3
SwampRangers 3 points ago +3 / -0

This don't help much, because if your primary evidence of oddity is said by some to be an enlarged head, well, all human fetuses have enlarged heads. She has nine or ten ribs (pairs), well, that might indicate why she may have been miscarried. She ain't "a couple decades old", she was found in 2003 by Oscar Munoz; the DNA supports the theory of genetic mutation, indicates Chilean origin, and gives a date of under 500 years old. The fact that she may be recent enough to have traceable relatives is a rights issue, but there is no proof indicating an excessively recent date.

The initial argument that the skeleton had the knee plates of a 7-year-old was debunked in favor of the genetic evidence that progeria artificially aged the plates and this was a miscarriage.

So, great find. I have both a credulous and a skeptical side. The skeptical says I don't have indications that elongated heads are indeed unnatural, and the credulous suspects that there are more oblong heads walking among us than we realize.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2313828/Is-really-human-DNA-tests-inch-skeleton-alien-looking-creature-sized-head-prove-actually-human-claim-scientists-new-documentary.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/health/atacama-skeleton-mystery/index.html

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

You sure have a strange view of war. Why don't you publish a link or two to these atrocities so that I can join your armchair judgment? You seem to assume an awful lot about other people, which is probably why you're not passing reading comprehension either. Thanks for the links, as I said, anytime.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +2 / -1

I don't think it's doxing to say I'm "unvaccinated" in the new sense. I've said enough here about my sovereign American citizenship that I shouldn't be confused with someone allowing any other rule than Jesus's.

When you find a Christian who agrees with (that Jew) St. Paul on being a love-slave of (that Jew) Jesus and on doing everything he can to save some (of those Jews) by giving them knowledge of Jesus, you should've had enough Bible not to be surprised.

-1
SwampRangers -1 points ago +1 / -2

We don't get to say Jews have always acted like demons because the perfect man, our God, came as a Jew.

We can get specific about killing millions, if we admit that Christians and atheists have done the same thing.

I don't defend demons or demonic activity. I don't have enough info on Gaza to judge war decisions; those can only be judged with significant context. I'm not going to try to pick out what you mean out of a poster's profile.

I'm on the record calling out any sin equally. Someone posted that a Jew spit on a Christian and the police did nothing; well, that's bad law, but it's still the law there, if I understand. Should I protest that law any more than writing a sentence about it? I think I have more important things to do, such as to dissuade racism by promoting a view of not judging the innocent with the guilty.

You have given no evidence of cuckoldry, you merely object that I don't criticize them as much as you do. I criticized them a whole lot on ConPro but that wasn't enough so they nuked all my critical research; so it suggests that, in some minds, nothing can save one from false charges. Oh wait, didn't I tell you I would avoid responding to ad hominems?

Funny that you appeal to the liberal Jew to tell you what the Orthodox Jews are doing. Of course a liberal Jew would agree with the ConPro crowd, they both want to propagate their own and the Orthodox Jews are not like them. Racism is the same everywhere, fren, and when I came here 3 years ago I laid down my definition of it and haven't had to change it once. Our praying one for another is sufficient.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's an excuse that can faultily prove anything. If you want to claim something is hidden, you must show valid evidence from which the possibility is inferable. Nobody argues successfully that the opponent says all kinds of evil things in secret. I already told you that the primary things hidden in the Talmud are individual words and things already publicly challenged by the Inquisition. They also have no obligation to republish individual opinions that are hundreds of years old and that they've already moved beyond but August Rohling hasn't. All my arguments are on evidence, the distorters' arguments are often not.

0
SwampRangers 0 points ago +1 / -1

Actually, Christians were accused of the blood libel before Jews were, and that's because they freely told people that they were drinking Jesus's blood. It stuck better with Jews, and there is some evidence that satanism works well with them, but it also stuck with Roma ("Gypsies") and other European groups accused of witchcraft. Have you noticed how many pedophilia arrests we're making lately of Gentiles?

