People like him were predicted. But the predictions match several other candidates better than him.



Perhaps. But he didn't do it. That's an important point Christians often forget: while a Messiah has been predicted in Jewish legend, Jesus of Nazareth did not actually perform the tasks the Messiah was predicted to perform.

Christians just say that Jesus was the Messiah, hence the predictions of a Messiah appearing were predictions of Jesus. But they ignore that those predictions were not fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth.

I also don't think Jesus himself claimed to be the Messiah or the son of G-d. That was made up after his death (after one of them, anyway).



Keanu Reeves did it in the Matrix movie.

You could say, of course, that he didn't really do it and that only a story was told of him doing it.

And that is what we are talking about here: a story that says that Jesus did it.



I wonder if he did it in the same way Muhammed did. He also ascended to heaven from Jerusalem.

Leauki posts:

Leauki posts:


Lula posts:

LEAUKI POSTS:


The point is---you own the barb which asserts the circumstances of Christ's Incarnation is a lie made up by Jews.

Evidently, you don't believe the Scriptural account of Christ's Incarnation. Is everything about Christianity that you personally don't believe a lie, Leauki?



The Scriptural account of the time leading up to the Nativity of Christ, the mystery of the Nativity itself as well as the circumstances that surround that is not as you say, "Christian invention", but rather it is God's Revelation, Leauki.

Many of the details of Christ's Nativity, His ancestry, etc. were prophecied in the Old Testament and further explained in the New Testament. Christians like me believe that every word of the Old and New Testaments are inspired of God and therefore, containing no errors, every word is true.

At His birth, Christ's Divinity and His humanity are perfectly manifested: we see His weakness--the form of a servant Phil 2:7, and His Divine power. The salvation which Christ brought is offered to everyone, without distinction. That's why even at His birth, He chose to manifest Himself to different kinds of people, the shepherds were Israelites, the Magi, Gentiles. The first lived nearby, the latter, far away. Yet both came to Christ.

One day, God willing, we will all be at His table.

You may not agree, but that does not make the Scriptural accounts of Christ's Nativity a lie.




The following are insults against Christ.





These are propagations of heresy:

Leauki posts:





First of all, it should be known to all that the Jewish religion as practiced today has virtually NOTHING in common with the religion of the Israelites of the Old Testament, the religion practiced by Jews during the time of Christ. This is the Judaism from which Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Apostles came who transmitted to us the Word of God and the gifts of faith, hope and charity. The Hebraic religion of the Israelites came to an end with Our Lord's death on the Cross by which He established a New Covenant that made the Old (Mosaic)Covenant obsolete. The ceremonies and rites officially ended in 70AD when Titus' army destroyed Jersualem and overturned every stone in the Temple.

The present day Jewish religion is primarily based upon man-made works called the Kabbalah and the Talmud, and not on the Old Testament. The centrality of the Talmud in today's Jewish religion is without doubt.

The Talmud contains unspeakable blasphemy against Our Lord and our Blessed Mother.

Msgr. Landriuex, Bishop of Dijon, France, in his L'Histoire et les Histoires dans la Bible, calls the Talmud "a systematic deformation of the Holy Bible". The ex-Rabbi Drach, a 19th century convert to Catholicism provides this insight into the Talmud.

"For a long time it was my professional duty to teach the Talmud and explain its doctrines, after having attended special courses for many years under the most renowned of contemporary Jewish doctors....The judicious reader of the Talmud is often saddened by the presence of many of those strange aberrations into which the human mind falls when bereft of the true faith, and very frequently rabbinical cynicism makes him blush with shame. The Christian is horrified by the insane and atrocious calumnies which the impoius hatred of the Pharisees hurled at everything he holds sacred.....In the Ghemara, (part of the Talmud) there are at least a hundred passages which are insulting for the memory of our Adorable Savior, the more than angelic purity of His Holy Mother, the Immaculate Queen of Heaven, as well as the moral character of Christians, whom the Talmud represents as practicing the most abominable vices."


Regarding the long established Jewish reverence for the Talmud, Mrgr. Landrieux quotes the Jewish L'Universe Israelite: " For two thousand years, the talmud has been and remains an object of veneration for the sons of Israel whose religious Code it is." He also mentions Archives Israelites according to which: "The absolute superiority of the Talmud over the Bible of Moses must be recognized by all."



