A Cesspool of Heresy, False Teachers, Radicals, and Lunatics
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
Terrorism is just another nail in the coffin for those who reject Christ's deity. I believe we can link most of today's terrorism to the Jew's rejection of Christ's divinity. Had they accepted it, they would be acclimated into christendom and not exist. And they are the Pharisees who, like you and Wolfgang, reject Christ as YHWH.Here you confirm that the connection you drew between terrorism and Wolfgang's and my Christological views was intentional. It was an offensive and indecent suggestion for you to make, Dave, but I respect your candor about it.
I only say that the Pharisees became today's Jews and state of Israel because of their rejection of Christ's divinity. This is the main reason for terrorism today. And that you and Wolfgang hold the same views about Christ's deity as the Pharisees. I do not link you to terrorism, but only to the same beliefs that produced the main cause of it. Are the JWs responsible for middle east terrorism? Of course not, so neither are you.
-
@Dave_L said:
I only say that the Pharisees became today's Jews and state of Israel because of their rejection of Christ's divinity. This is the main reason for terrorism today. And that you and Wolfgang hold the same views about Christ's deity as the Pharisees. I do not link you to terrorism, but only to the same beliefs that produced the main cause of it. Are the JWs responsible for middle east terrorism? Of course not, so neither are you.I might have to retract my affirmation of your candor, Dave, for in your last post you claimed, (emphasis added)
"Terrorism is just another nail in the coffin for those who reject Christ's deity. I believe we can link most of today's terrorism to the Jew's rejection of Christ's divinity. Had they accepted it, they would be acclimated into christendom and not exist. And they are the Pharisees who, like you and Wolfgang, reject Christ as YHWH.
So in your view, "most of today's terrorism" can be linked to the "rejection of Christ's divinity," a rejection espoused by Jews/Pharisees AND Wolfgang and me.
Please recall that I never claimed you believed Wolfgang and I planned attacks or planted bombs. Rather, in an earlier post I claimed "...you clearly asserted there's a connection between our view of Christology and 'most of the world's terrorism.'" And indeed you made such an assertion - that "most of today's terrorism" can be linked to the "rejection of Christ's divinity," which is espoused by, among others, Wolfgang and me.
Please don't compound the indecency of your claim, Dave, by refusing to take responsibility for it.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
I only say that the Pharisees became today's Jews and state of Israel because of their rejection of Christ's divinity. This is the main reason for terrorism today. And that you and Wolfgang hold the same views about Christ's deity as the Pharisees. I do not link you to terrorism, but only to the same beliefs that produced the main cause of it. Are the JWs responsible for middle east terrorism? Of course not, so neither are you.I might have to retract my affirmation of your candor, Dave, for in your last post you claimed, (emphasis added)
"Terrorism is just another nail in the coffin for those who reject Christ's deity. I believe we can link most of today's terrorism to the Jew's rejection of Christ's divinity. Had they accepted it, they would be acclimated into christendom and not exist. And they are the Pharisees who, like you and Wolfgang, reject Christ as YHWH.
So in your view, "most of today's terrorism" can be linked to the "rejection of Christ's divinity," a rejection espoused by Jews/Pharisees AND Wolfgang and me.
Please recall that I never claimed you believed Wolfgang and I planned attacks or planted bombs. Rather, in an earlier post I claimed "...you clearly asserted there's a connection between our view of Christology and 'most of the world's terrorism.'" And indeed you made such an assertion - that "most of today's terrorism" can be linked to the "rejection of Christ's divinity," which is espoused by, among others, Wolfgang and me.
Please don't compound the indecency of your claim, Dave, by refusing to take responsibility for it.
If today's terrorism results from the Pharisees rejection of Christ's divinity, it is a scourge that has come on the whole world. And especially on those who support the Pharisees in their occupation of Palestine. I'm not saying you or your church caused this. But your doctrine did.
