Yep, the talmud is a psyop to steal, murder and destroy the things God wanted known for our good.. Torah and Tanakh are good and seamlessly lead into New Testament.
Lots of evidence is floating around but it doesn't point and I don't think that's the right take.
I suppose we could say those traditions Jesus rejected were psyops and thus the Talmud contains similar psyops.
My take is that the Talmud reflects the mixed testimony of Judaism and the worst in it is retained, not for it being valid, but for it reflecting concerns held by leaders esteemed by later generations.
I believe Jewish evangelism involves "unspoiling" the mixed testimony, which I define as claiming the good and removing the bad.
Unspoiling is good and logically means things have been spoiled. I think the talmud is a false trail to lead people astray, a stumbling block when they already had a straight path given by God in a literal manual.
Then your view of it is like my view of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, whom many Christians still revere. I can't name a single thing I respect about them. But according to my theory their work is mixed too rather than all bad.
Yep, the talmud is a psyop to steal, murder and destroy the things God wanted known for our good.. Torah and Tanakh are good and seamlessly lead into New Testament.
Lots of evidence is floating around but it doesn't point and I don't think that's the right take.
I suppose we could say those traditions Jesus rejected were psyops and thus the Talmud contains similar psyops.
My take is that the Talmud reflects the mixed testimony of Judaism and the worst in it is retained, not for it being valid, but for it reflecting concerns held by leaders esteemed by later generations.
I believe Jewish evangelism involves "unspoiling" the mixed testimony, which I define as claiming the good and removing the bad.
Unspoiling is good and logically means things have been spoiled. I think the talmud is a false trail to lead people astray, a stumbling block when they already had a straight path given by God in a literal manual.
Then your view of it is like my view of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, whom many Christians still revere. I can't name a single thing I respect about them. But according to my theory their work is mixed too rather than all bad.
I'm not (edit: too) familiar with them.
Mixing is my issue and many do it, and I'm not mature enough to not get mad.