So says you.

I'll offer the testimony of one who is not Christian at all. In 1994, a book was published by Israel Shahak, an Israeli Jew born in Poland incarcerated for 4 years in Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp. He lived in Palestine from 1945 until his death in 2001. His book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The weight of Three Thousand Years, speaks openly about the Talmud's anti-Christian teachings.

"It must be admitted at the outset that the Talmud and Talmudic literature ..contains very offensive statements and precepts directed specifically against Christianity. ... In addition to a series of scurrilous sexual allegations against Jesus, the Talmud states that His (Jesus') punishment in hell is to be immersed in boiling excrement...

The Edito Princeps of the complete COde of talmudic Law, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah (Is) replete with the most offensive precepts against all Gentiles but also with explicit attacks on Christianity and on Jesus (after Whose name the author adds with agreement, 'May the name of the wicked persih'..."

One of these explicit attacks on OUr Lord claims Jesus "learned witchcraft in Egypt" Shabbos 104b. I;ll not repeat the vile names the Talmud calls the Blessed Virgin.

The Talmud speaks of "Jesus as a magician who went about performing wonders".

Can you point me to where I claimed that?

Christianity is what it is...God's revealed religion...Hebraic Judaism fulfilled in Christ. I'd say that the one who denies Jesus Christ is God speaks more of the person doing the denying and not of what (Christianity) or Who (Christ) is denied.

Lula,

I really recommend that you read the Talmud before you continue making statements about it.

You should especially not simply quote extremist Web sites. Your two examples are from the same text, as you know. (Was it fatimacrusader.com or do several copies exist?)

Incidentally, the same article states that by calling Jesus a "magician" the writer acknowledge that Jesus performed miracles. But that is beside the point.

The paragraph mentioned is Shabbos 104b, which reads:

"It is taught: R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin? They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool."

Ben Stada's father was indeed not his mother's husband. But the mother's husband's name is given as Pappos Ben Yehudah. Pappos Ben Yehudah is mentioned discussing Torah with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva lived from 50-135 CE. He was born 20 years after Joseph (Mary's husband) died.

Ben Stada's mother was named Miriam. But all three lived 100 years after Jesus.

The article I linked to (http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html#benstada) has the original text and a translation. (The translation seems correct, at least the names are and it contains "from Egypt".)

You didn't even bother to read the relevant passages from the Talmud, even when I pointed you directory to them. You just kept repeating a convenient lie.

The paragraph is not about Jesus at all but about a different man who lived more than 100 years after Jesus.

Can you explain to me how that compares with the "Christian principle" of "honesty" you told us about?

How can your religion (and I don't mean normal Christianity, but your particular brand of it, if it still can be called Christianity) be true if it requires you to lie and doesn't discourage you from lying?




You spent so much time "explaining" the "Holy Trinity" to me and now you don't remember that Jesus (a Jewish rabbi) is god?

And as for Judaism being not the same today as it was 2000 years ago: that's true. The religion of the Jewish people evolved. But it is much closer to the Judaism of 2000 years ago than your version of "Christianity", I can tell you that. It still prays in Hebrew, doesn't acknowledge gods walking the earth, and still promotes honesty among its adherents. And it kept the Oral Torah, which Christianity discarded.

You will NOT find me misquote the "New Testament" to prove that it says whatever I want it to say. And you will NOT see me tell lies about what the "New Testament" says instead of reading it.

I read the "New Testamant". I read Luther's original German translation and an English version. I have much more respect for Christianity than you have for Judaism, Islam, any other religion, and any form of Christianity not your own. That is clear.

Lula,

It doesn't matter how many people you find who tell the same lie as you do. The correct way to find out is to read what the Talmud actually says. You just out many "Christians" as liars if you continue to quote them talking about the Talmud instead of quoting the Talmud itself.

"G-d's revealed religion", ey? He didn't happen to "reveal" that one mustn't lie?

What the Talmud says about Ben Stada is not half as vicious and hateful as what you say about Jews on a daily basis.

Have you ever thought about that?