-
@Jan said:
Likewise, most terrorism can be linked to the Muslims' rejection of Christ's divinity. They would not only cease to terrorize the Jews, but also the Christians, atheists, and the free world in general.A couple of responses, Jan:
1) If rejection of Christ's divinity is a factor in "most terrorism," then why do so few Muslims worldwide - a microscopic percentage - engage in terrorist acts? And why aren't terrorist acts regularly committed also by members of other religions that reject Christ's divinity?
2) I bet there are Muslims in the world who claim that "most" of some particular world malady can be "linked" to Christians' rejection of Allah and Allah's prophet Muhammad.
3) I contend that most of the world's terrorism and other maladies are not caused by Islam's or Christianity's core faith claims, but by those who abuse, distort, and exploit those claims to defend their sinful actions (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church and Christians who assassinated providers of abortion services)
-
@Jan said:
@Dave_L said:
Terrorism is just another nail in the coffin for those who reject Christ's deity. I believe we can link most of today's terrorism to the Jew's rejection of Christ's divinity. Had they accepted it, they would be acclimated into christendom and not exist. And they are the Pharisees who, like you and Wolfgang, reject Christ as YHWH.Likewise, most terrorism can be linked to the Muslims' rejection of Christ's divinity. They would not only cease to terrorize the Jews, but also the Christians, atheists, and the free world in general.
Watch it! There are other groups that reject Christ's divinity, such as_________. Are they, too, potential terrorists? CM
-
Also, don't forget the IRA terror, which is explicitly based on a trinitarian world view.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Jan said:
@Dave_L said:
Terrorism is just another nail in the coffin for those who reject Christ's deity. I believe we can link most of today's terrorism to the Jew's rejection of Christ's divinity. Had they accepted it, they would be acclimated into christendom and not exist. And they are the Pharisees who, like you and Wolfgang, reject Christ as YHWH.Likewise, most terrorism can be linked to the Muslims' rejection of Christ's divinity. They would not only cease to terrorize the Jews, but also the Christians, atheists, and the free world in general.
Watch it! There are other groups that reject Christ's divinity, such as_________. Are they, too, potential terrorists? CM
Let me ask you this: If the Pharisees had accepted Christ's divinity, would they exist today? And have suffered the holocaust and so much trouble over the years? No, they would have acclimated with the rest of the Jews who accepted Christ into what we call the church, Israel and Christendom.
Therefore, their rejection of Christ's divinity is at the base of all of the suffering they and the world has experienced because of this.
And those who reject Christ's divinity believe exactly as they do concerning him. Even if they are not a lightning rod for terrorists.
-
@C_M_ said:
Watch it! There are other groups that reject Christ's divinity, such as_________. Are they, too, potential terrorists? CMGreat point CM! For example in modern Japan only about 1% are Christians, yet that fact has not lead the Japanese to commit acts of terrorism en masse.
@Dave_L said:
Let me ask you this: If the Pharisees had accepted Christ's divinity, would they exist today?The Pharisees ceased to exist sometime in the 3rd century or at least there is no evidence that they existed after the 3rd century. Today, Rabbinical Jewish movements and Non-Rabbinical Judaisms exist.
-
@Mitchell said:
@C_M_ said:
Watch it! There are other groups that reject Christ's divinity, such as_________. Are they, too, potential terrorists? CMGreat point CM! For example in modern Japan only about 1% are Christians, yet that fact has not lead the Japanese to commit acts of terrorism en masse.
@Dave_L said:
Let me ask you this: If the Pharisees had accepted Christ's divinity, would they exist today?The Pharisees ceased to exist sometime in the 3rd century or at least there is no evidence that they existed after the 3rd century. Today, Rabbinical Jewish movements and Non-Rabbinical Judaisms exist.
This is fine, but as we uncovered in previous discussions, some of today's widely regarded Jewish resources claim to be a continuation of the Pharisees.
-
As we uncovered?
When and where was it that I ever made the statement that Jewish resources/literature were claiming to be a continuation of the Pharisees(individuals and not literature)? -
@Mitchell said:
As we uncovered?
