The Talmud

[shankara]

The author searched in the BABYLONIAN TALMUD, translated online (sefaria.org), for the source of a number of supposed quotes from the TALMUD, all paraphrased, listed on an internet forum. This contained around sixty quotes in total, none of which were directly quoted from the translated text of the Talmud.

Edited by Agatha:

copypasta snipped for rule 4. The original text can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/...4r/the_talmud/

[Porpoise of Life]

TL;DR version: watch out for those sneaky conniving Jews who are always plotting to exploit everyone else.

At least, that's what I think OP meant...

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by shankara

The author searched in the BABYLONIAN TALMUD, translated online (sefaria.org), for the source of a number of supposed quotes from the TALMUD, all paraphrased, listed on an internet forum. This contained around sixty quotes in total, none of which were directly quoted from the translated text of the Talmud.

Edited by Agatha:

snipped for rule 4

Im sure there’s a point yearning to be made in there somewhere. Perhaps if I leave some cake near the last para, it can be coaxed out...

[MikeG]

Copypasta. Don't we just love it. The OP might want to have a little look at the rules before too long, particularly Rule 4.

What has any of this iron-aged Arab clap-trap got to do with the modern world?

[Cleon]

I see anti-Semites are still trying to pretend that the Talmud denounces Jesus.

The Talmud does not mention Jesus.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by shankara

The author searched in the BABYLONIAN TALMUD, translated online (sefaria.org), for the source of a number of supposed quotes from the TALMUD, all paraphrased, listed on an internet forum. This contained around sixty quotes in total, none of which were directly quoted from the translated text of the Talmud.

Maybe "the author" (you?) could provide some context wherein these supposed quotes were found? Or did you just make that up?

Originally Posted by shankara

I hope this work will prove helpful to anyone in search of understanding.

Understanding of what?

Originally Posted by shankara

In a case when one found a lost item in a city where both Jews and gentiles reside, if the city has a majority of Jews he is obligated to proclaim his find. If there is a majority of gentiles he is not obligated to proclaim his find.
(BABA MEZIA 24a)

I went to look at the site you mentioned for that chapter and verse. Why did you decide to quote just two sentences out of a whole discussion?

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

TL;DR version: watch out for those sneaky conniving Jews who are always plotting to exploit everyone else.

At least, that's what I think OP meant...

After a sample of one: pretty much yeah.

[shankara]

Originally Posted by Cleon

I see anti-Semites are still trying to pretend that the Talmud denounces Jesus.

The Talmud does not mention Jesus.

The Talmud does mention Jesus, Gittin 57a

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by shankara

The Talmud does mention Jesus, Gittin 57a

It probably mentions him in several places, pejoratively too. But these have been censored by Jews in fear of Christian persecution. See Jesus in the Talmud^WP.

To later Jews Jesus was a heretic and disparaging comments about him are to be expected. These were later concealed as far as posssible for fear of Christian hostility

The first Christian censorship of the Talmud happened in the year 521. However, far better documented censorship began during the disputations of the Middle Ages. Advocates for the Catholic Church alleged that the Talmud contained blasphemous references to Jesus and his mother, Mary. Jewish apologists during the disputations said there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud, and claimed Joshua and its derivations was a common Jewish name, that they referred to other individuals. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.

Yeshua is in fact a common name, and more than one person of that name is mentioned in the Talmud, so it isn't easy to work out who's who.

But what is the point you are trying to make?

[shankara]

Originally Posted by ddt

Maybe "the author" (you?) could provide some context wherein these supposed quotes were found? Or did you just make that up?

So I checked out a few of the quotes and some of them seem to be on their own and others surrounded by lengthy discussions. Of all those I looked at none seemed to be contradicted by the following discussions.

A short example:

'Rabba bar Avuh now asks Elijah another question: From where is it derived with regard to a naked person that he may not separate teruma? He replied: As it is written: “And He see no unseemly thing in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). This verse indicates that one may not recite any words of sanctity, including the blessing upon separating teruma, in front of one who is naked.
אמר ליה לאו כהן הוא מר מאי טעמא קאי מר בבית הקברות א"ל לא מתני מר טהרות דתניא ר"ש בן יוחי אומר קבריהן של עובדי כוכבים אין מטמאין שנאמר (יחזקאל לד, לא) ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם אתם קרויין אדם ואין עובדי כוכבים קרויין אדם
The amora proceeded to ask Elijah a different question and said to him: Is not the Master a priest? What is the reason that the Master is standing in a cemetery? Elijah said to him: Has the Master not studied the mishnaic order of Teharot? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says that the graves of gentiles do not render one impure, as it is stated: “And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man” (Ezekiel 34:31), which teaches that you, i.e., the Jewish people, are called “man,” but gentiles are not called “man.” Since the Torah states with regard to ritual impurity imparted in a tent: “If a man dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), evidently impurity imparted by a tent does not apply to gentiles.
אמר ליה בארבעה לא מצינא בשיתא מצינא א"ל ואמאי אמר ליה דחיקא לי מילתא דבריה ועייליה לגן עדן אמר ליה פשוט גלימך ספי שקול מהני טרפי ספא שקל
Rabba bar Avuh said to him: How could I be familiar with that baraita? If I cannot be proficient in the more commonly studied four orders of the Mishna, can I be knowledgeable in all six? Elijah said to him: Why are you not learned in them all? Rabba bar Avuh said to him: The matter of a livelihood is pressing for me, and I am therefore unable to study properly. Elijah led him and brought him into the Garden of Eden and said to him: Remove your cloak, gather up and take some of these leaves lying around. Rabba Bar Avuh gathered them up and took them.'

The part about the Gentile not being considered human is not discussed or contradicted.

Originally Posted by ddt

Understanding of what?

What the Talmud is about?

Originally Posted by ddt

I went to look at the site you mentioned for that chapter and verse[/url]. Why did you decide to quote just two sentences out of a whole discussion?.

Good point. I looked for the quotes I found on the forum (two thirds of which I didn't find) and copied the relevant parts, i.e. the parts corresponding to the paraphrases I found. It may be that it would be worth putting them all in context but I doubt that the final meaning would be much different based on those I've looked into so far. Still, if I get round to checking them all out will let you know if any are in fact bogus.

" These seem to have roughly the same signification as ascribed to them on the original list, but I’ll leave it up to you to consider for yourselves what they signify in reality, surely there will be dispute about this and it is entirely possible that I’ve missed or misunderstood some subtleties."

Originally Posted by ddt

After a sample of one: pretty much yeah

Well, it says what it says.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by shankara

What the Talmud is about?

Then you are doing a lousy job.

In a few words or less, tell us what you want us to learn about the Talmud and why.

[shankara]

If you can be bothered to look through this:

files.fm/u/asr9t756

It contains the quotes in their context. I didn't find much in the way of direct contradiction of the opinions expressed in the quotes which I previously posted

[ddt]

Originally Posted by shankara

So I checked out a few of the quotes and some of them seem to be on their own and others surrounded by lengthy discussions. Of all those I looked at none seemed to be contradicted by the following discussions.

Evasion of the question noted. Why can't you answer a simple question who you mean with "the author" in your OP, nor a simple question whence these quotes came from.

Originally Posted by shankara

Well you know there seems to me to be a lot of anti-Goyism in it, that's one thing. Maybe that anti-Goyism helps to explain what's happening in Israel etc. Does that really look like a religion of love for humanity?

Sure, not every Jew is a Zionist, still, trying to explain the Zionist thing without references to it's inspirations is shallow.

Oh yeah and this thing about Jesus being boiled in ****...

So, it's just another antisemitic diatribe. Got it. Your conflation of a religious tract, the Talmud, with a secular ideology, Zionism, is also noted. When you read Prof. Uriel Tal's essay "On Modern Lutheranism and the Jews", (mentioned in this post) you can see that early 20th Century Lutheran theologians often did the same.

As to those alleged Jesus references, they're all contested. The name Joshua/Jesus was really a common name among Jews, much like John in English.

[shankara]

Originally Posted by ddt

Evasion of the question noted. Why can't you answer a simple question who you mean with "the author" in your OP, nor a simple question whence these quotes came from.

I'm the author. The quotes from the Babylonian Talmud at sefaria.org . Do I understand your question correctly?

Originally Posted by ddt

So, it's just another antisemitic diatribe. Got it. Your conflation of a religious tract, the Talmud, with a secular ideology, Zionism, is also noted. When you read Prof. Uriel Tal's essay "On Modern Lutheranism and the Jews", () you can see that early 20th Century Lutheran theologians often did the same.

As to those alleged Jesus references, they're all contested. The name Joshua/Jesus was really a common name among Jews, much like John in English.