Does your religion teach hatred, too?

s/directory/directly/

Lula posts: First of all, it should be known to all that the Jewish religion as practiced today has virtually NOTHING in common with the religion of the Israelites of the Old Testament, the religion practiced by Jews during the time of Christ. This is the Judaism from which Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Apostles came who transmitted to us the Word of God and the gifts of faith, hope and charity. The Hebraic religion of the Israelites came to an end with Our Lord's death on the Cross by which He established a New Covenant that made the Old (Mosaic)Covenant obsolete. The ceremonies and rites officially ended in 70AD when Titus' army destroyed Jersualem and overturned every stone in the Temple.

The present day Jewish religion is primarily based upon man-made works called the Kabbalah and the Talmud, and not on the Old Testament. The centrality of the Talmud in today's Jewish religion is without doubt. 

 

Sodaiho:  The Judaism of today, as Leuki says, has evolved.  With the destruction of the Temple, rabbinic Judaism arose, converting sacrifice to prayer.  The same Torah is studied daily, recited weekly in synagugue in a yearly cycle.  The same holidays are celebrated and honored in yearly cycle. Jews identify with the patriarchs, matriarchs, and prophets, with God and Moses. The Talmud includes Mishnah and Gemara, commentaries on the Torah discussing how to apply God's commandments to everyday life, as life changes. It is a living document and continues to evolve today with the Responsa of rabbiic assemblies addressing  questions from congregations.

Kabbalah is not a text, per se.  There are kabbalistic texts, but no "kabbalah" as a text. Kabbalah is a mystical aproach to understanding how to approach God. Many very saintly rabbis have taken this approach. It is incredibly deep, very spiritual, and  quite beautiful. 

Lula,  I really don't believe you are a stupid person or an anti-semite, but your unwillingness to explore original source materials, reliance on clearly distorted and extremely slanted source material, would suggest otherwise.  To not accept Jesus as God is hardly a sin in the view of people from other faiths. Its time you come to terms with this.  God is much too large for the human imagination, including those divinely inspired texts you refer to.  He cannot be boxed and sold like Proctor and Gamble's soaps, regardless what the evengelicals say. God is larger than Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhaism, etc. Infinite is infinite.

 

Be well.

 

Leauki,

Whether I read it or not, the Talmud is what it is. The blasphemies against Christ have been known for centuries. The Talmud is written for rabbis who then became the sole arbiters of its interpretation and ultimately, the meaning of its content.



Whenever Jews or Rabbis are confronted about this, they don't deny the passages were/are there. They just deny the accuracy of the charges similiar to what you've done here. This pattern has been repeated time and again. They say they don't refer to Jesus by name, but only as "that man". This gives them deniability which is what is operative here the response being the passage don't mean what they say.

It's boiling down to the Talmud text means what rabbis say it means and no one else has the right to comment on the text. This has become the Jewish approach to discourse in general.

You seem well versed in the Talmud. How do you explain away the following?

A "good" Jew is to hold the life of the non-Jew as nothing more valuable than that of any other animal, as these quotes from the Talmud demonstrate:

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed. Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep. Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, "Accordingly if we see an idolater (gentile) being swept away or drowning, in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." Or this one: "It is a mitzvah (religious duty) however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as Jesus of Nazerath and his students, and Tzadok, baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot."

Lula, the Talmud is indeed what it is, but KNOWING what it says does require reading it.

Searching for "Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed." brings up David Duke's Web site as the first hit.



I am not. But I can type "Talmud" into Google and read.




Explain away what? A list of lies about the Talmud? What can I tell you? If I tell you that your stupid lies are indeed just lies and that the text you quote doesn't appear in the Talmud, how would that help you?

If you type your Talmud "quotes" into Google you will see that you get hits for white supremacists sites, a few Islamic extremist sites, and infidels.org. It is perhaps worrying, at least to me, that you learn your truths now from fascists, extremist Muslims, and atheists; but what worries me more is your complete disregard not only for the truth but also for the very idea of READING rather than repeating what people tell you.

What you don't get is hits on sites that offer the text of the Talmud. Perhaps the Jews have hidden the "real" Talmud, the Talmud that only Nazis and extremist Muslims (and you) know about but Jews do not? (What's the idea behind making available a Jewish text only to the enemies of the Jews but not to Jews?)

