You may not have seen my detailed explanation of these things and you may not be satisfied with it. First, the red heifers historically entrusted to Biblical "Jews" or Biblical "Israel" are indeed part of Christian heritage. If another red heifer is slain, it will not contradict anything in the Old Testament even though it will have much Talmudic context added, which is why I said it will also include all the details (modern) "Jews" are interested in. So they do have something to do with each other, namely that moderns believe they are honoring the same Old Testament that we believe we are.
I'm not listening to four hours of a face who doesn't have a transcript or an outline; you may wish to summarize. You may be consistent in your definition of "synagogue of satan", but it's not Jesus's definition, which was limited to non-Jews in two cities. Your theory probably relies on the fact that Ashkenazis are thoroughly genetically mixed with Khazars, but that does not make "Jews" the synagogue, nor does it make all Ashkenazis the synagogue, because this mixing does not erase the genetics from Israel and Judah that the Bible teaches were original. The same applies if you argue the Edomite infiltration. It's the height of racism to define another race differently from the way it defines itself, and is no longer a legitimate demographic discrimination but becomes an indictment against innocent Homo sapiens alongside the guilty.
Next, all Talmud interpretation is required to be consistent with the Old Testament; the ancient statement that Jews should follow the words of the sages "more" than the Old Testament does not allow the words to contradict the Old Testament but instead emphasizes that individual local rulings are more applicable than general principles. If you find a Jewish statement that the Talmud contradicts or overrules the Old Testament on any point of law, I'd be very interested to hear it.
My article on boiling excrement gives way too much detail on the context of that one sarcastic passage. I always say it's been misquoted here more often than rightly quoted, about a dozen times more; for instance, there is no pit, and the "Yeshu" character does not say he is present in the boiling. This is important because people who say they want to criticize the Talmud must quote it correctly or else they will appear to be shills using reverse psychology to create favor for the Talmud via easily debunked arguments. Note also that the Talmud criticized three or more people who could be nicknamed "Yeshu" from three different centuries, so "Yeshu" is actually a composite stock character anyway. There are other caricatures of "Yeshu" present, but the only passage in which Jesus of Nazareth is identified clearly is the one that says he was hanged up on the day of Passover by order of the Sanhedrin but he had many disciples who continued to propagate his teachings.
In general virtually all attempted quotes from the Talmud fail to go to the source in its context and find out the reason. To criticize the Talmud rightly on its superstition, insularity, or eschatology requires accuracy. Yes, the Jews believe that those not brought into their covenant are missing out on what it means to be human: just as we Christians believe. Yes, they have pretty antagonistic statements about their political enemies: just as we have in the Christian patristics of the same period. And, they also have the theoretical hope that any outsider can come into the covenant by Scripture study and God's work, just as we do. Differences are of course admitted. But if you posit that certain Jews are so racist as to consider other Homo sapiens as less than themselves, you need to ensure you are not taking that racist view of others yourself.
I've found that when I present these facts they are routinely answered with an ad hominem argument, so I need to advertise in advance that I will not be answering those. If you don't agree with the facts and logic I present, then give your own organized facts and logic so that it can be discussed. However, all your statements are off-topic for OP, so it'd be better if you made a separate Conspiracies post so they can be reviewed by the community on their merits.
The TALMUD has nothing to do with the old testament. Sorry to say this brother, but your words come out as someone who attends a cuckold of a pastor receiving Jewish money to fool his congregation.
The JEW absolutely despises you. He even despises you much more than he despises the Muslims yet so many fall for Jewish lies. No wonder Christians have been dying for their Jewish master for so long.
Great Christian men have died trying to spread the truth about the Talmud and here you are defending it.
I'm a Christian who has learned the Hebrew-cultural roots of the covenants of the Bible and who insists on facts and logic. I've always said I'm publicly accountable to Scott Lively and First Century Bible Church, and that has only gotten people to imagine that Scott has some secret Jewish tie. However, thank you for stepping up and joining the conversation.
"The JEW" is not a term that refers to any cognizable entity. If you said "Jews" you'd be closer because you'd refer to a cognizable group of people, some of whom despise me, but not all. Overall, the methodology of group characterization is fatally flawed.
Who died trying to spread the truth about the Talmud? Donin didn't. There are lots of failed attempts to spread mixtures of truth and error about the Talmud, which is why I (face persecution from your likes to) post accurate quotes and analysis. But the failed attempts to describe the Talmud didn't get martyrdoms either. (It amazes me how both Jews and Christians fail to get the Talmud placed in a proper, stable cultural perspective, like the patristics have achieved. Nobody objects that the Christians have crazy church fathers, nobody gets obsessed with proving the Christians false by their confessors, all religions pretty well accept that the patristics are just there and are part of history and need not be read as anything more than that.)