It's just what I came up with having searched for the quotes I found online. Around two thirds of them were spurious, probably invented by skinheads. Those which I did actually find, I compiled. I've since had another look at the sections which they were in and they are seemingly respected opinions, I don't think any of them are directly refuted within the Talmud itself... Anyway, no matter.

I'm unconvinced that Zionism is an entirely secular ideology. Many of the settlers for example are doing the settling because they believe it is necessary to prepare for the coming of the Messiah.

The text refers to Jesus of Nazareth. Maybe there was another famous Jesus from Nazareth?

[ddt]

Originally Posted by shankara

I'm the author. The quotes from the Babylonian Talmud at sefaria.org . Do I understand your question correctly?

Still evading are you? I asked where those supposed quotes you found online came from.

Originally Posted by shankara

It's just what I came up with having searched for the quotes I found online. Around two thirds of them were spurious, probably invented by skinheads. Those which I did actually find, I compiled. I've since had another look at the sections which they were in and they are seemingly respected opinions, I don't think any of them are directly refuted within the Talmud itself... Anyway, no matter.

I'll try to translate that: you offered your buddies on Stormfront to check those quotes and to take the discussion to a respectable forum.

Originally Posted by shankara

I'm unconvinced that Zionism is an entirely secular ideology. Many of the settlers for example are doing the settling because they believe it is necessary to prepare for the coming of the Messiah.

I note you don't call them Zionists.

Originally Posted by shankara

The text refers to Jesus of Nazareth. Maybe there was another famous Jesus from Nazareth?

It says "Jesus the Nazarene", which is different. Now I don't know about the original Hebrew and whether that translation is accurate. Nor what the provenance of that sentence is. According to wiki, the Talmud only speaks about "Yeshu" in Gittin 57a. So someone filled in "the Nazarene" which is absent in the Hebrew text.

[shankara]

Originally Posted by ddt

Still evading are you? I asked where those supposed quotes you found online came from.

Sorry, now I understand your question, I wasn't trying to evade. They come from this page: quora.com/Does-the-Talmud-refer-to-non-Jews-as-non-human-animals

Originally Posted by ddt

I'll try to translate that: you offered your buddies on Stormfront to check those quotes and to take the discussion to a respectable forum.

I don't hang out on Stormfront, I have no problem with immigration, black people, Muslims etc. Those sort of ideas are cruel and extremist, it just seems to me that there are some cruel and extremist ideas in the Talmud as well.

Originally Posted by ddt

I note you don't call them Zionists.

Call who Zionists? Sorry I don't understand.

Originally Posted by ddt

It says "Jesus the Nazarene", which is different. Now I don't know about the original Hebrew and whether that translation is accurate. Nor what the provenance of that sentence is. , the Talmud only speaks about "Yeshu" in Gittin 57a. So someone filled in "the Nazarene" which is absent in the Hebrew text.

Well perhaps, yet I would imagine that sefaria.org is a pretty good translation and I don't know why they would add the words 'the Nazarene'.

...You know there's a difference between having a problem with some of the Ultra-Orthodox Talmudic craziness and the Hassidic ideas that the Goyim are the limbs of Satan and don't have souls than having a problem with people simply because of their race.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by ddt

...Now I don't know about the original Hebrew and whether that translation is accurate...

If Ziva dropped by, I know I'd trust her scholarly opinion.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by shankara

Sorry, now I understand your question, I wasn't trying to evade. They come from this page: quora.com/Does-the-Talmud-refer-to-non-Jews-as-non-human-animals

Was that so hard to understand?

I haven't nearly seen all those quotes in your OP there, but why then did you post this list of quotes first on Reddit's r/conspiracy, and now here - and not there in that Quora thread?

Originally Posted by shankara

I don't hang out on Stormfront, I have no problem with immigration, black people, Muslims etc. Those sort of ideas are cruel and extremist, it just seems to me that there are some cruel and extremist ideas in the Talmud as well.

Got it. You're not against blacks or Muslims, you only have it in for the Jews.

Originally Posted by shankara

Call who Zionists? Sorry I don't understand.

The religious settlers. Oh, and it's "whom".
It's really tedious when we first have to go through you feigning a few rounds of "I don't understand" when asked a question.

Originally Posted by shankara

Well perhaps, yet I would imagine that sefaria.org is a pretty good translation and I don't know why they would add the words 'the Nazarene'.