You are dishonest and stupid as well as lazy and hateful.

Most anti-Semites trying to score points with falsified Talmud "quotes" at least have the decency to go away when someone points them to the real text.




Yes, and it gives you the possibility to associate any text you like with Jesus to prove whatever you want to prove.

The fact that Jews simply don't care about Jesus has never entered your brain. And it doesn't matter if Jews tell you, because you don't believe them anyway, do you?

I consider it pretty stupid to continue spreading lies after the truth has been pointed out (with link to article explaining it).

I consider it anti-Semitic if someone makes up and believes lies about Jews and Judaism just because believing such lies fuels one's own hatred.

There is an interesting article in the N Y Times today about a stone tablet found amid the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Apparently it suggests that the notion of a suffering messiah who would rise in three days was a common belief in the century prior to the Christian Jesus.

Sorry I'm jumping in late to the discussion but I just got home from being away a couple of weeks. 

This is not news Sodaiho.  I could have told you that the suffering Messiah was written down long before the reality happened.  You just have to go to Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22 or other passages written well before Christ died on the cross.  Isaiah wrote 700 BC and predicted quite plainly on the suffering Messiah.  So? 

Your article is from the NY Times is just another attempt by the loony left to place doubt in the minds of those who are not HIS anyhow.  When you know the truth these lies are not even a blip on the Christian radar screen. 

There are many biblical OT references to the future life, death and burial of the Messiah to come.  The Jews would not and could not understand the whole suffering Messiah thing and totally rejected him.  They wanted a conquering Messiah not a suffering one.  They totally didn't read their own OT scriptures because they were totally engulfed in their own religious ways not taking the time to examine the scriptures like they should have. 

Nothing new under the sun there. 

If you go back to Abraham, which was a picture of the death and resurrection of Christ,  you'd understand that even Abraham thought his son would rise again as he went up Mount Moriah (the same mountain Christ was crucified on) to take his son's life.  His faith was that strong. 

God was saying to Abraham...."not your son......my son!" 

 

 

 

Really?...How is evolving Rabbinic Judaism much closer to Hebraic Judaism of 2000 years ago when you consider this?....

The problem is Rabbinic Judaism is of man, not of God. That alone should tell you something.

Rabbinic Judaism biggest problem is it's without a priesthood like that found in the Book of Moses Lev. 28. It was a priesthood "according to the carnal commandment", said St. Paul to the Hebrews 7:17 destined to give way to the "priesthood" according to the order of Melchisedec. Psalm 109, Hebrews 7, a priesthood without genealogy restored in Christ.

The Jews were the only specially selected people in the world with whom God made a covenant, in the days before the coming of the Christ. This covenant was a bilateral contract in the sense that the reward God promised would go to the "elect" IF they were faithful to His commands and prophecies. God told Moses to tell the Jews that,

"If you will hear My voice and keep My covenant, you shall be My peculiar possession above all people...and you shall be to Me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation". Exodus 19:5-6.

Aside from the fact that the Jews are no longer a "priestly kingdom", there stands the command of Moses which they fail to obey that bars present day Jews from calling themselves God's "chosen people" and would seem to conflict bigtime with your assertion, Leauki. Moses' command was that they listen to the "prophet" God would send, whom "thou shalt hear". Deut.18:15.

What of this "PROPHET" that Moses was saying the Jews should listen to? He was to be not like Joshua whom Moses invensted with the leadership of Israel. Not like the other prophets who funcitioned in Israel before the beginning of the Christian era, but like Moses. He was to be a Mediator between man and God, but Infinitely more excellent than Moses. Moses was a servant of the Lord, whereas the Prophet was to be the Lord Himself. David told of Him, as did Isaias and a host of others among God's elect.

Psalm 89:3, "I (the Lord) have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn to David My servant: Thy seed will I establish FOREVER, and build up thy throne TO ALL GENERATIONS."

While this throne of David would be occupied by Solomon, an earthly king, then, in the fullness of time, was to begin the reign of the "Begotten" Son of David, a spiritual KIng whose reign would continue "FOREVER".

