Jesus in the Talmud

[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]

Moderated By: 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:

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[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 [became] 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 [is] the Lord from heaven. 48 As [was] the [man] of dust, so also [are] those [who are made] of dust; and as [is] the heavenly [Man,] so also [are] those [who are] heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the [man] of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [Man.]

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 Powell

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 [became] 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 [is] the Lord from heaven. 48 As [was] the [man] of dust, so also [are] those [who are made] of dust; and as [is] the heavenly [Man,] so also [are] those [who are] heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the [man] of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [Man.]

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 [became] 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 [is] the Lord from heaven. 48 As [was] the [man] of dust, so also [are] those [who are made] of dust; and as [is] the heavenly [Man,] so also [are] those [who are] heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the [man] of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [Man.]

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 included Paul because the bible started with ADAM] 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 [became] 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 [is] the Lord from heaven. 48 As [was] the [man] of dust, so also [are] those [who are made] of dust; and as [is] the heavenly [Man,] so also [are] those [who are] heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the [man] of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [Man.]

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.

Justin