JESUS WAS A JEW
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (15)
sorted by:
Facts are Facts by Benjamin H. Freedman:
Judean only has a geographic connotation, and not a religious connotation like the word Jew.
The form of religious worship known as 'Pharisaism' in Judea in the time of Jesus was a religious practice based exclusively upon the Talmud. The Talmud in the time of Jesus was the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, all rolled into one, of those who practiced 'Pharisaism'. The Talmud today occupies the same relative position with respect to those who profess 'Judaism'.
Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer wrote a most revealing and comprehensive article with the title, "What is a Jew", which was published as a feature article in "Look" Magazine in the June 17, 1952 issue. In that article, Kertzer evaluated the significance of the Talmud to "Judaism" today. In that illuminating treatise, on that important subject, by the most qualified authority at the time, Kertzer stated:
Then he states:
As to the origin of the present "Jews" in Palestine, he states that those Jews derived from Eastern Europe and are not descendants of the Judeans, or the lost tribes of Israel, but rather descendants of the Khazars, a nation most people don't even know of:
On the Khazars, of Persian origin, he writes:
They adopted the Hebrew alphabet and the "Khazars adapted words to their requirements from the German, the Slavonis, and the Baltic languages". This language was known as "Yiddish", using the Hebrew alphabetic characters, but not itself Hebrew. Ask any one who speaks one of those languages to listen to Yiddish, and they will not only hear similarities, but have a vague understanding of what is being said.
This is only a part of the true history, but why bother being entangled in such vanity?
When we find ourselves in a dark cave of poor decisions, listen to that still small voice, that leading voice of conscious:
That is the voice of God, seeking to comfort and to call, to call everyone into a knowledge of His Light:
Why allow the world to put such despair and doubt in the mind? Why let the world teach of their traditions?
Have a personal study of the Bible, and learn of this love which any language of the world simply can not capture:
Jesus Christ, the name which the world wages a total onslaught against, is God Himself:
And despite the hatred of the world,:
here is the invitation, from God Himself, with the unfathomable cost of His own blood, freely given for this very same world:
TLDR: Words change meanings and can be weaponized.
Again these are old SDA sources.
False. Modern sources show the word "Jew" arose in English in the 13th century, and the divergence in meanings of Ioudaios to include both Judean and Jew would necessarily date from the destruction of Judaea and renaming of the region in 135 AD. In the Bible Ioudaios has both meanings at once, as it is much older than Judaea Province but refers to the people before they were given a Roman province.
False. The Talmud was completed in the 5th century AD. Pharisaism in Jesus's time was one of several formal sects of Judaism (including also Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Herodians, Sicurians, and Messianics). Pharisees and Sadducees leaned heavily but not exclusively upon the oral and written mishnah, a Talmudic source, which is essentially identical with "the tradition of the elders"; since the mishnah was in formation Jesus properly contributed to it as the greatest rabbi of the era.
False. First, for the reasons above. In the time of Jesus, the mishnah, the Sifra and Sifre, the Mechilta, notes in the targumim and qere, and other early legal codes that preceded and informed the Talmud were regarded more like Northwest Ordinances that informed religion. The Torah was the Magna Carta and Declaration, the rest of the Tanakh (OT) was the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, and the oral traditions were like Supreme Court decisions.
False. As should be clear by the quotation marks, this is not Rabbi Kertzer's sentence, but Benjamin Freedman's. Further, Freedman is not familiar with a history of blasphemy of Christ from Celsus to LaVey that includes not only the Toledot Yeshu but also hundreds of anti-Christian governments that have little or nothing to do with Judaism. Having looked at all the key Talmudic passages that might be construed as negative toward Christ or Christianity (compare Peter Shaffer, Jesus in the Talmud), I'm comfortable saying that only one rabbi (Ulla) in only one such passage (Sanhedrin 43a) is actually negative about Jesus, in an otherwise historically accurate passage; every other such allusion whatsoever conflates nascent Christianity with other movements rejected by the nascent Talmudists, and cannot be used as evidence of blasphemy. The many other non-Talmudic sources I allude to are much more blasphemous than this.
False. Again, the phrasing above makes this appear to refer to Kertzer's words, but the quote and the sequel are actually Freedman's words to David Goldstein. Further, because the Khazars converted to and intermarried within Judaism, particularly intermingling with Armenian, Balkan, and Crimean Jews, they were accepted by all Jewry as full fellow Jews and their Khazarian heritage has been lost. There is not sufficient evidence that a non-Jewish Khazarian "diaspora" existed and connected to Ashkenazim by any other route than absorptive intermarriage. We don't get to follow Freedman in othering the Ashkenazim by calling them non-Jews when all Jews accept them as Jews.
The remainder of the post contains good Biblical advice. However, the uncritical reliance on Freedman hampers your presentation.