I appreciate your links, I didn't get around to them while compiling my own research collection earlier so I'll be happy to comment there. However, it appears you're looking for guidance to one writer's summary opinion without remembering that, for Jewish protection, there are always many opinions in Judaism. What counts is actual practice as documented in primary sources and/or rabbinical organizations.
So for now, for OP's sake let's defer conversation to your three excellent older threads on the subject, a little bit later, thanks.
You are going through a phase. I hope to God that your wake up call is a mild and effective one that is not a painful process.
ALL religious JEWS despise you. By all I mean truly all. The only ones who do not despise you are Jews who are almost non-Jews (i.e. those who were raised in Christian communities and had little contact with Jewish brainwashing)
You missed the very simple fact that ALL Jews consider Jesus to be an imposter. If they considered him anything but an imposter they would have become Christian.
Most Jews are nonreligious and try not to consider Jesus at all, or give unthinking acceptance to the cultural judgment. Theologically, the teaching (Maimonides) is that Jesus is not the Messiah because he hasn't done it all yet. Those few that I've spoken of (1%) do count him an impostor, but even Marching to Zion couldn't find a rabbi that would defame Jesus outright, the closest the rabbis would say was "maybe" he's an impostor.
I've spent a very long time learning about Jews, no phase. This enables me to speak to even those who do not believe in Jesus because I can establish common ground on many other points, which is the same thing evangelists do with any other culture. When this is established, a time comes in a relationship when you can ask freely what the individual thinks about Jesus, and then provide more information in a Jewish context. This is the only way to evangelize, and evangelize we must according to Romans 11.
Jews who have accepted Jesus as Messiah, numbering about a million according to a Lifeway survey, do not consider themselves non-Jews. Your creating a special category for "little contact" shows that you don't want to leave the monolithic view that so informs your other opinions; but I think you've done enough research to realize you don't need to hold on to it.
Are you stressed out about Israeli TV for one minute after the way we treat Jews, blacks, and Muslims on Scored for years? This may be more rent-free than I thought.
Do you dare me to go to Chabad or the Conservative synagogue and strike up a conversation along any lines, and report back to you?
You may not have seen my detailed explanation of these things and you may not be satisfied with it. First, the red heifers historically entrusted to Biblical "Jews" or Biblical "Israel" are indeed part of Christian heritage. If another red heifer is slain, it will not contradict anything in the Old Testament even though it will have much Talmudic context added, which is why I said it will also include all the details (modern) "Jews" are interested in. So they do have something to do with each other, namely that moderns believe they are honoring the same Old Testament that we believe we are.
I'm not listening to four hours of a face who doesn't have a transcript or an outline; you may wish to summarize. You may be consistent in your definition of "synagogue of satan", but it's not Jesus's definition, which was limited to non-Jews in two cities. Your theory probably relies on the fact that Ashkenazis are thoroughly genetically mixed with Khazars, but that does not make "Jews" the synagogue, nor does it make all Ashkenazis the synagogue, because this mixing does not erase the genetics from Israel and Judah that the Bible teaches were original. The same applies if you argue the Edomite infiltration. It's the height of racism to define another race differently from the way it defines itself, and is no longer a legitimate demographic discrimination but becomes an indictment against innocent Homo sapiens alongside the guilty.
Next, all Talmud interpretation is required to be consistent with the Old Testament; the ancient statement that Jews should follow the words of the sages "more" than the Old Testament does not allow the words to contradict the Old Testament but instead emphasizes that individual local rulings are more applicable than general principles. If you find a Jewish statement that the Talmud contradicts or overrules the Old Testament on any point of law, I'd be very interested to hear it.
My article on boiling excrement gives way too much detail on the context of that one sarcastic passage. I always say it's been misquoted here more often than rightly quoted, about a dozen times more; for instance, there is no pit, and the "Yeshu" character does not say he is present in the boiling. This is important because people who say they want to criticize the Talmud must quote it correctly or else they will appear to be shills using reverse psychology to create favor for the Talmud via easily debunked arguments. Note also that the Talmud criticized three or more people who could be nicknamed "Yeshu" from three different centuries, so "Yeshu" is actually a composite stock character anyway. There are other caricatures of "Yeshu" present, but the only passage in which Jesus of Nazareth is identified clearly is the one that says he was hanged up on the day of Passover by order of the Sanhedrin but he had many disciples who continued to propagate his teachings.