Where can that throne of David be that was to last forever save in the spiritual throne occupied by the Messias, the Son of David? The King of the Jews came, the priesthood, the sacrifices, and temple of the Jews ceased to exist. There is no house of David in existence today in which a future Son of David can be born, being no longer needed, as the Abrahamic-Mosaic contract was fulfilled 21 centuries ago.

It's the Christians who have harkened to what the prophet Moses told future generations "to hear". It's the Christians who are "all the children of God through fiath in Jesus Christ (the Prophet of Prophets. For all you who are baptized have put on Christ..you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are offspring of Abraham, heirs to the promise." Gal. 3.

Note: everything comes back to Christ; He, without question, is the dividing line.



This is what I have come to terms with....

The mission that was once given to the Jews exclusively, that through them the world would be brought to belief in the ONe, True God, was given by the Messianic King of the Jews to His Church, the body commissioned to "Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."

The Jews today like most of their forefathers in Jerusalem have become God's wayward children, by their rejection of the Son of David, Jesus Christ. The "children of the promise" those who accept Christ as Moses said should be heard are the chosen people, and not the present day Jews who deny HIm. I'm not saying that God has abandoned all Jews. The very existence of Jews, despite the persecutions they have suffered, proves God has not cast off His people. God awaits on the Cross with outstretched arms, their coming inot His gentle embrace. Then will the remnant of Israel, regenerated through the holy water of Baptism be numbered among the chosen people.

I think it was Pope Gregory back in the 6th century who wrote in his Sicut Judeis non, "no one has the right to harm Jews or disrupt their worship services, but the Jews have likewise, no right to corrupt the faith or morals of Christians or subvert Christian societies."

This. as well as Christ's commandment to love one another as He loves us, is in stark contrast to what is written in the Talmud about the Jews care and concern for us Christians.



Calling me stupid or labeling me anti-Semitic doesn't hold water. It's getting so it's impossible for anyone who uses the word Jew as a category, says something negative about Judaism or the Talmud is charged with anti-Semitism. It's perfectly permissible to use the term when Jews are victims of some attack, but any reference to Jews as attackers (in this case of Christ and Christianity) is ipso facto evidence of anti-Semitism and now evidently also a sign of stupidity....well, of this Sodaiho, I'll say back to you, stick and stones will break my bones, but being called "anti-Semitic" isn't true and therefore doesn't apply or hurt me.

I have no fear of being stigmatized by the label of anti-Semitism...save it for when it really counts.

I write strictly to uphold my faith and devotion to God and to defend Catholicism.

KFC POSTS:

A hearty welcome back, KFC.

Isn't this just as true for those Jews today?

If the Talmudists were to "search the scriptures", written by the God inspired in Israel, instead of indulging themselves in the Babel of Talmudic opinions, they would see the Mosaic Law perfectly fulfilled in Jesus.

KFC,  Please read or re-read the article. I provided a link.  The biblical scholars are not the "looney left" but are from many universities examining this tablet.  From the article:

Lula writes:  A "good" Jew is to hold the life of the non-Jew as nothing more valuable than that of any other animal, as these quotes from the Talmud demonstrate:

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed. Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep. Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

This is a series of stretches. I have before me a copy of Tractate Sanhedrin. The section deals with the relations between heathen and Jews in the time of Torah.

"Rabbi Hanina said: If a heathen smites a Jew, he is worthy of death for it is written, And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw there was no man he slew the Egyptian. "

Talmud is incredibly complex.  It is a dialogue between rabbis over several centuries regarding the Torah and how it is to be applied.  Like fundamentalists of today, they took the word of God seriously and literally.  Who was the slayer of the non-Jew?  Moses.

How are we to understand it was OK for Moses to kill an Egyptian?

Because, as the tractate points out, the Egyptian struck an Israelite.

The rabbis go on:

Rabbi Hanina also said, He who smites an Israelite on the jaw, is as though he had thus assaulted the Divine Presence, for it is written, "one who smitith man (i.e. an Israelite) attacketh the Holy One".   

Moreover, the "worthy of death" clause refers to "by the hand of God" not by Jews.

Now, as times changed, so did our way of understanding.  Yet the written record of how the rabbis wrestled with the text remains with us today. One cannot take a line from Talmud and wrestle it from its context and times. Just like one cannot tale a law from the 1700s and apply it today without due consideration to the context of the times.

