Jesus of Nazareth to be a real person, then nothing will:


Laws of Kings, Laws 11:10-12(Capach Edition): ".. Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? That all the prophets spoke that the Messiah will redeem Israel and save them, and gather their dispersed and strengthen their Mitzvot, and this Jesus caused the Jews to be destroyed by the sword, and scattered their remnants and humbled them, and exchanged the Torah,and caused the majority of the world to err to serve a god other than the Lord. Nevertheless, the thoughts of the creator of the world are not within the power of man to reach them, 'for our ways are not His ways, nor are our thoughts His thoughts.' And all these matters of Jesus of Nazareth and that of the Ishmaelites who arose after him are only to straighten the way of the king Messiah and to fix the entire world, to serve God as one, as it is stated(zephaniah 3:9), 'For then I will turn to the peoples(into) clear speech, to all call in the name of G-d and serve Him unanimously. How(will this come about)? The entire world has already become filled with the mention of the Messiah, with words of Torah and words of mitzvos and these matters have spread to the furthermost isles, to many nations of uncircumcised hearts,and they discuss these matters and the mitzvot of the Torah...."

good luck,

Pythagorus,

Did you not bring forth a quote earlier which stated that Rambam believed that the stories of Jesus were based upon the stories of Yeshu (and not the other way around)?

[Pythagoras]

Pythagorus,

Did you not bring forth a quote earlier which stated that Rambam believed that the stories of Jesus were based upon the stories of Yeshu (and not the other way around)?

I was right.. Nothing will convince you.

best wishes,

[Conductor42]

I was right.. Nothing will convince you.

best wishes,

What's wrong Pythagorus? Eating your own words again?

[Faramir]

This thread has deteriorated to the point where it is more disruptive than debate. It will be closed. Since there are already two or three Locker Room threads involving the primary parties in this thread, it will not be moved there at this time.

Also, in regards to the accusations of lying earlier in this thread. These accusations were allowed to stand becasue the were based on a reasonable assumption. Pythagorus gave a cite of a book that did not appear to exist, when asked to provide a source for this cite, none was forthcoming. Based on this lack of support for questionable position when such support should be easy to provide, it is reasonable to assume that Pythagorus was not being honest.

Note: No one in leadership said that a lie was proven, but reasonably assumed, unless proven otherwise.

Thanks to another poster (post #15 in this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48856)), it has been shown that the cite in fact exisist (the cite is erroneous, but not made up by Pythagorus).

So Pythagorus did not lie!!! However, the accusations were allowed to stand because they were reasonable based on the information available at the time of the post. They will be allowed to remain.

However, any accusations of lying after this point, will be edited until substantiated.