As interpretation? You may have noticed that the English translation is about twice as long as the Hebrew original, and that about half of the English translation is in bold. Can you explain to me why?

Originally Posted by shankara

...You know there's a difference between having a problem with some of the Ultra-Orthodox Talmudic craziness and the Hassidic ideas that the Goyim are the limbs of Satan and don't have souls than having a problem with people simply because of their race.

Got it. More antisemitism. And without textual support. Maybe you should have read the most up-voted response in that Quora thread:

Quote:

The Talmud doesn't represent just one opinion but contains within it the largely unedited, unfiltered dialogues of numerous rabbis on a wide variety of subjects. Consequently, a diverse set of opinions can be found on almost every subject, including opinions that are in the minority and not followed by Judaism (which goes by the majority opinion).

[shankara]

Originally Posted by ddt

Was that so hard to understand?

I haven't nearly seen all those quotes in your OP there, but why then did you post this list of quotes first on Reddit's r/conspiracy, and now here - and not there in that Quora thread?

Why? Because it seemed to me like pertinent information which is worth sharing.

Originally Posted by ddt

Got it. You're not against blacks or Muslims, you only have it in for the Jews.

I'm pretty terrified about Israel becoming Ultra-Orthodox, it's bad enough as it is. It's not that I have a problem with the Jewish race.

Originally Posted by ddt

The religious settlers. Oh, and it's "whom".
It's really tedious when we first have to go through you feigning a few rounds of "I don't understand" when asked a question.

To call a settler a Zionist would be a tautology.

Originally Posted by ddt

As interpretation? You may have noticed that the English translation is about twice as long as the Hebrew original, and that about half of the English translation is in bold. Can you explain to me why?

Hmm. I don't speak Hebrew so I couldn't say.

Originally Posted by ddt

Got it. More antisemitism. And without textual support. Maybe you should have read the most up-voted response in that Quora thread:

Well, I suppose I disagree with that person's opinion, from what I've read of the text (and I devoted a bit of time to checking out the context of the quotes) there seem to be some things which are genuinely about hatred for the Goy.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Kid Eager

Im sure there’s a point yearning to be made in there somewhere. Perhaps if I leave some cake near the last para, it can be coaxed out...

But if it sees it's shadow we'll have two more months of BS.

[Zivan]

Originally Posted by shankara

The text refers to Jesus of Nazareth. Maybe there was another famous Jesus from Nazareth?

Originally Posted by ddt

It says "Jesus the Nazarene", which is different. Now I don't know about the original Hebrew and whether that translation is accurate. Nor what the provenance of that sentence is. According to wiki, the Talmud only speaks about "Yeshu" in Gittin 57a. So someone filled in "the Nazarene" which is absent in the Hebrew text.

It only says "Yeshu" in the original language, with no reference to which/whoever this Yeshu (a very common name) is.

The English addition of "the Nazarene" was added by some random person.* (see below)

There were different editions of the Talmud published with various amounts of censorship and censors' errors. Some editions of Gittin 57a say "sinners (plural) of Israel" and do not even say "Yeshu" at all.

That is noted in parenthesis in the original language at the sefaria.org link of Gittin 57a. It is not noted in the English translation right next to it.

Whichever edition is found online, whether it is "sinners of Israel", or "Yeshu" neither uses the word "Nazarene" or "Nazareth".

Originally Posted by shankara

Well perhaps, yet I would imagine that sefaria.org is a pretty good translation and I don't know why they would add the words 'the Nazarene'.

Maybe you should stop "imagining" what you think a "pretty good translation" is and maybe find out some actual info.

Sefaria.org was started by a former Google employee and a journalist. The Babylonian Talmud (William Davidson translation) was added to the site last year.

*It is open source and anyone can add/edit to it.

Originally Posted by shankara

Hmm. I don't speak Hebrew so I couldn't say.

You do not speak Hebrew so is it also safe to say you do not read it either? Or Aramaic? (The two languages the Talmud is written in).

I have already pointed out how English translations can be inaccurate so how do you know if what you cherry-pick and quote mine is correct or not? Let alone the context.

Originally Posted by shankara

Well, I suppose I disagree with that person's opinion, from what I've read of the text......

I see. You cannot read the text for yourself in the original languages, but you disagree with the "opinion" of a person who can.

How do you disagree with something you cannot even read?

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/...&no=&seite=622

Originally Posted by shankara

....(and I devoted a bit of time to checking out the context of the quotes)......