0
SwampRangers 0 points ago +1 / -1

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?

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

(4a) This is not about sexuality as OP might suggest alone, but more about review of how the Jew and the Gentile are different. When we remember that the person who proclaims the true God is considered to have joined the Jew, and the person who rejects the true God is considered to have left the Jews, regardless of birth race, it becomes clearer that only those under God's protection are those with all the blessings of being human. This context is often ignored in discussing the distinction.

(4b) See my comments on Sanhedrin 54b-55a; Sanhedrin 55b; Ketubot 11b (also covering Sanhedrin 69b); Avodah Zarah 36b-37a. I have not looked into Sotah 26b before; but it simply says that bestiality is not a category of adultery, not that bestiality is legitimate.

(4c) Much repeated from the same author. See my comments on Yevamot 59b; Ketubot 11b as to Sanhedrin 69b again; Sanhedrin 55b; Yevamot 57b; Yevamot 60b; Niddah 44b. I didn't get Yevamot 55b before; on first glance this appears to be another categorization issue, namely that necrophilia does not count as adultery. Necrophilia is instead punishable as contact with a corpse, which renders impurity, but it was not considered a capital crime like adultery. Your specific reference to marrying a woman who had intercourse with an animal is Yevamot 59b, and, as I pointed out, this was a provision of mercy for a specific young girl of Hitlu who had been attacked sexually by a dog. Thereby it was presumed that such an act was unintentional as a default view, but if there was evidence it was intentional it would be punished as bestiality and not cleared to the priesthood.

In short, your concerns about apparent immorality are generally echoes of the objections of others who did not understand the Talmudic context and who did not read it like a specialized wiki directory where relevant information is not nearby or readily found without memorization. When one is responsible for any massive law code, one generally must know where to find things even though they are vastly separated, or else one will be confused by the missing context; this is absolutely true of the US Code. Most sentences that seem to allow immorality when taken alone are actually about dealing with collateral issues of the immorality, which has been dealt with more summarily in a different passage. There are a few oddities that are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, such as marital anal sex and necrophilia, and the Talmud follows this by not ruling out of hand that these things are necessarily punishable in themselves, but that they are to be judged by analogy instead; and the Christians make the same type of judgment about such matters outside the specific explicit text.

You conclude with another reference to the obfuscation of Sabbath law, with mention of superstition in the Talmud, and with mention of the Zohar, which is a late book teaching a specific mystical mindset among some Jews. Each of these can be given their own criticism generically as you point out. These things being worthy of some criticism, such as things explicitly in the Talmud that I've alluded to, does not mean that we get to lump everything together as evil or to misquote or to judge beyond what is written. Each teaching must be taken on its own and its context realized. The conclusion would be that the Talmud has many things that are culturally challenging, and some that indicate bias or incompletion in development of morals, but nothing that demonstrates that the religion itself is guilty of teaching evil. Rather, the religion is to be judged, in each person who upholds it, by whether that person knows God and submits to his true Messianic plan (now revealed in Jesus). The Talmud will not tell us the state of any man's soul. Thank you for permitting my review.

0
SwampRangers 0 points ago +1 / -1

As another user notes, the first main paragraph is full of sweeping generalizations that do not support their point. To call "every real position of power" connected to Jews is to focus on one facet of a multifarious problem, satanism, that is equal-opportunity with respect to any peoples. To call Jews mostly Talmud-followers is to ignore that most Jews are irreligious, secular. To call the Talmud a "moral basis" is misleading at best because it's not taken as inspired but merely as a steppingstone in continuing organic tradition that grows with time. To say that the Talmud exposes parasite plans is also a fail because those plans come from satanism and are only infiltrated into the Talmud like they are infiltrated into the church fathers or any other religionists; the devil's plans are understood by understanding God's plan first so that the inserted counterfeits can be quickly spotted. So the conclusion, commending study of Talmud's greatest gaffes as if it gives a unique window into defeating the devil, is misguided at every step.

I won't repeat more contextualizations I put in parts 1 and 2.

