Posted on 06/11/2019 8:45:31 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I’m against Islam, and yes, I even support Israel over the Middle East. I even condemn Communists of all stripes, not just Nazis, for trying to exterminate Jewish people. So I am definitely not anti-Semitic. Just because I’m against the Talmud doesn’t mean that I’m anti-Semitic. Jesus is a Jew, so I have no quarrel with Jewish people.
Wow! you are knowledgeable. I would appreciate any suggestions from you on where to start about the Talmud and other learnings. either here or via personal message
Well, you can go to Jewish Encyclopedia for one thing, that contains a LOT of unadulterated quotes from the Talmud, including the infamous passage where Jesus is boiling in hot excrement in Hell. You can also look up Nicholas of Donin, who exposed a large amount of what the Talmud actually says (which led to the Talmud burnings in Paris). You could also look for Tikkun: A Bi-Monthly Jewish Critique May-June, 1994, which has Rabbi Tzvi Marx explaining they use two Talmuds; one for authentic use, another for public consumption. I think Yossi Gurvitz has a video explaining what’s actually in the Talmud as well.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/
There’s also this website as well:
http://www.halakhah.com/gittin/index.html
Yossi Gurvitz is a former Talmud student as well.
That’s all I can think of off the top of my head.
I didn’t “jump” to that conclusion. I looked up the author.
Anyway, I’m done playing “this word means two contradictory things at the very same time” games, so if you want to discuss the topic, I require you to differentiate one use of the word “Jew” from the very distinct other use.
How is that different from Matthew 18:18?
See Deut 30: 12
Neither one of those involved a mere mortal beating God in a debate or a group of mortals restraining God to such an extent that he is unable to do anything without a majority vote from those groups. The first one dealt with whatever sins were forgiven or unforgiven, and the second one dealt with how to effectively gain immortal life of the immortal soul, and how it isn’t all that difficult.
That’s leagues different than a rabbi outright beating God in a debate, or a group of rabbis restraining him (not to mention any similar entities doing so to God).
> religiously Christian, but ethnically Jewish.
If people would attach the “religiously” or “ethnically” qualifiers appropriately as you do, there would be much less confusion on the subject.
tell that to my wife - she accuses me (rightly) of being pedantic and overly logical when i don’t need to be.... sigh...
“See the way this works on FR...”
Spare me the condescension. You didn’t quote that part in your comment that I replied to, so what you were referring to was ambiguous.
See, the way it works on FR is if you want someone to know what you are referring to specifically, you might want to quote the exact section of the article you are taking issue with, instead of trying to quote it later after other people reply to you, and then pretend that you made it clear in the first place.
It’s absolutely necessary in this case to be pedantic.
Historical antisemitism is considered to be a special kind of evil, because of the motivation behind it. Jews have been persecuted because they refuse to give allegiance to earthly kings before God - many Christians are also persecuted on this basis, but with Jews there’s thousands of years more of it, and Jews have never had the strength-in-numbers necessary for self-defense in those situations.
So when some radical Communist who happens to be Ashkenazi claims antisemitism on the basis that he is a Jew, I reject that deceitful tactic. He doesn’t believe in God, and therefore the special type of evil in question cannot apply, no matter how malicious the attacks on him may be.
> The bottom line is he wrote that according to Jewish law a Jew remains a Jew despite any conversion(s).
The bottom line is that I need not respect his opinion, which relies on a logical fallacy (that the word Jew means two distinct and separate ideas at the same time) that is not part of the Torah.
Old Testament Jews might have been that, but unfortunately, by the time of the Talmud, the Talmudic Jews clearly worship themselves over God or earthly kings. Heck, if anything, Bava Metzia 59b indicates that they can ignore God after Mt. Sinai, and that if anything God is their slave who can’t do anything without a majority vote by the Rabbinic council. As far as I’m concerned, thanks to that passage in particular, the Talmudic Jews are not much different than radical Communists who use the Jew card.
Sorry for sounding very cold regarding that, but when the chosen people explicitly backstab God the Father like that by making him weak and dumb, show him that kind of disrespect, that is a really special evil there, even moreso than anti-Semitism. Heck, if it were me in God’s position and the Jews did exactly that, I’d probably remove their chosen status and even eliminate them in anger for that, viewing them has flagrantly broken their covenant with me when they did that. That’s a kind of treachery that I simply cannot forgive.
You call him a Jew, which you would understand if you understood Judaism.
You appear to be imposing a Catholic viewpoint on Judaism, with its heirarchical systems and earthly proxies for the divine.
This conversation is staggeringly similar in nature to when I have tried to explain principles of liberty to Communists. All they seem to understand is authority.
You’re just as off base as the folks on the other side.
The reality is that most Jews will never pick up, open, or receive guidance from the Talmud. You can attend services regularly your whole life and never hear of it.
So any obsession with Talmud as an effort to characterize Jews in general is completely wrong-headed.
This self-worship phenomenon you observe is a) not at all specific to Jews; and b) the very element that makes them something other than Jewish.
Communists pretending to be Jews are no more authentic than Christians pretending to be Jews.
> Which returns to the starting point; What does one call a Jew who rejects Halacha in favor of one’s own interpretations of Torah?
One more response to this and then we’re done talking about this subject forever.
On the one hand, you assert materials that claim any descendant of the tribes of Israel, or convert, or descendant of a convert, is Jewish.
On the other you imply that failure to treat materials other than the Torah itself as divine law is a disqualifier for being a Jew.
You’ve gone full Alinsky on me in this conversation and I don’t appreciate it at all.
Your understanding of Judaism is so wrong that you should never comment on it again because you will only mislead yourself and others.
> according to Halacha
Halacha is not an authority. End of story. We are done with this conversation now.
I'm laughing so hard, that I'm running tears. Oh my goodness - funny!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.