How do you know what the context even is since you cannot read the language and rely on questionable "translations"?

[shankara]

Originally Posted by Zivan

It only says "Yeshu" in the original language, with no reference to which/whoever this Yeshu (a very common name) is.

The English addition of "the Nazarene" was added by some random person.* (see below)

There were different editions of the Talmud published with various amounts of censorship and censors' errors. Some editions of Gittin 57a say "sinners (plural) of Israel" and do not even say "Yeshu" at all.

That is noted in parenthesis in the original language at the sefaria.org link of Gittin 57a. It is not noted in the English translation right next to it.

Whichever edition is found online, whether it is "sinners of Israel", or "Yeshu" neither uses the word "Nazarene" or "Nazareth".

Well I'm still pretty convinced that they're talking about the Christ. By the time the Babylonian Talmud was compiled he was pretty well known and it seems kind of likely that the Jesus they were referring to was the one who claimed to be the Messiah and got crucified.

Even if you are correct and this isn't referring to Jesus there's definitely some serious Jewish chauvinism in Gittin 57a. "Who are the most important people in the next world? The Jewish people"

Originally Posted by Zivan

Maybe you should stop "imagining" what you think a "pretty good translation" is and maybe find out some actual info.

Sefaria.org was started by a former Google employee and a journalist. The Babylonian Talmud (William Davidson translation) was added to the site last year.

*It is open source and anyone can add/edit to it.

Ok so let's say it's not a good translation. In which case, how many of the things I quoted would be incorrect? All of them? Then it would have to be a very bad translation indeed.

For example apparently the most authoritative statements begin with "The sages say". One of my quotes for example was that the sages say it's forbidden to heal a Goy. Justify that.

Furthermore I don't think the text itself is editable. Where did you get that idea?

Originally Posted by Zivan

You do not speak Hebrew so is it also safe to say you do not read it either? Or Aramaic? (The two languages the Talmud is written in).

I have already pointed out how English translations can be inaccurate so how do you know if what you cherry-pick and quote mine is correct or not? Let alone the context.

Well for example a lot of people quote the King James Bible. It isn't by any means a perfect translation but most would agree that it captures well enough the essence of what the Bible says. Are you saying that people can't understand the New Testament because they don't read it in Greek?

I took the time to check out the discussions surrounding what I quoted (admittedly I perhaps posted hastily without checking this out first) and it seemed to me like the majority, if not all, of the quotes were not elsewhere directly refuted.

Originally Posted by Zivan

I see. You cannot read the text for yourself in the original languages, but you disagree with the "opinion" of a person who can.

How do you disagree with something you cannot even read?

See above.

There are Protestant, Catholic etc,. scholars who read the Bible in Greek and yet don't understand it's essential message because they are trapped in a dogmatic paradigm of interpretation.

Originally Posted by Zivan

How do you know what the context even is since you cannot read the language and rely on questionable "translations"?

Again see above.

Really how "questionable" is the translation? It was evidently made with good intention by people with no bias against the Jews.

[Zivan]

Originally Posted by shankara

Well I'm still pretty convinced that they're talking about the Christ.

Of course you are.

Quelle surprise.

Originally Posted by shankara

By the time the Babylonian Talmud was compiled he was pretty well known and it seems kind of likely that the Jesus they were referring to was the one who claimed to be the Messiah and got crucified.

By that "logic" do you also think the ~20 different men mentioned by Josephus with the name 'Jesus' were also "the one who claimed to be the Messiah and got crucified"?

Like most antisemites, you are not very good at this.

Originally Posted by shankara

Even if you are correct and this isn't referring to Jesus there's definitely some serious Jewish chauvinism in Gittin 57a. "Who are the most important people in the next world? The Jewish people"

Speaking of the "next world", what do you have to say about the Christian teaching that only Christians go to Heaven and all non-Christians burn in Hell for eternity?

Originally Posted by shankara

Ok so let's say it's not a good translation. In which case, how many of the things I quoted would be incorrect? All of them? Then it would have to be a very bad translation indeed.

I am not going to go through all the "quotes" on your cherry picked list. Since it is basically the same list found on most antisemitic sites, your "quotes" have already been addressed at legitimate scholar sites. Look it up.

Originally Posted by shankara

For example apparently the most authoritative statements begin with "The sages say".

There is the first clue you have no idea what you are talking about.

