Does It Really Say That in the Talmud?
#11
It seems to me that this site http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html may answer your question to some degree.

In general it is worthwhile to realise that the Talmud covers about 800 years, while Jesus' life was only 33 years. Besides that most of the rabbis at the time he is suggested to have lived were themselves in hiding from Romans, or in the case of those with official positions, trying not to stir things up after the destruction of the Second Temple. Most had either relocated to Yavne or moved to Northern parts of the now-Roman province. The Jerusalem Talmud contributors found it harder and harder to continue adding to it, and much of the material used by Jews for the past 1500 years came from the sources gathered in the Babylonian academies.

Besides all this, Yeshu was a relatively common name at the time. It is commonly rendered Jose in English academic sources, and I count 55 contributors to the Babylonian Talmud with that name, with one being a diminutive for Yosef. If the name of the father is omitted (e.g. Jose ben Kifar), it was done probably so as not to embarrass the family at the time. Therefore identifying which individual the Talmud refers to, or even its one or several individuals, is almost impossible.

It seems to me that for the orthodox Jews the Talmud has equal sanctity to the Torah since it is there that most of the commandments are debated and defined. However, many passages will not offer much meaningful information if translated with a dictionary and without any knowledge of other background material or how the language and exegesis works. The Talmud does not lend itself to translation in the same way Greek or Latin texts do because it was redacted for a different purpose. This is commonly pointed out to students in university courses since many, having found success in Greek and Latin courses, try to approach Talmudic texts with same methodology.

How could Jesus be an anti-Semite if he was urging Jews to be more observant in their religion at the time of Hellenist pagan cults rising up all over? If anything, he would have been a Pharasee, and called an ultraorthodox Jew today.

The Talmud is most definitely anti-Christian, but it seems to me that this needs to be seen in the context of the times. Wasn't so long ago that there was Calvinism and wars between Catholics and Protestants also. In the 1st century Christians were a small sect of Greek-speaking Jews that were advocating not practising their religion. Wasn't so long ago that people were excommunicated from the Catholic church for suggesting Mass should be said in the vernacular rather than Latin :)

I had a copy of The Talmud Unmasked and showed it to a Jewish (Reform) post-grad some years ago. He took me over to a set of Babylonian Talmud at the uni library and we went through about 4-5 pages looking up passages. Most were mistranslated to various degrees, all were completely taken out of context.
Reply
#12
(11-15-2009, 03:34 PM)alaric Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 08:08 AM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: I am not sure that anti-Semitic literature is the best source of information for the Talmud; I have read, for instance, that Justinas Pranaitis, author of the work known in English as The Talmud Unmasked, was quite ignorant of important elements of the Jewish religion, and mistranslated passages of the Talmud.
Who says it's "antisemitic"? You or old foxy Abe?

Define antisemitism............

From the OED: "Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews."

From Wikipedia: "Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, or religion. While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, since the term was invented it has been used to refer exclusively to hostility toward Jews."

Is that good enough for you?

Abusus non tollit usum, my friend; the abuse of the term by Abe Foxman and his ilk should not preclude others from making legitimate use thereof.

As a recent letter signed by 27 high-profile leaders of the Anglo-Jewish community states: "Anti-Semitism is far too grave a charge to be used as a political football." That does not mean that the charge of anti-Semitism cannot be made at all, particularly as regards such literature as has copious recourse to lies and distortions in order to attack Jews.
Reply
#13
For the references to Jesus, whether or not the original writers used Yeshu to refer to Our Lord or not, it doesn't matter. Modern speakers of Israeli use it to refer to Him, and do it on purpose. It is a blasphemous term and they know it. So, whatever the original intent, modern Jews do associate Jesus with Yeshu from their Talmud.
Reply
#14
Talmud = satanic filth.
Reply
#15
(11-16-2009, 02:32 AM)tg315 Wrote: It seems to me that this site http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html may answer your question to some degree.