When and where was it that I ever made the statement that Jewish resources/literature were claiming to be a continuation of the Pharisees(individuals and not literature)?You didn't. I quoted widely accepted Jewish authorities saying today's Jews (State of Israel) originated in the Pharisees who escaped Jerusalem's destruction in 70AD.
-
@Dave_L said:
You didn't.Of course, I didn't. That is why I
was surprised by your use of the plural pronoun "we" in your claim "as we uncovered".@Dave_L said:
I quoted widely accepted Jewish authorities sayingYour quoting of opinions/claims neither uncovers, proves that those 'authorities' are widely accepted, nor proves those source accuracy.
@Dave_L said:
Jews (State of Israel) originated in the Pharisees who escaped Jerusalem's destruction in 70AD.Highly unlikely being that the Pharisaical groups never amounted to more than 5% of the Jewish population.
Another reason why what you claim is unlikely is that the founder of the Zionist movement Theodor Herzl was a highly secular individual. Not only would he not have called himself a Pharisee, no one would have claimed him to be one either. Ben Yehuda Eliezer the creator of modern Hebrew was a secular Zionist. The Zionist movement (which basically was secular) that founded the modern State of Israel could not legitly be said to be Pharisees.
-
THis is fine, but the standard text books, including the preface to the Soncino Talmud say the Pharisees are the progenitors of today's Jews and "Israel".
-
@Dave_L said:
THis is fine, but the standard text books, including the preface to the Soncino TalmudThe Soncino Talmud is hardly a standard textbook, in fact, it isn't a textbook at all. It has part of the traditional Hebrew/Aramaic text, but it also has a highly interpretive translation with opinative notes.
The standard textbooks that I used in University and that I commonly saw in Beit midrash said something very different than what you claim the standard textbooks to be saying. So, we apparently have different standards.
By the way, that common edition of the Babylonian Talmud in the western world (not a textbook) is usually the various reprints of the Vilna Talmud.
Post edited by Mitchell on -
@C_M_ said:
There are other groups that reject Christ's divinity, such as_________. Are they, too, potential terrorists? CMI still think the above is an astute point CM! in modern Japan only about 1% are Christians, yet that fact has not lead the Japanese to continuously commit acts of terrorism en masse.
Nor, has 'Christianity' lead nations and countries to be peaceful nor has it lead Christians en masse to protest their government's unpeaceful actions. We can see from the various Inquisitions, Holocaust, pogroms, crusades, so-called holy wars, western Christian nations environment in slavery, and wars which continue to this very day.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Jan said:
@Dave_L said:
Terrorism is just another nail in the coffin for those who reject Christ's deity. I believe we can link most of today's terrorism to the Jew's rejection of Christ's divinity. Had they accepted it, they would be acclimated into christendom and not exist. And they are the Pharisees who, like you and Wolfgang, reject Christ as YHWH.Likewise, most terrorism can be linked to the Muslims' rejection of Christ's divinity. They would not only cease to terrorize the Jews, but also the Christians, atheists, and the free world in general.
Watch it! There are other groups that reject Christ's divinity, such as_________. Are they, too, potential terrorists? CM
Jan,
To be balanced to your point above, I have looked anew to see at if Islam is a religion of peace that condemns the killing of people, or a religion of war that sanctions the killing of those who are perceived to be the enemies of Islam (infidels).
Does the Koran teach peace and war, tolerance and intolerance at the same time? To find an answer to these question, one needs to look in the Koran and the Hadith. There is a considerable amount of literature dealing with violence in the Koran and the Bible. Can we be certain whether the Koran teaches devout Muslims to advance the cause of Allah by peaceful persuasion or by violent warfare? What does Islam have to say about warfare?
"When the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity [become Moslem], then open the way for them" (Sura 9:5).