 

Lastly, Lula, don't forget, Christians took Jews lives, property and rights away for millenia.  To say that Jews don't consider Gentiles as humans is a bit of reverse projection of the historical record on your part.

Be well.

 

and I am well aware of the cherry picking distortions and manipulations of Torah and the Prophets which NON Christians have made in order to support their belief that Jesus WAS NOT the Messiah. 

Clearly huh?  Then how can you explain that Isaiah wrote 700 years before the fact that Jesus would died EXACTLY as he predicted and it came to pass? 

For instance, he wrote:

"Just as there were many who were appalled at him, his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness"  Isa 52:14

This clearly speaks of the severe beating he took before he took to the cross.  How did Isaiah know this 700 years before the fact?  According to your logic the only way this could have happened as you say is if Jesus, knowing the scriptures arranged for this to happen.  Did he have himself beaten this severely for others to follow him?  Beaten so badly it almost killed him...just not quite?

Isaiah goes on to write:

Surely he tok up our infirmaties and carried our sorrows yet we considered him sricken by God smitten by him and afflicted.  But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities...and by his wounds we are healed. 

He was assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death though he had done no violence nor was any deceit in his mouth.  Isa 53

How did he arrange the whole death and burial scene after he died?  We know he died a common criminal placed between two common thieves.  We also know he was buried in a rich man's tomb.  Did he arrange this as well?  How did Isaiah know this? 

How about his legs?  They were not broken as the other two criminals were to quicken the death process.  Instead, he was pierced in his side.  Scripture prophetically mentions his legs would NOT be broken.  Do you know why?  Are you familar with a shepherd who breaks the leg of a wandering lamb?  Christ totally submitted himself to the will of his father.  How about the Passover Lamb?  Did you not know that the lamb's leg was specifically said NOT TO BE BROKEN?  How would a Roman Centurian know this?  Why would he care if he did? 

How about David?  Do you believe in his writings?  He wrote a very desciptive section on the horrible aspects of the crucifixion in Psalm 22 including thirst and the mocking of the priests and soldiers hundreds of years before.  The startling prophetic words "they have pierced my hands and my feet" describe a method of execution that was NOT known until the Roman occupation several centuries later. 

What about his clothes?  How did he arrange for the soldiers to gamble for his clothing as he lanquished on that cross? 

Hundreds of years before David "saw" this and wrote it down:

"My strength is dried up like a potsherd and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth, you lay me in the dust of death.  Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.  I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.  They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.  Psalm 22

But I guess he went back to the writings of David and staged the whole thing. 

Ridiculous.  The more you examine the FACTS surrounding the BIRTH of Christ, including the exact location of his birth,  the more ridiculous your claims are. 

 

Lula, This is so far from the truth its ridiculous. Your knowledge of Judaism and its practices is practically nil.  Rabbinic Judaism saved Judaism in a time of tremendous upheaval when the Temple was destroyed.  The priests were essentially replaced by the rabbis and these are the people who studied closely the Bible to understand how we are to live.  Jewish life is biblically based...it is biblical life in partnership with God. 

Your faith suggests on the one side that the New Covenant fulfilled the old. By this you sometimes mean that you are now exempt from following God's law.  But not always.  You cannot commit adultery, but you can eat pork.  Goodness...talk about cherry picking.  Instead of throwing the Torah out with the bathweater, we Jews chose to try to understand how we could live according to God's commandements in a changing world.  Our lives are always God centered.

 

  

The New Covenant did replace the Old Covenant if you believe in Christ and the New Testament writers. The old law served it's purpose and that was to show us that no matter how hard one tried we could NOT keep it.

The whole idea was to show our dependence on God rather than ourselves.

Christ came and took that burden away by paying our penalty. He was the Passover Lamb. He was the Unleavened Bread (without corruption) and he was the firstfruit (the first to rise from the dead with the promise of more to come).

He will come again in the time of Rosh Hashana (trumpets) and shortly thereafter a Day of Atonement for the Jews will take place like no other. Then when all this is said and done, he final feast of Tabernacles will be enjoyed by both Jew and Gentile together.