In general virtually all attempted quotes from the Talmud fail to go to the source in its context and find out the reason. To criticize the Talmud rightly on its superstition, insularity, or eschatology requires accuracy. Yes, the Jews believe that those not brought into their covenant are missing out on what it means to be human: just as we Christians believe. Yes, they have pretty antagonistic statements about their political enemies: just as we have in the Christian patristics of the same period. And, they also have the theoretical hope that any outsider can come into the covenant by Scripture study and God's work, just as we do. Differences are of course admitted. But if you posit that certain Jews are so racist as to consider other Homo sapiens as less than themselves, you need to ensure you are not taking that racist view of others yourself.
I've found that when I present these facts they are routinely answered with an ad hominem argument, so I need to advertise in advance that I will not be answering those. If you don't agree with the facts and logic I present, then give your own organized facts and logic so that it can be discussed. However, all your statements are off-topic for OP, so it'd be better if you made a separate Conspiracies post so they can be reviewed by the community on their merits.
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSy6ENVAJlY
The TALMUD has nothing to do with the old testament. Sorry to say this brother, but your words come out as someone who attends a cuckold of a pastor receiving Jewish money to fool his congregation.
The JEW absolutely despises you. He even despises you much more than he despises the Muslims yet so many fall for Jewish lies. No wonder Christians have been dying for their Jewish master for so long.
Great Christian men have died trying to spread the truth about the Talmud and here you are defending it.
I have already done a lot of research on the Talmud. You can look up some of it here: https://conspiracies.win/p/13zfvWer8H/know-thy-talmud-1-the-talmud-con/
I'm a Christian who has learned the Hebrew-cultural roots of the covenants of the Bible and who insists on facts and logic. I've always said I'm publicly accountable to Scott Lively and First Century Bible Church, and that has only gotten people to imagine that Scott has some secret Jewish tie. However, thank you for stepping up and joining the conversation.
"The JEW" is not a term that refers to any cognizable entity. If you said "Jews" you'd be closer because you'd refer to a cognizable group of people, some of whom despise me, but not all. Overall, the methodology of group characterization is fatally flawed.
Who died trying to spread the truth about the Talmud? Donin didn't. There are lots of failed attempts to spread mixtures of truth and error about the Talmud, which is why I (face persecution from your likes to) post accurate quotes and analysis. But the failed attempts to describe the Talmud didn't get martyrdoms either. (It amazes me how both Jews and Christians fail to get the Talmud placed in a proper, stable cultural perspective, like the patristics have achieved. Nobody objects that the Christians have crazy church fathers, nobody gets obsessed with proving the Christians false by their confessors, all religions pretty well accept that the patristics are just there and are part of history and need not be read as anything more than that.)
I appreciate your links, I didn't get around to them while compiling my own research collection earlier so I'll be happy to comment there. However, it appears you're looking for guidance to one writer's summary opinion without remembering that, for Jewish protection, there are always many opinions in Judaism. What counts is actual practice as documented in primary sources and/or rabbinical organizations.
So for now, for OP's sake let's defer conversation to your three excellent older threads on the subject, a little bit later, thanks.
You are going through a phase. I hope to God that your wake up call is a mild and effective one that is not a painful process.
ALL religious JEWS despise you. By all I mean truly all. The only ones who do not despise you are Jews who are almost non-Jews (i.e. those who were raised in Christian communities and had little contact with Jewish brainwashing)
You missed the very simple fact that ALL Jews consider Jesus to be an imposter. If they considered him anything but an imposter they would have become Christian.
This is what they show on their national TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HytrKvXGljc
Most Jews are nonreligious and try not to consider Jesus at all, or give unthinking acceptance to the cultural judgment. Theologically, the teaching (Maimonides) is that Jesus is not the Messiah because he hasn't done it all yet. Those few that I've spoken of (1%) do count him an impostor, but even Marching to Zion couldn't find a rabbi that would defame Jesus outright, the closest the rabbis would say was "maybe" he's an impostor.
I've spent a very long time learning about Jews, no phase. This enables me to speak to even those who do not believe in Jesus because I can establish common ground on many other points, which is the same thing evangelists do with any other culture. When this is established, a time comes in a relationship when you can ask freely what the individual thinks about Jesus, and then provide more information in a Jewish context. This is the only way to evangelize, and evangelize we must according to Romans 11.
Jews who have accepted Jesus as Messiah, numbering about a million according to a Lifeway survey, do not consider themselves non-Jews. Your creating a special category for "little contact" shows that you don't want to leave the monolithic view that so informs your other opinions; but I think you've done enough research to realize you don't need to hold on to it.
Are you stressed out about Israeli TV for one minute after the way we treat Jews, blacks, and Muslims on Scored for years? This may be more rent-free than I thought.
Do you dare me to go to Chabad or the Conservative synagogue and strike up a conversation along any lines, and report back to you?