Was Luther anti-Semitic?
Comments
-
@Dave_L said:
If you ever read Luther's Bondage of the Will in his dialog with Erasmus, Luther is brash and verbally offensive to many. So if we try to isolate his dialog with the Jews and separate it from his dialog with Catholics, we will not understand that it is just the way he is.But I don't think it is sin to be vulgar. Any more than being sophisticated if your motive is love.
Dave, my brother,
1. As for Luther's expressions, don't we all have our "dark side" one way or another?
2. Was Luther a man of his time and/or environment?
3. What is your understanding of "sin"?
4. What is your understanding of "Vulgar"?
5. Did Jesus used or taught his disciples to use vulgarity?
6. In your view, since you don't think "it is sin to be vulgar", do you use "earthly" or "street language"? If so, why, when, and where?
7. Are you saying in a roundabout way, that it's alright to be vulgar, as long as, you have love in your heart or say it in love?You may want to put your above two points on the table or leave them on the cutting floor of unusable thoughts. CM
PS. Did you fail to factor in the power and influence of the Catholics Church of Luther's day in contrasting his exchanges with Erasmus? A thought...CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
If you ever read Luther's Bondage of the Will in his dialog with Erasmus, Luther is brash and verbally offensive to many. So if we try to isolate his dialog with the Jews and separate it from his dialog with Catholics, we will not understand that it is just the way he is.But I don't think it is sin to be vulgar. Any more than being sophisticated if your motive is love.
Dave, my brother,
1. As for Luther's expressions, don't we all have our "dark side" one way or another?
2. Was Luther a man of his time and/or environment?
3. What is your understanding of "sin"?
4. What is your understanding of "Vulgar"?
5. Did Jesus used or taught his disciples to use vulgarity?
6. In your view, since you don't think "it is sin to be vulgar", do you use "earthly" or "street language"? If so, why, when, and where?
7. Are you saying in a roundabout way, that it's alright to be vulgar, as long as, you have love in your heart or say it in love?You may want to put your above two points on the table or leave them on the cutting floor of unusable thoughts. CM
Thanks for keeping this thought alive. What I'm saying is that we all judge others by our own hearts. If it would take hatred on your part to speak in the ways Luther spoke, you assume hatred drives his thoughts. But this is not the case many times. People assume others are bad because they themselves are bad. And that others let it fly, when they themselves are better for restraining the impulses they assume others have.
-
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for keeping this thought alive. What I'm saying is that we all judge others by our own hearts. If it would take hatred on your part to speak in the ways Luther spoke, you assume hatred drives his thoughts. But this is not the case many times. People assume others are bad because they are bad. And that others let it fly, when they are good enough not to.
I will leave this for others to respond. Thanks for sharing. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for keeping this thought alive. What I'm saying is that we all judge others by our own hearts. If it would take hatred on your part to speak in the ways Luther spoke, you assume hatred drives his thoughts. But this is not the case many times. People assume others are bad because they are bad. And that others let it fly, when they are good enough not to.
I will leave this for others to respond. Thanks for sharing. CM
I edited my original reply. I think it is more clear now. Please take time to read it again.
-
Dave L, you still haven't answered the questions.
@Dave_L said:
Is it appropriate for Christians to speak out against injustice and call murderers murderers? Or liars liars?
Were, the Jews as a group in Luther's day going out an murdering people? Were. they as group lying to everyone?
@Dave_L said:
I believe we are never to judge people except by their works or their own writings.Then the Jews of Luther's day are cleared for they did not write the Babylonian Talmud. Those that followed the Babylonian did not do so in a literal way, not all Jews accepted the Talmud, nor were all Jews religious. This even truer today.
Now, Dave L what about Luther's words? Were Luther's words of Christ? (Matthew 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-36) Are, the following actions really justified by the NT?
Quote one
First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians,
Quote two
...I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues...
Quote three
Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.
Quote four
that all their books their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible, be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted.