The quote you cite about anal sex does not come from the Talmud but from the 12th-century Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 21: "A man may ... with his wife ... engage in vaginal or anal intercourse." The Torah and Talmud agree that anal intercourse with a man is forbidden, but I don't think either one directly answers the question as to women. I would have assumed the prohibition against gay anal sex would apply to women, but in the Christian Bible it appears God decided it sufficient not to get specific but to leave it as man's duty to procreate and woman's prerogative to have only consensual sex. And I've heard a Christian pastor imply anal sex was permitted in Christian marriage, though I disagree; but I can't argue that it's taught either way specifically in the Bible. So I don't think that our modern objection about the immaturity of a medieval ruling really does justice to understanding the religious context.

(1a) Shabbat 32b accurately says: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him."

(2a) Not worth debating, the author rejects Jesus and Christianity because of rejecting both animal and (Jesus's) human sacrifice, which fails to understand the point of either. The Talmud does not permit human sacrifice to Moloch under any conditions. Judges 11 in the Christian Bible does speak of the giving up of Jephthah's daughter, but it is never said this is a human sacrifice so it probably was a temple dedication just like Samuel's a little later in the history. I believe the site is using a Muslim-based methodology and sourcing (Carol Valentine's "Come and Hear"), so it's pretty biased and is possibly one of those that pretends to be neutral but has all the hallmarks of Islam.

(2b) Well, I was right, you just went from the one hasty search result to its source, Come and Hear. I've dealt with this biased source before and it is linked to Islam, so please accept my testimony that it has no interest in logical conclusions. However, it does deal with the description of sacrifice to Moloch in Sanhedrin 64a ff. This is not a doctrine that children may be sacrificed, this is a discussion about when it can be proven the parent had sufficient intent for the sacrifice to be executed, and the answer was if the parent both consented verbally and participated in injuring the child. If a child was sacrificed without both these happening, the parent was not a guilty party. It only describes when the human court takes action, applying mercy by leaving lesser sins (partial or conflicted action) for God to judge. So there is no permission for sacrifice, but there are instead paths by which conflicted actions can be ruled as being less than actual sacrifice.

(2c) There is no reason to demean an anonymous Oprah guest describing satanic ritual abuse attributed back to 1700. If the entire story is taken at face value, it simply illustrates what is now more commonly known about satanic ritual, and what has always been hinted about it. The fact that it's happened in some Jewish families is more likely to indicate that it's happened in families of all religions than that it's happened in all Jewish families. No reference to Talmud either.

(3a) Does not prove what you summarized; it shows teachings that, generically, the charity of Gentiles is not to be taken as sincere and should not typically be accepted. Well, at times when there is no guarantee Gentiles have any moral code, this would make sense; and at other times, it is a minimum that can be built upon. There is no prohibition in the text, just a deprecation.

(3b) Well, I appreciate this source (Stormfront's Hoffman and Critchley), because it supplies data that others have quoted anonymously that I hadn't successfully tracked. But it's pretty well all editorialized rather than understood. The quote you refer to is from "Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10": "Idolaters .... It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as Deut. 7:2 states: 'Do not be gracious to them.' Accordingly, if we see an idolater 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." Since this refers to Deut. 7:2, it only includes true idolators (the seven pagan nations), and further it only refers (by using the drowning example) to heroic measures that might endanger one's own life. There is no teaching that it's always a sin to help Gentiles.

(3c) Since the applicable section just refers to TalmudUnmasked.com chapter 15, I'll just refer to my page with reference to Avodah Zarah 26a-b; Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 388; Sanhedrin 59a; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10 (again); Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 158. I have not given full rebuttals to the others (yet), but the ones from which you took your primary points are addressed there, and most of the others are post-Talmudic individual opinions anyway.

(3d) Again, this is another scattershot source, but a good one to know in case I ever intend to have these better organized. The quotes that relate to your main points are already addressed here or on the link page.

I'll need to take a break here and return to the remainder later.