The very meaning of "Islam," namely, "submission." But the Islamic concept of peace as a world dominated by Muslims is ultimately a mandate for war. How do we establish peaceful relations with the Moslem world and help our Muslims friends understand the fundamental flaws of the teachings of the Koran? It seems to use violence to advance the cause of Allah. A religion that advocates engaging in "holy war" (Jihad) to propagate its faith, is a repressive movement that violates the fundamental human right to choose whom to worship. This fundamental right is recognized and respected by the God of biblical revelation who says: "Choose ye this day whom you will serve" (Jos 24:15).
One may be inclined to conclude that Islam is a violent religion because the Koran teaches holy warfare (Jihad) to force people to submit to its religious/political system. No one needs to be pushed to conclude a religion that resorts to violence to force its teachings upon others, can hardly be called a "religion," because a true religion presupposes reverence for God and respect for fellow-beings. It would be appropriate to label violent religions as "terroristic organizations?"
It's equally appalling to read what Thomas Aquinas, the most influential Catholic theologian, taught in his Summa Theologica about the extermination of the "heretics." He wrote: "With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side, the other, on the side of the church. On their own side, there is a sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul than to forge money, which supports the temporal life. Wherefore, if forger of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death" (Question 11, Article 3).
These fundamental Catholic teachings that "heretics," if they do not recant, must be not only excommunicated but also exterminated, is found in numerous documents of the Inquisition. When the immorality of such teachings are exposed, most Catholics openly reject them, choosing instead to accept the teachings of the Gospel to "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
It is my hope that both bodies have changed their views of "heretics." Truth found truth shared. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
To be balanced to your point above, I have looked anew to see at if Islam is a religion of peace that condemns the killing of people, or a religion of war that sanctions the killing of those who are perceived to be the enemies of Islam (infidels).Thanks for a substantive post, CM, one that is both thoughtful and provocative.
One of our Sunday groups did a study of Islam, which included two sessions with the imam of a local Islamic center. One important outcome of those sessions for me was an appreciation for the complexity of the word "jihad." The imam helped us understand that at its roots, jihad means "struggle," a struggle that through the centuries has taken various meanings... including, BUT NOT AT ALL LIMITED TO "holy war." (A quick review of Google search results confirmed the Imam's analysis)
In fact, a prominent interpretation of the word in modern Islam is that the most important jihad is a person's struggle to improve the way he or she lives out his or her Islamic faith. YES, there are fundamentalist communities within modern Islam that use jihad in the "holy war" sense. But a significant proportion of modern Muslims reject such violence, and choose instead to accept qurannic calls to peaceful self-defense. For example (from THIS BBC page)
- "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors." (Qur'an 2:190)
- "To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid." (Qur'an 22:39)
- "Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them)." (Qur'an 4:90)
- "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." (Qur'an 8:61)
The Quran has troubling passages that depict violence in ways inimical to modern interpreters. But so does the Bible, where on several occasions God authorizes the genocidal murder of entire communities. Yet none of us would accept indictments of Christianity and Judaism as religions of war or violence.
The reality is that no religion is free of human contamination. Allah doesn't want militaristic holy war against non-Muslims, and JHWH doesn't want genocide against communities. But human beings searching for deeper understanding of Allah and JHWH decided and continue to decide they did. That's the price religion pays for including humans in the partnership.
-
@C_M_ said:
To be balanced to your point above, I have looked anew to see at if Islam is a religion of peace that condemns the killing of people, or a religion of war that sanctions the killing of those who are perceived to be the enemies of Islam (infidels).There's a difference between the actual teachings (Quran and Hadith), and the general beliefs of Muslims, especially in the West.
Most Western Muslims really believe that Islam is a religion of peace, and therefore, are mostly peaceful.
But we need to look at the actual teachings, as well as the history of Islam to decide whether Islam really is a religion of peace.
Does the Koran teach peace and war, tolerance and intolerance at the same time? To find an answer to these question, one needs to look in the Koran and the Hadith. There is a considerable amount of literature dealing with violence in the Koran and the Bible. Can we be certain whether the Koran teaches devout Muslims to advance the cause of Allah by peaceful persuasion or by violent warfare? What does Islam have to say about warfare?