Quote five
that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country.
MARTIN LUTHER, "On the Jews and Their Lies" (1543) - Parts 11-13
Martin H. Bertram, translator, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 19
http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/273-luther-1543 -
@Mitchell said:
Dave L, you still haven't answered the questions.
@Dave_L said:
Is it appropriate for Christians to speak out against injustice and call murderers murderers? Or liars liars?
Were, the Jews as a group in Luther's day going out an murdering people? Were. they as group lying to everyone?
@Dave_L said:
I believe we are never to judge people except by their works or their own writings.Then the Jews of Luther's day are cleared for they did not write the Babylonian Talmud. Those that followed the Babylonian did not do so in a literal way, not all Jews accepted the Talmud, nor were all Jews religious. This even truer today.
Now, Dave L what about Luther's words? Were Luther's words of Christ? (Matthew 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-36) Are, the following actions really justified by the NT?
Quote one
First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians,
Quote two
...I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues...
Quote three
Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.
Quote four
that all their books their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible, be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted.
Quote five
that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country.
MARTIN LUTHER, "On the Jews and Their Lies" (1543) - Parts 11-13
Martin H. Bertram, translator, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 19
http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/273-luther-1543Thanks for sharing your insights. I'm not justifying Luther because I too have major disagreements with him. But based on the Talmud, I understand how the Jews experienced persecution from the one hundred or so gentile nations since 70 AD.
And Luther did not separate Church from State. So just as any nation would attack those considered enemies, he no doubt did likewise (including Anabaptists). It is this point that I do not think he understood or reflected Christ. Just as many of our "Christian Churches" promote killing in behalf of today's Jews.
But Christ called the Jews liars too, though he did not kill or persecute them as many thinking themselves to be his followers did.
But at the same time, God placed all who are outside of Christ, including the Jews, under his wrath, plain to see when we look around and read history. But our only hope for them is in Christ.
-
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sharing your insights. I'm not justifying Luther because I too have major disagreements with him.Thank you for your answer and I apologize for I had wrongly assumed that you were justifying.
@Dave_L said:
But based on the Talmud, I understand how the Jews experienced persecution from the one hundred or so gentile nations since 70 AD.I have a hard time understanding the reasoning presented above Being that:
(1) the Babylonian Talmud wasn't published until the 5th century. So, the reason that evil people persecuting the Jews in 70 AD could not have had anything to do with the Talmud.
(2) At no point in history did all Jews unanimously accept the Babylonian Talmud. In some like the Karaim/Karaites rejected Rabbinic Judaism, other individual/branches of Judaism followed other codes of Law other than the Babylonian Talmud.
(3) Many Jews that did accept the Talmud did not believe or follow it literally
(4) Others who accepted the Talmud cherry picked which parts to follow
(5) Many Jews never studied or were illiterate of the Talmud and many still are.Why would Jews who were not following the Talmud also suffer persecution from self-proclaimed Christians? And Why would those who did study the Talmud suffer persecution at the hands of Christians?
In my opinion, I think that self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant, hateful so-called Christians believing in conspiracy theories/gossip had more to do with persecution, than the Babylonian Talmud.
@Dave_L said:
But Christ called the Jews liars too, though he did not kill or persecute them as many thinking themselves to be his followers did.Being that:
Messiah(Christ) was Jew,
the 12 disciples were all Jews, Paul was Jewish,
many of the first Christian sects were Jewish (Ebionites, Elkasaites, Nazarenes and more) , there are Jewish Christians in Christianity and the Messianic movement today who follow Christ/MESSIAH, you Dave have claimed that all Christians are Jews, and you have claimed that the Church is Israel it is not clear to me that Jesus words of condemnation applied to anyone other than some Jews that were contemporary to himself at that time.Now, having said that I believe that all living have at some point or more in their life lied, so I do not believe that anyone or any religious group can claim to be innocent of lying. And, for that reason, I find this a very poor reason for trying to justify persecuting of any religious, or social group.