0
SwampRangers 0 points ago +1 / -1

These are good examples of circuitous legislation to resolve conflicting culturally developed goals of law. The same is true of legislation worldwide. If we were to understand the cultural desires not to offend certain ancient principles, we could speak to them without ridicule. Jesus logically argued against similar practices by demonstrating that the law permits a simpler resolution considering the big picture, because he was the Torah embodied (the Word). We can only rescue people from impotent practices by understanding their concerns.

You again mention Sanhedrin but it has no existence in this day that I know of.

0
SwampRangers 0 points ago +1 / -1

I'm not commenting on the war much while it's in progress because I think its conclusion will indicate the judgments to be made. It's obvious that anyone in war celebrates the defeat of the enemy, and sometimes soldiers go overboard compared to mature moral judgment, so I don't take war drama as proving much.

The legal status of Christians in Israel is a valid criticism; the historical involvement of Jews in dehumanizing trades is a criticism; these can be traced to the Talmudic period without any need to misrepresent the text. The Christian Bible saying that it is a man's prerogative to write a divorce decree (Deut. 24:1-4) is a different method of handling divorce than our own, and has its criticisms, but Jesus affirmed it and our own doesn't seem to have removed suffering.

To answer your other question, some Jews make a schedule to read one page of Talmud a day, which takes about seven years.

I've pointed out that the correct number of slaves is indeed 2,800, found in Shabbat 32b: "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." This is an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer. Whatever Zechariah means for the future destiny of the Christian in commanding the allegiance of others, I claim for myself. So the Jewish tradition making this out to be 2,800 slaves is just one interpretation that might apply to all true believers in God.

Your video is useful in showing how these thoughts are applied in Orthodoxy, but it's clear that they are being contextualized as well along the lines I describe. The unbeliever is not as humane as the believer; the believer benefits from the many labors of many people around the world; the believer hopes for a kingly lifestyle in a future heaven on earth. If we were to compare these hopes to other eschatological views in other religions we would find nothing surprising. Context is the necessity.

0
SwampRangers 0 points ago +1 / -1

So I tell people the Talmud should be understood as a giant wiki with frontpages and backpages. It has everyone's opinion, and all it goes to show is what opinions existed. In many cases the majority opinion can be found by following the flow, and in some of these cases the majority is regarded as binding on Orthodox Jewish practice, but these are a very small percentage (1%-5%) of the opinions in the Talmud.

Your assertion that the Orthodox pick the worst reading does not seem to be instantiable. I don't believe the Talmud forbids occupation of Palestine prior to Messiah; rather, Ezekiel 36-37 indicates that return to Palestine will happen before Israel understands the Messiah's purpose, and no Talmudic passage will contradict that. The idea you quote is that, since everything is foreknown deterministically by God, it's impossible to "hasten" or "slow" the coming of Messiah by action, but since free will exists it's appropriate to do what is right that will in time bring the coming of Messiah. So if the Talmud speaks of occupying the land of Biblical Israel, it only builds on the Old (and New) Testament prophecies about this.

0
SwampRangers 0 points ago +1 / -1

As I explained, "Yeshu" was a name before it was an acronym, so any reader would understand first it meant anyone with a Joshua-derived name, and applying the acronym to it centuries later was an added redefinition. There was no scenario in which "Yeshu" was replaced with the phrase, the phrase was replaced with the acronym (still "Yeshu"), and the original name was lost; that's all a misinterpretation.

We do have an acronym "Akum" meaning "star and constellation worshipper", which is a euphemism for idolators including Christians. That doesn't affect much because any castigation of idolators is likely valid and the missing piece of whether Christians are idolators is never directly addressed. In Talmudic times all sectarians (minim) were treated alike and there was never a time when Christians (who started out as just a Jewish sect) were singled out. In medieval times there is some objection to "lords of three", but this likely means tritheists in context (apostates among Christians), as the Jewish stream of thought did not have any language by which it could directly reject trinitarians.