If you separate the peaceful passages in the Quran from the violent ones, you will notice that the peaceful passages were written during Muhammad's time in Medina (while the Muslims were in the minority), and the violent passages later during Muhammad's time in Mecca (after Muslims have become the majority).
The implication is, Muslims are to be peaceful when they are in the minority, and that's what you see in the West today.
In Europe we have many city districts with a Muslim majority now, and the atmosphere in these places is becoming more violent and hostile towards non Muslims.
Then we have the concept of abrogation in the Quran. Whenever there's a clear conflict of teachings, the lastest one is the valid one. Since the violent Suras were all written during the later period of Muhammad's life, a lot of peaceful teaching has been abrogated.
"When the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity [become Moslem], then open the way for them" (Sura 9:5).
Sura 9 is the latest Sura, which Muhammad wrote shortly before his death, and it is also the most violent one. Since it is the latest one, none of it could have been abrogated.
The very meaning of "Islam," namely, "submission." But the Islamic concept of peace as a world dominated by Muslims is ultimately a mandate for war. How do we establish peaceful relations with the Moslem world and help our Muslims friends understand the fundamental flaws of the teachings of the Koran? It seems to use violence to advance the cause of Allah. A religion that advocates engaging in "holy war" (Jihad) to propagate its faith, is a repressive movement that violates the fundamental human right to choose whom to worship. This fundamental right is recognized and respected by the God of biblical revelation who says: "Choose ye this day whom you will serve" (Jos 24:15).
There are several channels on YouTube that deal explicitly with the flaws of Islam. People like David Wood, Jay Smith, Al Fadi and many others are doing an excellent job in putting their scholarly research into an entertaining format, and reach the masses with it - worldwide. I've been following these guys for a long time now, and I'm still learning new arguments regularly.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClEBnUpbzNPlKoIAwrRzIAA
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5zGnPFoN5LjAsxU8ESiBMw
https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17ApologeticsOne may be inclined to conclude that Islam is a violent religion because the Koran teaches holy warfare (Jihad) to force people to submit to its religious/political system. No one needs to be pushed to conclude a religion that resorts to violence to force its teachings upon others, can hardly be called a "religion," because a true religion presupposes reverence for God and respect for fellow-beings. It would be appropriate to label violent religions as "terroristic organizations?"
Where does the statement "a true religion presupposes reverence for God and respect for fellow-beings" come from?
If the deity of a particular religion commands you to warfare and violence against "infidels", does faith in this deity automatically cease to be a "religion"?
It's equally appalling to read what Thomas Aquinas, the most influential Catholic theologian, taught in his Summa Theologica about the extermination of the "heretics." He wrote: "With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side, the other, on the side of the church. On their own side, there is a sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul than to forge money, which supports the temporal life. Wherefore, if forger of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death" (Question 11, Article 3).
These fundamental Catholic teachings that "heretics," if they do not recant, must be not only excommunicated but also exterminated, is found in numerous documents of the Inquisition. When the immorality of such teachings are exposed, most Catholics openly reject them, choosing instead to accept the teachings of the Gospel to "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
It is my hope that both bodies have changed their views of "heretics." Truth found truth shared. CM
I hope that Muslims will **NOT **return to the quranic teachings on how to deal with heretics.
@Bill_Coley said:
One of our Sunday groups did a study of Islam, which included two sessions with the imam of a local Islamic center. One important outcome of those sessions for me was an appreciation for the complexity of the word "jihad." The imam helped us understand that at its roots, jihad means "struggle," a struggle that through the centuries has taken various meanings... including, BUT NOT AT ALL LIMITED TO "holy war." (A quick review of Google search results confirmed the Imam's analysis)
In fact, a prominent interpretation of the word in modern Islam is that the most important jihad is a person's struggle to improve the way he or she lives out his or her Islamic faith. YES, there are fundamentalist communities within modern Islam that use jihad in the "holy war" sense. But a significant proportion of modern Muslims reject such violence, and choose instead to accept qurannic calls to peaceful self-defense. For example (from THIS BBC page)Ah, the greater jihad and the lesser jihad.