In general it is worthwhile to realise that the Talmud covers about 800 years, while Jesus' life was only 33 years. Besides that most of the rabbis at the time he is suggested to have lived were themselves in hiding from Romans, or in the case of those with official positions, trying not to stir things up after the destruction of the Second Temple. Most had either relocated to Yavne or moved to Northern parts of the now-Roman province. The Jerusalem Talmud contributors found it harder and harder to continue adding to it, and much of the material used by Jews for the past 1500 years came from the sources gathered in the Babylonian academies.

Besides all this, Yeshu was a relatively common name at the time. It is commonly rendered Jose in English academic sources, and I count 55 contributors to the Babylonian Talmud with that name, with one being a diminutive for Yosef. If the name of the father is omitted (e.g. Jose ben Kifar), it was done probably so as not to embarrass the family at the time. Therefore identifying which individual the Talmud refers to, or even its one or several individuals, is almost impossible.

It seems to me that for the orthodox Jews the Talmud has equal sanctity to the Torah since it is there that most of the commandments are debated and defined. However, many passages will not offer much meaningful information if translated with a dictionary and without any knowledge of other background material or how the language and exegesis works. The Talmud does not lend itself to translation in the same way Greek or Latin texts do because it was redacted for a different purpose. This is commonly pointed out to students in university courses since many, having found success in Greek and Latin courses, try to approach Talmudic texts with same methodology.

How could Jesus be an anti-Semite if he was urging Jews to be more observant in their religion at the time of Hellenist pagan cults rising up all over? If anything, he would have been a Pharasee, and called an ultraorthodox Jew today.

The Talmud is most definitely anti-Christian, but it seems to me that this needs to be seen in the context of the times. Wasn't so long ago that there was Calvinism and wars between Catholics and Protestants also. In the 1st century Christians were a small sect of Greek-speaking Jews that were advocating not practising their religion. Wasn't so long ago that people were excommunicated from the Catholic church for suggesting Mass should be said in the vernacular rather than Latin :)

I had a copy of The Talmud Unmasked and showed it to a Jewish (Reform) post-grad some years ago. He took me over to a set of Babylonian Talmud at the uni library and we went through about 4-5 pages looking up passages. Most were mistranslated to various degrees, all were completely taken out of context.

when analysed against contexts applied by jews to the Talmudic references throughout history, we find conclusive evidence that the contexts applied by the angelfire text are a recent fabrication. Based on this, and the fact that the historical evidence points overwhelmingly to the Talmudic texts being interpreted in a hostile context, it appears the evidence is in favour of the common perception around the tankk. Check out the following;

Moses Hess "Rome and Jerusalem" (printed 1862)
Theodore Hertzl's Diaries
Max Nordau's 1903 Speech to the 6th Zionist Congress
Balfour's Nov 2, 1917 letter to Rothschild
the works and policies of Cham Weiszman and David Ben-Gurion

Then take into account the fact that it is these contextual interpretations, not those stipulated by the angelfire text, which hold consistency with historic judaic policy, conduct, and beliefs.

And, in answer to the original post, YES THE TALMUD DOES SAY  THAT. Angelfire doesn't deny the content of the texts either, merely launching an attempt to interpret the statem,ents in fabricated contexts to dilute their menaing.
Reply
#16
To be totally honest, I've been looking through the Talmud lately . . . the vast vast majority of it has nothing to do with gentiles or jesus.

I swear you could spend three hours picking random lines from the different tractates and not find one thing about gentiles or Jesus Christ.

That ain't to say that anti-gentile and anti-Christian attitudes are very much a part of Jewish (including atheist Jewish) culture today, but I'm starting to suspect that this has its origins in the history and general "attitudes" of the Jewish people more than their sacred texts per se.

I dunno tho, just chucking in my two cents.

btw you can find the entire talmud here, http://www.halakhah.com/  Fascinating stuff really.  Christ's criticisms of Pharisaism were very true . . . they have an extremely rigid adherence to the Law *except* the "hard stuff" which the Rabbis find justification for abrogating.  There's also a lot that seems geared to make you "seem holy", with very very little on the internal side of religion.

Fascinating stuff though, I encourage you to check it out.