So most statements against groups, even if we assume they are codenames, have the features that (1) they are not officially, or normatively, against Christians, and (2) if they mean Christians among a group of Jews then that coding has no effect outside its reach and can only be rejected when it is made clear. For instance, it seems to me that a few people here use the word "jogger" to indicate a particular race. These users can always say they didn't mean anything other than one who jogs, and if they are actually using the word to communicate evil intent then nobody outside can catch them without formal proof. We can argue that this looks duplicitous and double-dealing, but we can't use statements about joggers, out of context, to prove to an outsider that the evil intent is present. Should we then regard all users of the word "jogger" as racist? Of course not.

0
SwampRangers 0 points ago +1 / -1

As I said in part 1: The entire Talmud is relatively stable online in its three sections (Bavli or Babylonian is the biggest and often mistaken for the whole). Tracking individual medieval rabbinic opinions is indeed difficult but these are rarely authoritative.

https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Mishnah

https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud/Bavli

https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud/Yerushalmi

Part 2 here is not too far off the mark. The biggest problem with finding cites is that the citers themselves are excessively erratic. If you quote the Talmud accurately and by folio, it's easy to find, but if you say the Bible says somewhere God helps those who help themselves then who can know what you're talking about? Then there is a second problem with finding cites, namely that there are a few words changed, and a few passages expurgated, but this is no more difficult than handling the Bible either; and in fact some expurgations were mandated by the Inquisition.

The medieval Zohar and the many commentaries are indeed hard to track, but they don't represent Judaism. If I go and say a Christian book says there is no hell, that's not Christianity. But in the 19th century many critics of Judaism (including Pranaitis of "Talmud Unmasked") lumped everything they heard or could find into long books of critiques that were divorced from context; and my quotes page traces how many of these were further made unfindable due to transcriptions from German, French, etc., and recompilation over time. The original authors often had manuscripts at hand that we have no idea how to find nowadays, meaning the originals have no reach whatsoever nowadays except via their being misquoted! So, overall, the disputation between everything ever said in Judaism and every criticism ever made in Christianity is indeed poorly organized in every century and still ongoing. But we can always assist the processing of that disputation here in small part.

Since the Talmud has faced variant readings, we do indeed need to use a little textual criticism to compare readings, just as with the Bible or any ancient text. But, even when we take the worst readings, they never amount to dogmatic Judaism, they only indicate trends in Jewish thought that come and go. We can learn from the worst of the trends, but we have no right to treat all modern Jews as following the extremes. It's appropriate to know how the variants may indicate an earlier text, but without direct evidence we can't invent a text that isn't extant simply because other things had other variants. For instance, Yeshu is never replaced with "the one whose memory shall be erased", that's a misunderstanding. It's always Yeshu, but in one instance it is said that Yeshu is an acronym for "may his name and his memory be erased", so that readers, if they wish, can think the one thought whenever they read the name Yeshu. But Yeshu is not Jesus's name, it's a nickname that wouldn't have been applied to him except possibly in one hill-country region of Judea. So having the facts is essential to process the criticism correctly.

I'm not prepared to discuss every page of "Talmud Unmasked" yet, but I've begun a collection, linked above, of the most egregious charges when placed in their right context. I agree entirely with OP on the point that the right understanding of these passages in context is essential to being able to object to facets of Talmudic Judaism. The problem is that the original objectors (among which Pranaitis was more balanced than average) overcompensated so much in the direction of castigation that their misattributions remain memetic today. It's true that there's an insularity in the Talmudic culture that appears debasing to outsiders, but that aspect is true of most races and religions and that is why we need the truth of Jesus as Messiah to remove such barriers. By misrepresenting the Talmud we only increase the barrier, challenging readers either to grow more racist than the Talmud is accused of being, or else to grow more sympathetic toward the Talmud in its having been misrepresented.