“A number of fighters came to the Messenger of Allah, and he said: ‘You have done well in coming from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.’ They said: ‘What is the greater jihad?’ He said: ‘For the servant [of God] to fight his passions’” (Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Zuhd al-Kabir)
Al-Bayhaqi lived lived from 994 to 1066. It is interesting that there's no trace of the "greater jihad", or in general jihad in the meaning of peaceful self-defence or fighting one's passions during all the centuries before him. It's blatant obvious that he made up this saying of Muhammad.
Muslims don't consider the writings of Al-Bayhaqi to be sahih (canonical) at all. Just this one teaching of the "greater jihad", they pick out and show it to "non-believers" as evidence of the peacefulness of Islam.
There's one good thing about it though. As long as they believe it themselves, they're not gonna blow up anything.
SOURCE:
Qureshi, N. (2016). Answering jihad: a better way forward. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
The Quran has troubling passages that depict violence in ways inimical to modern interpreters. But so does the Bible, where on several occasions God authorizes the genocidal murder of entire communities. Yet none of us would accept indictments of Christianity and Judaism as religions of war or violence.
There's a clear difference. Violence in the Bible is descriptive (with just one exception); violence in the Quran is mostly prescriptive.
The only occasion when God prescribed violence in the Bible was the taking of the Holy Land from the Canaanites. And this was an act of judgement, after giving them 400 years to repent from idol worship, child sacrifice to their cruel god Molech etc.
The reality is that no religion is free of human contamination. Allah doesn't want militaristic holy war against non-Muslims, and JHWH doesn't want genocide against communities. But human beings searching for deeper understanding of Allah and JHWH decided and continue to decide they did. That's the price religion pays for including humans in the partnership.
I disagree. The Bible is not contaminated. What humans make of it - yes, it very often is contaminated (see above quote by Thomas Aquinas for example).
The Quran, on the other hand, is mostly contaminated. Just look at Sura 9. It's clearly contradicting God's will as revealed in the Gospels.
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
THis is fine, but the standard text books, including the preface to the Soncino TalmudThe Soncino Talmud is hardly a standard textbook, in fact, it isn't a textbook at all. It has part of the traditional Hebrew/Aramaic text, but it also has a highly interpretive translation with opinative notes.
The standard textbooks that I used in University and that I commonly saw in Beit midrash said something very different than what you claim the standard textbooks to be saying. So, we apparently have different standards.
By the way, that common edition of the Babylonian Talmud in the western world (not a textbook) is usually the various reprints of the Vilna Talmud.
What I'm saying is that today's "State of Israel and Jews, come from the few Pharisees that escaped Jerusalem's destruction in 70 AD.
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, 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. Michael Hoffman. (n.d.). Judaism Discovered. -
Dave, are you aware of the fact that you have posted the above before basically verbatim on March 19th, 2018 at 11:12pm: https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/3197/#Comment_3197
I, in turn, replied to your citations before on March 20th, 2018 at 7:17am:
https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/3226/#Comment_3226and on March 20th, 2018 at 11:26am:
https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/3293/#Comment_3293So, I am well aware your references since I have seen and studied them before, however, I continue to find your references unconvincing at least in regards to attempting to back your claims about the Pharisees and modern Jews.
-
For a brief overview of Jewish Sects and Denominations check out:
(1) http://www.majorreligions.com/jewish_denominations.php(2) https://www.gotquestions.org/sects-of-Judaism.html
For an overview of the branch of Judaism know as Rabbinic Judaism see:
(3) https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-rabbinic-judaism/ -
@Mitchell said:
Dave, are you aware of the fact that you have posted the above before basically verbatim on March 19th, 2018 at 11:12pm: https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/3197/#Comment_3197
I, in turn, replied to your citations before on March 20th, 2018 at 7:17am:
https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/3226/#Comment_3226and on March 20th, 2018 at 11:26am:
https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/3293/#Comment_3293So, I am well aware your references since I have seen and studied them before, however, I continue to find your references unconvincing at least in regards to attempting to back your claims about the Pharisees and modern Jews.
