I'm curious. Do the Jewish people not regard the Talmud as authoritative? and does not the talmud teach that "(Jesus) is boiling forever in excrement?" I don't want to bear false witness. What does the talmud have to say about the final condition of Jesus of Nazareth?
For the record, groups that claim allegiance to the Bible but deny the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, are, by definition, cults. As Jesus told the pharisees, if they'd taken Moses seriously, they'd have recognized Him. Other than regarding Jesus with greater venom and contempt than do the Muslims, Mormons, and Moonies, how is Judaism not a cult? Or do we need to discard that useful four-letter descriptive word?
Help me out. What is an acceptable alternate word for a group predicated on denying the Lord Jesus Christ, while giving a token nod of respect to the Bible?
Yes and no. The Talmud is comprised of the Mishneh, which are the traditional interpretations and expansions of the Torah's commands, and the Gemara, which are just records of what the various rabbis have said about the Tanakh (the OT) and the Mishneh over the centuries. It would be impossible to regard the Gemara as "authoritative" in the absolute sense that you are using the term, since it is basically the minutes of a centuries-old debate between various highly-regarded rabbis.
That being the case, no Jew today is bound by their Jewishness to regard the opinion of one rabbi recorded in the Talmud that Jesus is "boiling in excrement." And if most through the centuries accepted that as true, I would suggest that we look at the Christian policies and polemic against the Jews as the source of that opinion.
If we do the deeds of Antiochus Epiphanes, we should not be surprised if the Jew assigns the false image of Jesus that we have given him a similar curse.
For the record, groups that claim allegiance to the Bible but deny the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, are, by definition, cults.
For the record, groups and individuals who claim allegiance to the Messiah of the Jews but who express hatred towards His people are, by definition, Marcionian.
As Jesus told the pharisees, if they'd taken Moses seriously, they'd have recognized Him.
The difference is that the Pharisees could see that Yeshua kept and taught the Torah correctly and that He was fulfilling the prophecies and doing the deeds of the Messiah before their eyes. The Jews of the eighteen centuries since have seen only the Jesus that we have presented them: A Torah-breaking false prophet (by definition; see Deu. 12:32ff again) whose followers have tried to destroy the Jews.
Ergo, the Pharisees who rejected Yeshua (and not all did--Acts 15:5) rejected the true person and image of the Messiah. Those Jews who have rejected Him since the Church started joining the Romans in persecuting them have rejected only the blasphemous (slanderous) image that we have presented them with.
Tell me, if the emissaries of the Messiah represent Him falsely and a man (rightly) rejects the false image he has been presented with, who is to be condemned? The one who was honestly blind, or the one who claimed to see?
Other than regarding Jesus with greater venom and contempt than do the Muslims, Mormons, and Moonies, how is Judaism not a cult?
Other than regarding the Jews with greater venom and contempt than do the Muslims, Mormons, and Marcionites, how is Reconstructionism not a heresy?
What is an acceptable alternate word for a group predicated on denying the Lord Jesus Christ, while giving a token nod of respect to the Bible?
In this case: "Christianity's" Victims.