0
SwampRangers 0 points ago +1 / -1

Sanhedrin 37a indeed states: "Therefore, Adam was created alone, to teach you that anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him as if he destroyed an entire world. And anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him as if he sustained an entire world." So it's true that Bennett's summary is misleading, but it's also true that the context compares the soul to Adam, who is not from the Jewish people, so the text also implies Bennett's conclusion without stating it directly.

The idea that non-Jews are not human is no more to count as a Talmudic opinion than it is to count as a Biblical opinion given the Old and New Testaments' very many allusions to people as animals ("lost sheep of Israel", e.g.).

The idea that non-Jews are literally animals shaped as humans is a kabbalistic notion of an arcane branch of Zohar study that is not mainstream at all. Some examples of both ideas appear in my quotes page.

Daniel and Revelation appear to teach that there will not be one world leader until the end, and before then there must be a multiplicity (ten) of powerful princes until they all agree to hand power to the one en masse. You get better info on the cabal from Daniel and Revelation than you do from the Talmud.

The "nascent Sanhedrin" that was active in 2004-2006 is mostly literally dead and retired. Nobody is using it anymore, although there may exist officials empowered to reconstitute it without a service break. It's my suspicion that the actual intent would be to reconstitute it fully newly using the same smichah methods as last time; otherwise there is no meeting body whatsoever of Sanhedrin nature.

As to the video in point 1, an interview with Yossi Gurvitz:

It's one writer trying to summarize, beginning with the "unchanged polity" view and continuing: "Now first of all, the problem with this version of history is that it is completely baseless. And second of all, that it has a few historical problems, and these historical problems continue to this day." The first argument, that the source of Judaism is Talmud rather than Torah, is accurate in the sense that Talmud as a claimed expansion of Torah is indeed the foundation for (orthodox) Judaism; but the fact that the Mishnaists decided the canon has nothing to do with Judaism and Christianity both being traced from hundreds of years of Jews who held the Torah as the first books of the Bible, and so it does not annul the foundationality of Torah to the Talmud. Second, the fact that there was a historical hiatus before Yavneh (Rabbinical) Judaism does not make the earlier historical testimony invalid as liberal critics believe; the identity of ethics in these two eras can thus be recognized.

The attempt to sweep away all this known history is then revealed to have the purpose of establishing a new thesis: "Rabbinical Judaism is a Judaism that hates humans." In this the Jewish speaker does agree with certain summary judgments about Talmud, but I do reserve the right to disagree with the sweeping generalization. First, the citation of Judaism regarding outsiders as "less than human" is honestly very similar to both Christianity and any other movement that considers outsiders not to have the full revelation of life: we count the "unsaved" who will never be "saved" as wicked and earning endless torment, and we implore those presently unsaved to turn from their wickedness, and in context this is what I see in the Talmud as well. Second, some distinctions raised, such as there being no rabbinical punishment for killing a non-Jew, are simple jurisdictional issues because the rabbis considered that Gentile courts would be responsible for punishing the killing of a non-Jew. (The aside "Orthodox Judaism has never abolished slavery" reveals that the writer considers himself some kind of greater Jew, even though human trafficking in our abolitionist era is worse than any slavery era.) The fact that the Shulchan Aruch, 16th century, then codifies certain permission for killing non-Jews and considering them idolators, does not have modern application but is an attempt to explain away past incidents by justifying them as posse-style capital punishment (i.e. Lynch law).

The statement that Maimonides "decrees that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a 3-year-old girl" again belies the facts shown in my quotes page. The original legislation came in an era when Rome was sexually abusing children of all ages, and Judaism was beginning to institute age-based protections; and the various passages on different aspects of these protections are often not read together to establish the whole picture. Sanhedrin 55b, for instance, describes execution for forbidden intercourse generally, building on Gen. 2 and Deut. 22; Yevamot 57b says that, in the case of the girl not over three, she is not rendered impure by the abuse, and this was intended to protect that child from disrepute later in life. Second, Maimonides allegedly "decrees that if a Jew rapes a three-year-old non-Jewish girl, then she must be executed"; actually, the writer means a girl over three. I suspect that the speaker is misquoting Maimonides, who did say that a girl over three is "fit" for intercourse, meaning that intercourse with her should be treated as full adult intercourse, not that it is permissible; and that this subjects her logically to the punishment of adult execution, unless the court shows mercy as it typically would in such a case. Maimonides also agrees with the generic ruling of executing the abuser as above, but if his or the Talmud's statements on allied concepts are taken out of context, a false argument from presumed silence is engendered.