Edit: lemme modify that a bit, anti-gentilism sure comes through; I mean the Jewish Rabbis in the Talmud really believe that they're closer to God and that the gentiles can't come even close to the Jewish "level" of things.  But that's not the focus of the work, not even close, while reading "anti-semitic" literature can give you that impression.  99% of it is about how to perform the various rites and prayers of the Pharisaic sect of Judaism.  It might just be the driest thing ever set to parchment (still fascinating though!) :)
Reply
#17
I can't believe this is even being debated by Traditionalists.  The Talmud has been UTTERLY condemned by the Catholic Church.  Pope after Pope has condemned it, and it was burned whenever found.  It is a filthy disgusting piece of rubbish that is completely blasphemous and virulently anti-Catholic.  Make no excuse for this trash.

Quote:The Talmud is most definitely anti-Christian, but it seems to me that this needs to be seen in the context of the times.
It WAS investigated by the context of the times.  The Talmud was hidden by the Jews, successfully, until around 1200 AD.  It was only discovered when a rabbi who converted revealed it to the Pope.  It was thoroughly investigated and the Jews were ordered to attend the inquiry and offer an explanation.  By the way, the sorry old canard that the "Jesus and Mary" in the Talmud, that is the demon possessed sorcerer and his whore mother, where some different "Jesus and Mary" who happened to live in Israel from 0-33 A.D. was what the Jews put up for their defense.  They were laughed out of the investigation and the Talmud was ordered collected and burned.

The Lord's own Mother is insulted by this rag.  Have some righteous indignation for our Lord's mother and quit apologizing for Jewish filth.  This is a settled matter.

To answer the original question, yes, most assuredly the Talmud contains the filth you describe, as well as a bunch of other trash.
Reply
#18
(11-17-2009, 11:03 AM)James02 Wrote: I can't believe this is even being debated by Traditionalists.  The Talmud has been UTTERLY condemned by the Catholic Church.  Pope after Pope has condemned it, and it was burned whenever found.  It is a filthy disgusting piece of rubbish that is completely blasphemous and virulently anti-Catholic.  Make no excuse for this trash.

Quote:The Talmud is most definitely anti-Christian, but it seems to me that this needs to be seen in the context of the times.
It WAS investigated by the context of the times.  The Talmud was hidden by the Jews, successfully, until around 1200 AD.  It was only discovered when a rabbi who converted revealed it to the Pope.   It was thoroughly investigated and the Jews were ordered to attend the inquiry and offer an explanation.   By the way, the sorry old canard that the "Jesus and Mary" in the Talmud, that is the demon possessed sorcerer and his whore mother, where some different "Jesus and Mary" who happened to live in Israel from 0-33 A.D. was what the Jews put up for their defense.  They were laughed out of the investigation and the Talmud was ordered collected and burned.

The Lord's own Mother is insulted by this rag.  Have some righteous indignation for our Lord's mother and quit apologizing for Jewish filth.  This is a settled matter.

To answer the original question, yes, most assuredly the Talmud contains the filth you describe, as well as a bunch of other trash.

Amen! Good to see there are still catholics who can reason properly. The Talmud is the pinnacle of Jewish filth.
Reply
#19
Quote: In the 1st century Christians were a small sect of Greek-speaking Jews that were advocating not practising their religion.
Utter heresy.  The first century Catholics were busy offering the Sacrifice of the Mass.  They were also providing the other Sacraments including Baptism (in every case), Confirmation, Marriage, Confession, Orders, and Annointing of the Sick.  They even practiced the minor sacramentals such as Exorcism.  You are utterly wrong. 
Reply
#20
(11-17-2009, 11:12 AM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: In the 1st century Christians were a small sect of Greek-speaking Jews that were advocating not practising their religion.
Utter heresy.  The first century Catholics were busy offering the Sacrifice of the Mass.  They were also providing the other Sacraments including Baptism (in every case), Marriage, Confession, Orders, and Annointing of the Sick.  They even practiced the minor sacramentals such as Exorcism.  You are utterly wrong. 

I think he's a Jew, James.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)