Yes, but I posted them again for all to see.
-
@C_M_ said:
@C_M_ said:
@Jan said:
@Dave_L said:
Terrorism is just another nail in the coffin for those who reject Christ's deity. I believe we can link most of today's terrorism to the Jew's rejection of Christ's divinity. Had they accepted it, they would be acclimated into christendom and not exist. And they are the Pharisees who, like you and Wolfgang, reject Christ as YHWH.Likewise, most terrorism can be linked to the Muslims' rejection of Christ's divinity. They would not only cease to terrorize the Jews, but also the Christians, atheists, and the free world in general.
Watch it! There are other groups that reject Christ's divinity, such as_________. Are they, too, potential terrorists? CM
Thanks for the call for caution. But, I'm not saying all heretics are the source of terrorism. Only the Jews who rejected Christ as YHWH are the source of today's bumper crop of terror. Had they accepted Jesus, they would have acclimated along with the rest of the Jews into Christendom (New Covenant Israel).
I only show similarities between their rejecting Christ's divinity and others who share in their beliefs.
Think of the suffering, the holocaust, the centuries they and the word have suffered because they did not Think Jesus was God.
-
EDIT:
Ooops .... I found my posts in a different thread. Sorry to have cause some confusion.Hmn .... now my recent posts seem to have disappeared altogether ... when I wanted to delete one of my posts (because it was essentially a "double"), I was unable to do so, now both posts are gone .
Can someone explain how to delete one's own posts? I know, there is a "button" to click in order to edit a post (possible for 60 minutes after initial posting) ... but where is the button to delete a post?? -
No worries. I took the liberty to delete the duplicate. I don't think anyone but admin users can do so.
-
@Dave_L said:
Yes, but I posted them again for all to see.One: being that you already posted them a few months ago, and there are still available for all to see. Your answer doesn't seem very logical.
Two: since you were replying to me it at least to me would seem more logical for you to actually reply and address my points. Or, at least that is what I would normally assume. But, I am guessing, now, that I made the wrong assumptions about what I thought were dialogues between you and me.
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
Yes, but I posted them again for all to see.One: being that you already posted them a few months ago, and there are still available for all to see. Your answer doesn't seem very logical.
Two: since you were replying to me it at least to me would seem more logical for you to actually reply and address my points. Or, at least that is what I would normally assume. But, I am guessing, now, that I made the wrong assumptions about what I thought were dialogues between you and me.
Just keeping things on the front burner........
-
@Dave_L said:
Yes, but I posted them again for all to see.One: being that you already posted them a few months ago, they are still available for all to see. You could have simply placed a hyperlink in your post.
Repeating verbatim the very same citations that you already addressed to me and that I already replied to seems a bit redundant and boring at least from my point of view (all I have to do is simply place a link to the reply I have already given you).
Perhaps next time you could post some new citations and references? I think that might be a lot more interesting and fun.
-
@Mitchell said:
@Dave_L said:
Yes, but I posted them again for all to see.One: being that you already posted them a few months ago, they are still available for all to see. You could have simply placed a hyperlink in your post.
Repeating verbatim the very same citations that you already addressed to me and that I already replied to seems a bit redundant and boring at least from my point of view (all I have to do is simply place a link to the reply I have already given you).
Perhaps next time you could post some new citations and references? I think that might be a lot more interesting and fun.
Why so picky? I put them up again for all to see along side of your post without changing pages.
-
@Dave_L said:
Why so picky? I put them up again for all to see along side of your post without changing pages.I see. In other words, you weren't actually trying to address what I wrote. Rather, you were attempting to addressing another audience. After all, you already know that you had addressed me with those same citations before, and you were already aware that the last time you used them I did not find them persuasive.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)