Waitwaitwaitwait. Are you seriously, seriously suggesting that you, a Gentile who never walked with Yeshua, never saw Him in a vision, thousands of years removed from events, and not even speaking the same languages somehow understand the New Covenant better than those who were actually there and were entrusted by our Master with His words, teachings, and example?
Where the heck are you claiming to have come across such wisdom? It can't be the New Testament, since it was written by the very people that you are claiming didn't understand the importance of the torn veil even after three decades.
I do not profess any qualifications but I had understood that rabbinical Judaism uses the Talmud as Scripture . . .
You understand incorrectly. Whenever we study the Talmud, or any other rabbinic source, the prayer we say is, "Blessed are You O Hashem our God, King of the Universe, who has set us apart by His commandments and commanded us to engross ourselves in the words of Torah . . . Blessed are You, O Hashem, giver of the Torah." It is the Torah that we are to be engaged in and the Torah we thank God for.
While my more traditional Jewish brethren hold the Talmud in very high regard, it is as the repository of the wisdom and knowledge of the earliest sages about the Torah, not in place of it. It holds much the same position to a Jew that Calvin's Institutes do to the Calvinist. The Talmud, in fact, is the record of 600 years of debates among the rabbis. I am often annoyed at the way Christians make pronouncements that, "The Talmud says X" when if they kept reading they would find out that X was proven wrong half a page down.
So no, the Talmud does not replace the Torah. It depends on it.
. . . it considers the Trinity doctrine to be a belief in three gods instead of one.
Given how few Christians can explain the Trinity coherently, you can hardly blame the Jews for that.
You are not the reader of my soul.
No, but out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks . . . or the fingers type, as the case may be.
Yes, I try to put forth arguments that are based on Sacred Tradition, inclusive of Scripture.
And yet you are quick to condemn others for their traditions, even when they are far older than your own. For example, while Dispensationalism as such is relatively new, premillennialism and a literal interpretation of prophecy can be found in the earliest Church fathers, e.g., Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Victoraenus (sp? not bothering to pause to look it up), etc. Preterism and Historicism both came much later.
So like I said, if you want to play the "my tradition is older than yours" with the Dispys, you certainly lose against the premills, and definitely against the Jews.
2 Thes 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle"
And those traditions were taught by a practicing Pharisee. Hmmm . . .
It was clear that most of the Jews at first misunderstood the mission of the Messiah, even His own disciples
It's clear you can't understand Yeshua saying "Not yet, and don't ask when," with the implication that yes, the Kingdom will be restored to Israel. But again, that event and Peter's quote from chapter 2 (and you still refuse to understand Hagee's point--but then, that would be admitting being wrong about something) was forty days after the Resurrection. They were still taking Nazrite vows and making sacrifices in the Temple thirty years later. That means that Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.--you know, the books you depend on to try to prove that the Torah is taken away--were all written by a man who took a voluntary Nazrite vow and went to Jerusalem with the express purpose of making animal sacrifices in accordance with the Torah and even Jewish Law.
If the Apostles themselves so misunderstood the Gospel, what chance in heck do you have of having it right?
I am only trying to repeat what I understand to be the Tradition passed down from the Apostles.
If that were all, I wouldn't be laying into you. But no, you went around claiming everything you disagree with to be heresy.
As I said to Karliner, I consider all who truly believe in and follow the King of Israel to be my brethren, and while I enjoy a good debate, I take a very live-and-let-live with my Sunday brethren. But when someone starts playing the "Heretic!" card, and especially when that person blatantly misrepresents both other Christians and Jews, that's a different story.
Since you have presumed to pass judgment on others based on how "perfect" their theology is in your eyes, rest assured that the Holy One will pass judgment on you based on how perfect your theology is in His. "For judgment is without mercy to him who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment" (Jas. 2:13).
I would suggest repenting, apologizing, and being a bit more careful about passing judgment based ignorance. I would also suggest that you do some reading on what Judaism actually teaches before you presume to speak for it. You might try Jewish Literacy by Rabbi Telushkin for a good primer.
Shalom.
VERY EXCELLENT.
THX.
I am simply echoing the hindsight opinion of the Fathers. They said the tearing of the curtain was a precursor to the destruction of the temple. Nobody would any have fully understood this prophesy (and taunts) prior to the destruction:
Mark 13:2 "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
Mark 14:58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man
Mark 15:29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days,
I am often annoyed at the way Christians make pronouncements that, "The Talmud says X" when if they kept reading they would find out that X was proven wrong half a page down. So no, the Talmud does not replace the Torah. It depends on it.
So then the Talmud interprets OT scripture. So does the New Testament. Should not the inspired NT interpretations take precedence over the non-inspired Talmud? Does the Torah include the Talmud?
It's clear you can't understand Yeshua saying "Not yet, and don't ask when," with the implication that yes, the Kingdom will be restored to Israel.
This Acts 1 passage taken in context with Acts 2 makes it crystal clear that Jesus was mounted upon the Davidic throne when He ascended to His Kingdom in Heaven.
And yet you are quick to condemn others for their traditions, even when they are far older than your own.
The written Talmudic interpretations of the OT came after the NT and may have been written in part as a resposne. Antiquity is important, but only because it is necessary to establish the singularity of truth.
If the Apostles themselves so misunderstood the Gospel, what chance in heck do you have of having it right?
The Apostles understand the Gospel after the coming of the Paraclete. Acts along with commentary of the Early Fathers explains what the Apostles eventually learned.
you went around claiming everything you disagree with to be heresy.
The contention that Jesus did not yet come as Christ does not conform to any previous understanding of orthodoxy. Accepting such novelties shatters all possibility of orthodoxy.
Since you have presumed to pass judgment on others based on how "perfect" their theology is in your eyes, rest assured that the Holy One will pass judgment on you based on how perfect your theology is in His.
From the Catholic perspective, you are wrong. Somebody who professes heresy from ignorance is not culpable and Catholics are obligated to point out heresy if they have means of responding. Merry Christmas to you and yours.