@Dave_L said:
But at the same time, God placed all who are outside of Christ, including the Jews, under his wrath, plain to see when we look around and read history. But our only hope for them is in Christ.Then in the words of Messiah
"Let him who is without sin throw the first stone"(John 8:7) and let those claiming to be Christians stay far, far away from playing the role of God in hypocritically slandering, and violently discriminating against entire groups of people. -
Thanks for your reply. I think the later persecution stems from the Talmud because of its position on gentiles.
And the earlier persecution would stem from the oral traditions that became the Talmud.
But with Jesus, or any calling the Jews liars, it is not any different than calling any false religion affiliates liars.
I keep this in my notes to document my understanding of today's Jews.
Following are a couple of brief quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia, The Talmud (Jewish oral traditions in written form), and one from a leading Rabbi today. They claim Pharisaism as the continuing Jewish religion.
According to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, the Pharisees are today’s Jews.
“With the destruction of the Temple (70 A.D.) the Sadducees disappeared altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the Pharisees. Henceforth, Jewish life was regulated by the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older priestly tradition (Abot 1:1). Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future.” The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia Edited by Isadore Singer
From the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (1943):
“The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single piece of that literature … and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.”
From the Talmud
Thus began the Talmud, mainly oral at first. Teacher succeeded teacher in synagogue and school. Their sayings and rulings based on the Book were treasured. The Sadducees, representing the extreme latitudinarians in life, opposed the continuous interpretation and reinterpretation of the Law to meet changing circumstances. They failed and disappeared. The Pharisees who provided the chief teachers of the Law succeeded and remained, and the Talmud is not the least of their achievements. BABA METZIAH – 91a-119a 93 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY (Soncino Babylonian Talmud) by THE EDITOR RABBI DR I . EPSTEIN B.A., Ph.D., D. Lit.
Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (popular today and editor of his own version of the Talmud); commentary on BT Sanhedrin 59a
Access to the Talmud is not a crime for those who refrain from criticizing the religion of Judaism (“vexing Jews”). Jesus Christ quoted the forerunner of the Talmud, the Mishnah as it was repeated in its oral form. As a critic of those Pharisaic doctrines he had no right to study them, according to the rabbis, and He paid for His study and critical evaluation with His life. The same fate awaits all skeptical researchers and scholars who dare to peer into the pages of the Talmud. From Michael Hoffman. Judaism Discovered.
If you study the Talmud, especially the uncensored Soncino Babylonian version, it doesn't take long to see how vile the collection is.
-
I still find the reasoning presented above unconvincing Being that:
(1) the Babylonian Talmud wasn't published until the 5th century. So, the reason that evil people persecuting the Jews in 70 AD could not have had anything to do with the Talmud.
The Mishneh, however, did exist before the Talmud, and the Talmud is just a commentary and various often conflicting interpretations of the Mishneh. There is no evidence that the Talmud represent views held in the first century. It probably does not even present views before the fourth century.
(2) At no point in history did all Jews unanimously accept the Babylonian Talmud. In some like the Karaim/Karaites rejected Rabbinic Judaism, other individual/branches of Judaism followed one or more of the other numerous Jewish codes of Law other than the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud never had a monopoly on Jewish taught worldwide.
Why were Jews who did not accept the Babylonian Talmud or its claims suffering for something they neither wrote nor believed? Why did Jews who embraced other religious suffer for something they did not believe? Why did Jews who were atheists/agnostics suffer for something that neither wrote nor believed in?
(3) Many Jews that did accept the Talmud did not believe or follow it literally.
(4) Others who accepted the Talmud cherry picked which parts to follow.
(5) Many Jews never studied or were illiterate of the Talmud and many still are.
(6) Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz is a very controversial figure even in Judaism. He only represents one type of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism; the** Chabad-Lubavitch** movement a sectarian denomination where some believe that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn is the Messiah and that offical believes movements outside of Judaism are false.