The speaker then alludes to a Talmudic principle that peace permits the laws not to be applied to the full extent of their punishment. Well, duh. This appears throughout the Bible, as early as Judah learning to show mercy upon Tamar's capital crime (because it was his own as well). Nothing in the Talmud requires a capital punishment to be carried out to the end, and the Talmud praises a court for showing mercy consistently in capital matters. The mercy principle would only be objectionable if someone inferred that "real" Judaism wants merciless justice, but this inference cannot be taken from context and is only something templated upon the out-of-context passages, as mercy is praised in Torah and Talmud right alongside justice. Did the Hasmonean Jews genocide Hellenists and Edomites or force conversion, illustrating such mercilessness? I don't know! But even if wartime actions are questionable to people long after the fact, they do not indicate that the Talmud teaches mercilessness at all times "Israel is strong", as opposed to teaching in only in the time of just war. The speaker appears more concerned with Orthodox proclamation of Messiah signs, stating that Maimonides indicates Israeli independence is one such sign and implying the Orthodox ignore the rest; but the Orthodox know there are many hundreds of Messiah signs and they seek to bring them all about, which is an ordinary eschatology seen in other faiths too.

Returning to individual laws, he notes the Talmud encourages not contacting or eating with Gentiles in the race-based state: which is, of course, everything white nationalists want of racial purity too. The solution of all having their own state should be immediate. "Other laws forbid you from treating them fairly. You are forbidden to return a lost item to a non-Jew - except in order to 'keep the peace'." These are again out of context; the core law is that you cannot abase a Gentile, and the subtexts are that, e.g., it's not necessary to go out of your way to get involved in preventing abasement of a Gentile when it happens for some other reason, nor to go out of your way to find an unknown owner of a found item. The rash telephone-game restatement of these passages is responsible for their misunderstanding. He summarizes, "There are all kinds of prohibitions that are entirely psychotic, that are based on a religion of vengeance", but this undercuts the religion that he claims in some sense to be "reforming" and thus the whole foundation of the morality that he claims to be improving on, which is a facile and impotent methodology.

I did not know about a book "Torat Hamelekh". It was written in 2009 by rabbis and rejected by many others as untrue representation of halakhah. The fact that there is an extreme wing of Talmud interpreters not accepted by other Orthodox should not be taken as indications of what the Talmud teaches in context. More to the point is that some Orthodox seminarians are accused of hating Christians as automatic idolators and to urinate on churches; this is indeed a problem of a hardcore segment, but it is to be resolved by dialogue and defense. In short, the fact that a Jew is denouncing extremism in Judaism shows that the problem is not Judaism but extremism; the fact that a Jew (following the example of Nicholas Donin) forswears the Talmud and Orthodoxy doesn't mean that the religion is the problem. The problem, of course, is failure to agree on the nature of God and his rule of the world, which is to be resolved first through understanding dialogue (Rom. 11).