"may Japheth (Gentiles) live in the tents of Shem" Gen 9:27

Hello KFC, Slippery. Nothing replaces God's contract. Its a contract and God is as bound to it as the Jews.  We can and do keep God's laws.  You do, as you understand them.  God does not require an intermediary like a Jesus.  Nor would God accept a sacrifice from an innocent on behalf of others. It doesn't make sense.  Jesus was not the "Passover Lamb"  That's a Christian understanding, but it doesn't make it so.  Matza was the unleavened bread, even in Jesus time and continues through today. Frankly, there is absolutely no evidence whatsover that Jesus rose from the dead.  We have only the word of his band of fellows who had a vested interest in proclaiming him the messiah and even that is a redacted version I'm sure.

If the New covenent replaced the old, why do you still follow some of the rules and not others?  You still consider what you call the "Old testament" the bible?  It is a sacred text, no?  And on what basis do you think you can pick and choose? 

Reform Judaism stands by reason, the history of application, context, ethics and morality, to assist in making such choices.  

Be well.

 

Sodaiho, If what you say is so, then why do Jews fail to obey Moses command "to hear" Christ ignored?



Put that together with the plethora of other OT passages and you know without doubt that Christ is the King of the Jews, the True, long-awaited Messiah.


If modern Jewish lives are so God centered, then why don't Jews understand that God meant what He said, and said what He meant?

It's becasue as your article suggests that even Jews today want a powerful leader, not a suffering servant. The leaders of the Jews, Annas and Caiphas representing all Jews who reject Him told Christ if He came down off that Cross, they'd accept Him as Messiah. Becasue they couldn't then and can't today accept a Messiah who suffered and died instead of restoring the kingdom in carnal fashion, the Jews who rejected Christ became revolutionaries.

It's from this group who rejected Christ that the Talmud came into being and modern Judaism as we know it was born.

]

 Moses never mentioned Jesus.

 

There are no references in the Torah or the Prophets to Jesus. Some of the references Christians cite are about a possible, longed for, unnamed messiah, a King or Warrior who would defend the Jews, not some idolotrous man-God.

 

 

Jews do understand this and live by it. You know the hallmark of Jewish faith and life is the sh'ma, "Hear o Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One".  Not two, or three...

 

 

This does not make sense to me. There was no single Jewish leader who represented anything.  If you knew anything of the times, and Jews, you would certainly know this. There wrere indeed several attempts by Jews to defend themselves against the Romans. You call it revolutionary.  Perhaps.  Religious freedom is revolutionary, don't you think?  And worth defending?

See ya.

Jews do.

That's why so many Jews spend so much time and effort learning Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic.

Assuming that G-d wrote the Torah, _I_ can actually read His words. I invested time and money to be able to do so. I quit my job (a well-paid job too) to go to Jerusalem and study Hebrew, during a war no less.

And I am not even religious.

Jews want neither a leader nor a servant. Jews want to be left alone.

Every aspect of a Jew's life is controlled by his or her relationship with G-d and Judaism. I myself don't even buy food without thinking about what I am allowed to eat and what I am not allowed to eat. I do not follow all the laws, but they are constantly on my mind.

I am not Shomer Shabbos (I dont' observe Shabbat) but I do stop working Friday evening and don't do work for money until Saturday night. Sometimes that results in lost opportunities.

G-d means as much to me as it takes to do the above. Plus I don't make up stories about other people's holy books, just in case they really did receive them from G-d.

You, on the other hand, happily make up lies about the Talmud and the Quran and don't think that there is anything wrong with lying.

So if you are wondering about people's relationships with G-d, compare the people who learn Hebrew and spent time and money for their faith with a liar like yourself. Just hope that G-d forgives everyone.

You are reform?

If you are ever in Haifa, check out Or Hadash.

http://www.or-hadash-haifa.org/

The rabbi plays guitar but otherwise it's quite OK. (He plays very well, actually.) And they have excellent food. (Fleishig, too.)

For the silent among the readers: "Or hadash" ('VR XDW) means "new light". The name refers to the concept that Jews are meant to be a light to the nations (and themselves, hopefully).

And if you are ever in Dublin, contact me!