Other forms of Orthodox Judaism, the Conservative Judaism movement, Reform Judaism, Progressive Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, Humanistic Judaism, and Karaite Judaism all disagree with the positions held by the Chabad-Lubavitch movement esp since that movement would not recognize them and many in rest of the Jewish would disagree with Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (actually I know that many do). Notable Talmudic scholar of Jacob Neusner has disagreed with Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz publicly and in writing a number of times.
I believe that since you have studied the Talmud you already knew the above and are probably not being serious in this conversation.
@Dave_L said:
If you study the Talmud, especially the uncensored Soncino Babylonian versionI have studied the Talmuds (in classical Hebrew & Aramaic) in both before and in University in a text-critical way. I have absolutely no need of translations like the Soncino version which by the way cannot claim to be the original version of it. I am aware how Jews who accept the Babylonian Talmud study it and the various opinions and interpretations of it.
I have also studied the competing Jewish codes of law, and Jewish taught that differ greatly from the Talmud. I am also aware of how people follow or don't follow it which is why I still find your argument that Jews as a whole suffered because of the Talmud.
-
Informative and enriching, may the truth prevail. CM
-
@Mitchell said:
I still find the reasoning presented above unconvincing Being that:(1) the Babylonian Talmud wasn't published until the 5th century. So, the reason that evil people persecuting the Jews in 70 AD could not have had anything to do with the Talmud.
- The Talmud comes from the same oral traditions Jesus condemned.
The Mishneh, however, did exist before the Talmud, and the Talmud is just a commentary and various often conflicting interpretations of the Mishneh. There is no evidence that the Talmud represent views held in the first century. It probably does not even present views before the fourth century.
- The Talmud comes from the same oral traditions Jesus condemned.
(2) At no point in history did all Jews unanimously accept the Babylonian Talmud. In some like the Karaim/Karaites rejected Rabbinic Judaism, other individual/branches of Judaism followed one or more of the other numerous Jewish codes of Law other than the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud never had a monopoly on Jewish taught worldwide.
- Regardless, the excerpts I offered claim the Pharisees became today's Jews.
Why were Jews who did not accept the Babylonian Talmud or its claims suffering for something they neither wrote nor believed? Why did Jews who embraced other religious suffer for something they did not believe? Why did Jews who were atheists/agnostics suffer for something that neither wrote nor believed in?
(3) Many Jews that did accept the Talmud did not believe or follow it literally.
(4) Others who accepted the Talmud cherry picked which parts to follow.
(5) Many Jews never studied or were illiterate of the Talmud and many still are.
- I believe people judge others according to their creeds. How many Muslims suffer unjustly because of the Koran?
(6) Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz is a very controversial figure even in Judaism. He only represents one type of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism; the** Chabad-Lubavitch** movement a sectarian denomination where some believe that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn is the Messiah and that offical believes movements outside of Judaism are false.
- Regardless, he is the leading expert and publisher of the Talmud today.
Other forms of Orthodox Judaism, the Conservative Judaism movement, Reform Judaism, Progressive Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, Humanistic Judaism, and Karaite Judaism all disagree with the positions held by the Chabad-Lubavitch movement esp since that movement would not recognize them and many in rest of the Jewish would disagree with Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (actually I know that many do). Notable Talmudic scholar of Jacob Neusner has disagreed with Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz publicly and in writing a number of times.
I believe that since you have studied the Talmud you already knew the above and are probably not being serious in this conversation.
- Judging by what Jesus said about the Pharisees and the oral traditions, I take the hatred of the gentiles exhibited in the Talmud very seriously.
@Dave_L said:
If you study the Talmud, especially the uncensored Soncino Babylonian versionI have studied the Talmuds (in classical Hebrew & Aramaic) in both before and in University in a text-critical way. I have absolutely no need of translations like the Soncino version which by the way cannot claim to be the original version of it. I am aware how Jews who accept the Babylonian Talmud study it and the various opinions and interpretations of it.