Your point 2 seems to be that the Talmud's having to account for early Christianity would make it opposed to Christianity. Oddly, when I investigated I found very little such opposition. As I pointed out elsewhere, the Talmud has one passage that definitely refers to Jesus, stating that he was hanged up during Passover by demand of the Sanhedrin, and that he had many disciples who went on to preach his message in his name. There are a few other passages about a generic "Yeshu", who is identified with three or more different people of different eras, and there are a couple that may refer to Yeshu's mother, but each of these has the ordinary disadvantages of being political caricature separable from history and of having no effect whatsoever on moral teaching. It can be understood that the Rabbinical Jews would have slight concern with a movement that came from Judaism that taught plurality in the deity and that focused on a two-phase Messianic strategy, since the remaining rabbis did not understand this, nor the destruction of their temple. But, even accounting for later censorship, the extent of this is extremely mild. Among two thousand, one rabbi, Ulla, clearly comes out against Jesus of Nazareth as an idolator. And among many Jewish commentators, there are a few, like Tovia Singer, who regard being anti-Jesus an essential of Judaism. However, the vast majority of Jews do not regard this as part of Judaism, and indeed they structure Jewish life as far as possible to permit avoidance of Christianity rather than opposition to it. (If we argued that many Jews find power and then make life harder for non-Jews, it would still appear that this is directed by most across the board rather than at Christians in particular, and that the minority truly opposed to Christianity cannot be taken as representative of "Jews" or "Judaism" at large.)

So I trust these haphazard conclusions are helpful to this thread. Knowing enough about the Talmud to criticize it accurately is indeed important. Recognizing that it has ordinary animus to outsiders, and comparing this with similar corpora and modern theories, is instructive. Reading the Talmud should not be done with bias on either side, either to think that the culture of hundreds of years (descended from the same covenant people Jesus grew up among) was automatically all evil, or to think that the same culture was automatically all good.

0
SwampRangers 0 points ago +1 / -1

The entire Talmud is relatively stable online in its three sections (Bavli or Babylonian is the biggest and often mistaken for the whole). Tracking individual medieval rabbinic opinions is indeed difficult but these are rarely authoritative.

https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Mishnah

https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud/Bavli

https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud/Yerushalmi

0
SwampRangers 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yeah, but not very deep in some of those directions. Satanism infiltrates everything so it's not a special feature here. Baalism ties to Saturnism per Amos's citation of Chiun, but it has gone through many reversions since. Black cube really goes nowhere. Star of Remphan in its original meaning as a demonic entity ties to Saturnism, but not to hexagrams as the link shows; hexagram have never been stars of Remphan except by outsider appropriation.

So, speaking of Talmudic Judaism, the underlying temptation to satanic ritual abuse really is not much bigger than I've seen in any other religion. The temptation to pit fights against outsiders in modern Judaism does appear to be higher than average races or religions, but that is a pretty recent development as the Talmud itself only appears equally xenophobic with other texts of its era.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

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.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hey, it's in the Christian Bible, Numbers 19. I haven't seen evidence of any changes since then.

Add: If it wasn't clear, there has been no Jewish holy water since the first century, and there is no historical connection whatsoever between holy water and blood libel.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +3 / -1

What kind of stupid headline is this? This bloggish site's headline has nothing to do with the article, which is about transport of liquid hydrogen and says nothing about teleportation or loss. Boring, useless article with false clickbait lead.

2
SwampRangers 2 points ago +2 / -0

Very good question in the end, I think I've seen someone compare water blessing with water memory, and the parallels are strong.

The scientific side of water memory, which of course has been overshadowed by grandiose attached claims that hide the basic science, is that water's unique shape lends itself to potential persistent organizational properties. Scientists agree this happens in the case of freezing, where H2O ice expands unlike most other frozen solids, due to a crystallization in the organization. Water memory is the idea that the same thing happens above freezing temperatures, and that this is achieved by music or other vibrations. I'm not competent to judge it in either direction, so I leave it open in my theory file; happy to hear that this source conducted repeatable inquiries.

If we posit that holy water blessings do increase internal structure in the water, this may result in macro effects that explain some of the alleged acidic properties when applied to e.g. vampires.

Note that this is not the same, though closely related, to holy water in the tabernacle and temples. That water included ashes of the red heifer (of which nine have been slaughtered in history), and any process of blessing with music has been lost to history. However, if the red heifer slaughter makes the news cycle (it could happen any time Israel is sufficiently at peace to allow the ritual without any risk of interruption), we might see a universal holy water blessing explained in all the details Jews are interested in. The Christian details for the allied ritual are well-covered in your material.

view more: Next ›