I have also studied the competing Jewish codes of law, and Jewish taught that differ greatly from the Talmud. I am also aware of how people follow or don't follow it which is why I still find your argument that Jews as a whole suffered because of the Talmud.
- Thanks for the discussion.
-
Greetings again Dave,
@Dave_L said:
- The Talmud comes from the same oral traditions Jesus condemned.
That is one opinion on the issue and one I doubt very seriously but to each his own. Either way, there are numerous other codes of Jewish Law, like the Mishneh Torah.
@Dave_L said:
- Regardless, the excerpts I offered claim the Pharisees became today's Jews.
The above might be true of Jews that follow the teachings of the Pharisees, but as I have pointed out before there are a number of Jewish individuals and movements that do not follow the teachings of the Pharisees.
@Dave_L said:
- I believe people judge others according to their creeds.
How about those who are judged for creeds they do not hold to? Like the various Jewish individuals and groups that do not hold to the Talmud and do not believe in it.
@Dave_L said:
he is the leading expert and publisher of the Talmud today.Bart D. Ehrman is a leading expert of the NT and has published many books, does that mean that you accept his teachings as valid???
@Dave_L said:
- Judging by what Jesus said about the Pharisees and the oral traditions, I take the hatred of the gentiles exhibited in the Talmud very seriously.
So, do I
At the same time, I also know that at no point in time did all Jews ascribe to the Babylonian Talmud if they had there were never have been a need for the numerous other codes of Law and branches (denominations) of Judaism which simply do not see eye to eye on ever issue.
-
@Mitchell said:
Greetings again Dave,@Dave_L said:
- The Talmud comes from the same oral traditions Jesus condemned.
That is one opinion on the issue and one I doubt very seriously but to each his own. Either way, there are numerous other codes of Jewish Law, like the Mishneh Torah.
@Dave_L said:
- Regardless, the excerpts I offered claim the Pharisees became today's Jews.
The above might be true of Jews that follow the teachings of the Pharisees, but as I have pointed out before there are a number of Jewish individuals and movements that do not follow the teachings of the Pharisees.
@Dave_L said:
- I believe people judge others according to their creeds.
How about those who are judged for creeds they do not hold to? Like the various Jewish individuals and groups that do not hold to the Talmud and do not believe in it.
@Dave_L said:
he is the leading expert and publisher of the Talmud today.Bart D. Ehrman is a leading expert of the NT and has published many books, does that mean that you accept his teachings as valid???
@Dave_L said:
- Judging by what Jesus said about the Pharisees and the oral traditions, I take the hatred of the gentiles exhibited in the Talmud very seriously.
So, do I
At the same time, I also know that at no point in time did all Jews ascribe to the Babylonian Talmud if they had there were never have been a need for the numerous other codes of Law and branches (denominations) of Judaism which simply do not see eye to eye on ever issue.
Thanks for your input. It is hard to know how much the Talmud contributed to Jewish persecution. But I believe any reading it might see a strong connection.
-
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for your input. It is hard to know how much the Talmud contributed to Jewish persecution. But I believe any reading it might see a strong connection.Thanks for sharing, I still have a hard time understanding how Jewish groups and individuals who did not hold to the Baboliayian Talumd suffered persecution because of a text they did not accept nor follow.
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for your input. It is hard to know how much the Talmud contributed to Jewish persecution. But I believe any reading it might see a strong connection.Thanks for sharing, I still have a hard time understanding how Jewish groups and individuals who did not hold to the Baboliayian Talumd suffered persecution because of a text they did not accept nor follow.
I agree. But I think at the bottom of it all is the physical, and not the spiritual understanding of the Kingdom of God held by all religions that pit them against each other in war, that stands out to me.
-
@Mitchell said:
Thanks for sharing, I still have a hard time understanding how Jewish groups and individuals who did not hold to the Baboliayian Talumd suffered persecution because of a text they did not accept nor follow.
Could it be "guilt by association"? This seems to be Dave's leanings. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Mitchell said:
Thanks for sharing, I still have a hard time understanding how Jewish groups and individuals who did not hold to the Baboliayian Talumd suffered persecution because of a text they did not accept nor follow.
Could it be guilt by association? This seems to be Dave's leanings. CM
I think that is true in many situations.
-
"Guilt by association"-- "guilt ascribed to someone not because of any evidence but because of their association with an offender."
The question: Is it fair for "the attribution of guilt to individuals because of the people or organizations with which they associate, rather than because of any crime that they have committed"? Think about it Dave... give yourself time before responding... CM
-
@C_M_ said:
"Guilt by association"-- "guilt ascribed to someone not because of any evidence but because of their association with an offender."The question: Is it fair for "the attribution of guilt to individuals because of the people or organizations with which they associate, rather than because of any crime that they have committed"? Think about it Dave... give yourself time before responding... CM
Do you think I support people being punished for the sins of others? Because I show it happens.
-
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
"Guilt by association"-- "guilt ascribed to someone not because of any evidence but because of their association with an offender."The question: Is it fair for "the attribution of guilt to individuals because of the people or organizations with which they associate, rather than because of any crime that they have committed"? Think about it Dave... give yourself time before responding... CM
Do you think I support people being punished for the sins of others? Because I show it happens.
I introduced a phrase of the possible reason for your position on the "Babylonian Talmud." It's not what I think. I asked a general question. You're free to speak for yourself. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
"Guilt by association"-- "guilt ascribed to someone not because of any evidence but because of their association with an offender."The question: Is it fair for "the attribution of guilt to individuals because of the people or organizations with which they associate, rather than because of any crime that they have committed"? Think about it Dave... give yourself time before responding... CM
Do you think I support people being punished for the sins of others? Because I show it happens.
I introduced a phrase of the possible reason for your position on the "Babylonian Talmud." It's not what I think. I asked a general question. You're free to speak for yourself. CM
I wondered why you asked me that question. But I think it is wrong to judge some on the merits of others. And to persecute all Jews because of the Talmud. But if their works match those called for in the Talmud, I can fully understand why 114 or so nations persecuted the Jews from the time they left Jerusalem in 70AD until now.
-
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
I introduced a phrase of the possible reason for your position on the "Babylonian Talmud." It's not what I think. I asked a general question. You're free to speak for yourself. CM
I wondered why you asked me that question. But I think it is wrong to judge some on the merits of others. And to persecute all Jews because of the Talmud. But if their works match those called for in the Talmud, I can fully understand why 114 or so nations persecuted the Jews from the time they left Jerusalem in 70AD until now.
In view of your self-imposed understanding, is it from God? What's written applies today? Are the persecutors justified, forevermore, to inflict pain on all Jews? Given that all didn't say, must all be persecuted?
Everything Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said, too, or about Jews, applies to all Jews, everywhere, for all times? Minister Farrakhan speaks for all Muslims or "Blacks"? Has Mr. Farrakhan changed his mind about things of the past? Is everyone and all Jews upset with him? If so, are they justified? I don't know.
When will it stop? Do you take the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", literally? Bad and nasty things have been said and written, by people, over many years; what are their beliefs and position today? This in no way downgrade or to nullify history. She speaks boldly of the past, understood or not. Notwithstanding, what do her pages say today?
As one looks closely at the past and today, one can't help to acknowledge a vast contrast of the past. Connecting historical dots is what many do not. Read history pages, old and dusty, don't miss the pattern or principles and become all fussy. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
@C_M_ said:
I introduced a phrase of the possible reason for your position on the "Babylonian Talmud." It's not what I think. I asked a general question. You're free to speak for yourself. CM
I wondered why you asked me that question. But I think it is wrong to judge some on the merits of others. And to persecute all Jews because of the Talmud. But if their works match those called for in the Talmud, I can fully understand why 114 or so nations persecuted the Jews from the time they left Jerusalem in 70AD until now.
In view of your self-imposed understanding, is it from God? What's written applies today? Are the persecutors justified, forevermore, to inflict pain on all Jews? Given that all didn't say, must all be persecuted?Everything Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said, too, or about Jews, applies to all Jews, everywhere, for all times? Minister Farrakhan speaks for all Muslims or "Blacks"? Has Mr. Farrakhan changed his mind about things of the past? Is everyone and all Jews upset with him? If so, are they justified? I don't know.
When will it stop? Do you take the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", literally? Bad and nasty things have been said and written, by people, over many years; what are their beliefs and position today? This in no way downgrade or to nullify history. She speaks boldly of the past, understood or not. Notwithstanding, what do her pages say today?
As one looks closely at the past and today, one can't help to acknowledge a vast contrast of the past. Connecting historical dots is what many do not. Read history pages, old and dusty, don't miss the pattern or principles and become all fussy. CM
Thanks for looking into this. We need to ask why the Jews experienced such misery over the centuries. Is their suffering in direct proportion to their beliefs and conduct towards gentiles? The Talmud helps to understand this.
Also, Paul says God placed them under his wrath until the end of the world. “Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost [end].” (1 Thessalonians 2:16)
Since God removed the unbelievers from Israel under Christ, today's Jews are among the gentiles that trample down Jerusalem until the times of the gentiles find completion. And then the end comes.
-
Often the various Jewish communities suffered throughout the centuries (think of the Crusades, the edict of expulsion 1290, the pogroms, inquisition, holocaust, et cetera) because of those claiming to follow Christ who ignored Christ words (Matthew 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-36) and the Christ example (John 8:7).
For, a while I believed that Christianity was an ungodly cantankerous faith that had been the source of a multitude of evil acts committed throughout history rather than a religion of peace. However, now I believe just as I and others are wrong to pass judgment on all Christians/Christianities, so are those who attempted to pigeon hold and pass judgment on all Jews./forms of Judaism.
-
@Mitchell said:
Often the various Jewish communities suffered throughout the centuries (think of the Crusades, the edict of expulsion 1290, the pogroms, inquisition, holocaust, et cetera) because of those claiming to follow Christ who ignored Christ words (Matthew 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-36) and the Christ example (John 8:7).For, a while I believed that Christianity was an ungodly cantankerous faith that had been the source of a multitude of evil acts committed throughout history rather than a religion of peace. However, now I believe just as I and others are wrong to pass judgment on all Christians/Christianities, so are those who attempted to pigeon hold and pass judgment on all Jews./forms of Judaism.
I felt the same as you and would never have embraced the Christian faith had Christ not made himself real to me on a spiritual level.
But feeling as you do, it has piqued my interest for decades in finding out why. I can tell you what happened to Christianity. And you can tell me what happened to Judaism. But in the end, the Sermon on the Mount separates the sheep from the goats.
-
@Mitchell said:
Often the various Jewish communities suffered throughout the centuries (think of the Crusades, the edict of expulsion 1290, the pogroms, inquisition, holocaust, et cetera) because of those claiming to follow Christ who ignored Christ words (Matthew 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-36) and the Christ example (John 8:7).Great point! Mitchell, based on your statement above, Could it be said that the Jews rejected Jesus as a nation, but NOT all Jews (e.g. Messianic Jews, etc.)? CM
-
Sure being that:
Messiah(Christ) was Jew, the 12 disciples were all Jews, Paul was Jewish,
many of the first Christian sects were Jewish for example the Ἐβιωναῖοι /אביונים (Ebionites), the Elkasaites, Ναζωραιοι (Nazarene sect), there are Jewish Christians in Protestant Christianity, Hebrew Catholics, and Jews who are part of the Messianic movement today who follow Christ/Moshiach.However, even then not all of the Jews who do not believe in Jesus outright reject him, some never knew who Yeshua was in the first place. Some people probably thought that Jesus had something to do with Zeus as I once did and never knew that Jesus was supposed to be an English transliteration of common name Yeshuah / Yehoshua.
-
@Mitchell said:
Sure being that:
Messiah(Christ) was Jew, the 12 disciples were all Jews, Paul was Jewish,
many of the first Christian sects were Jewish for example the Ἐβιωναῖοι /אביונים (Ebionites), the Elkasaites, Ναζωραιοι (Nazarene sect), there are Jewish Christians in Protestant Christianity, Hebrew Catholics, and Jews who are part of the Messianic movement today who follow Christ/Moshiach.Mitchell,
Being under the heavy-handed Roman occupation, am I to understand you to say that there were many closet Jews of that time?In addition, what about the Jewish sects of the Essenes, Zealots, Pharisees, the Sadducees, etc.; did they pass on anti-Gentile messages that may have trickled-down to the Early Church Fathers and Luther, attributing to their "misunderstood" "anti-Semitic statements? CM
-
NT Scripture is clear about the anti-Messiah position of the Jews at large ... persecuting to the death those who believed in the Messiah and followed him.
NT Scripture is also clear that the first followers of Messiah were from among the Jews, and a few decades later, followers from among the Gentiles began to be more numerous.It is clear that the persecution was not because of race (semitic or other) but beliefs and religion, else those Jews should have been the first ones to be accused of anti-semitism, seeing that they even killed those of their own race.
Seems to me that the whole big talk about "anti-semitism" and "anti-semitic" is a misnomer and a real effective trickery instigated by those of Jewish / Zionist political religion to accuse everybody who says anything against their political "religion" ... when in truth, there is nothing racial or anti-race involved in the first place .... because the Jews of today are not a race, but a many centuries old mix with other races, and at large descendants from eastern European peoples.
-
@C_M_ said:
Mitchell,
Being under the heavy-handed Roman occupation, am I to understand you to say that there were many closet Jews of that time?Actually did not address Roman Occupation at all nor the concept of closet individuals. My point was to answer your question in bold print two posts above this one and make it clear that I believe that at no point in History did all of the Jews reject Messiah. In other words, there have always been groups, sects, and individual Jews who have accepted Yeshua Ha-Moshiach.
In addition, what about the Jewish sects of the Essenes, Zealots, Pharisees, the Sadducees, etc.; did they pass on anti-Gentile messages that may have trickled-down to the Early Church Fathers and Luther, attributing to their "misunderstood" "anti-Semitic statements? CM
I think the above is highly unlikely or at least I do not sense that from reading the Church Fathers nor from Luther.
One, in general, I think that people have correctly understood the Church fathers and Luther's unchristlike comments.
Two. the Essenes(some speculate) left us what is known as the Dea Sea scrolls and there is no evidence that any of the Church fathers were aware the literature of the Essenes. As for the various groups of Pharisees, the Church fathers and Luther were apparently ignorant as both the Church fathers and Luther seemed to believe that the Pharisee was only one group with one philosophy which is completely incorrect and proving to me that they knew very little about real Judaism. If the Church fathers had actually known of the various schools of thoughts different types of Pharisees had, then I think they would have differentiated between those groups rather than painted them all with a broad brush. The Sadducees rejected the so-called oral law of the Pharisees and would not have taken in part in passing down oral teachings of any kind. Some speculate that the Sadducees became part of what is known as the Karaites. I also doubt that the Luther or the Church fathers knew anything of the Zealots. I think mostly the Church fathers and Luther were probably upset that Jews in mass did convert to their faiths. Luther did read part of one of the Talmuds, but he remained ignorant of the vast corpus of Jewish literature and the many various Jewish sects/denominations.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)