Statements beginning with "The sages say" means it is a dialogue/debate with various ideas/opinions. It is not law or authoritive. Opinions often conflict and say just the opposite.

Originally Posted by shankara

One of my quotes for example was that the sages say it's forbidden to heal a Goy. Justify that.

Jewish doctors.

Are you unaware that there are Jewish doctors, in various countries around the planet, that treat patients whether they are Jews or non-Jews? And that some of those jewish doctors are religious? What "the sages say" in the talmud are debates/opinions and not "authoritive".

How about a very famous Jewish doctor, Maimonides? He not only treated non-jewish patients, he was religious and wrote commentaries on the Talmud and knew exactly what was in it. OBVIOUSLY it is not "forbidden to heal a Goy". *smdh*

Also, Israel is the only Jewish country in the world and yet always sends medical teams and supplies to countries around the world (with the consent of the countries) to treat patients injured by disasters. That includes countries with no jewish populations at all.

I know this because I was an EMT/nurse and now work packing the medical supplies for these emergencies. These supplies are for use in any emergency, both in Israel and other countries. As I told another antisemite on this forum, none of the supplies are marked "jew"/"non-jew". They are all the same.

Originally Posted by shankara

Furthermore I don't think the text itself is editable. Where did you get that idea?

Er...from reading the website, and seeing the edits.

Originally Posted by shankara

Well for example a lot of people quote the King James Bible. It isn't by any means a perfect translation but most would agree that it captures well enough the essence of what the Bible says. Are you saying that people can't understand the New Testament because they don't read it in Greek?

No, but look at all the variations between English translations. That is why people "version shop".

And it is very well known the people cherry pick and quote mine to "prove" the New Testament says whatever they want it to say.

Originally Posted by shankara

I took the time to check out the discussions surrounding what I quoted (admittedly I perhaps posted hastily without checking this out first) and it seemed to me like the majority, if not all, of the quotes were not elsewhere directly refuted.

If you wanted to, (but I do not think you do) you can find opposing opinions. The info above about jewish doctors is one example.

Originally Posted by shankara

There are Protestant, Catholic etc,. scholars who read the Bible in Greek and yet don't understand it's essential message because they are trapped in a dogmatic paradigm of interpretation.

And you know this how? Have you personally spoken with these scholars? Can you read their thoughts? How do you arrogantly state that they "don't understand it's essential message"? Simply because they have the ability to read the original Greek and you do not? Or simply because they do not agree with your personal opinion (from only reading English translations) of what the "essential message" is?

Normally, scholars who "read the Bible in Greek" have not only put in the time and effort to learn Greek they also study the historical background of the time to put the Biblical writings in context. For that reason, many of them also learn Latin.

Until you have put in the time and effort to learn the original language(s) and historical background, IMO you do not have the right to judge those scholars who have.

Originally Posted by shankara

Really how "questionable" is the translation? It was evidently made with good intention by people with no bias against the Jews.

Adding the phrase "the Nazarene" in the English translation, which is not in the Aramaic/Hebrew text, is not only "questionable" it is a wrong/made up "translation".

[shankara]

Originally Posted by Zivan

Of course you are.

Quelle surprise.



By that "logic" do you also think the ~20 different men mentioned by Josephus with the name 'Jesus' were also "the one who claimed to be the Messiah and got crucified"?

Like most antisemites, you are not very good at this.

Hmm... Well from what I know about Jesus he was a serious and dangerous enemy of rabbinical orthodoxy, the kind of person they would likely remember.

Originally Posted by Zivan

Speaking of the "next world", what do you have to say about the Christian teaching that only Christians go to Heaven and all non-Christians burn in Hell for eternity?

I think it's completely crazy.

Originally Posted by Zivan

I am not going to go through all the "quotes" on your cherry picked list. Since it is basically the same list found on most antisemitic sites, your "quotes" have already been addressed at legitimate scholar sites. Look it up.

Well I did take the list from someone who seemed admittedly to be a racist (not that Jews are ever racists), that's probably why 40 of them I couldn't find anywhere in the Talmud.

Originally Posted by Zivan

There is the first clue you have no idea what you are talking about.

Statements beginning with "The sages say" means it is a dialogue/debate with various ideas/opinions. It is not law or authoritive. Opinions often conflict and say just the opposite.

Ok, I confess my ignorance and will believe you on that point.

Originally Posted by Zivan

Jewish doctors.

Are you unaware that there are Jewish doctors, in various countries around the planet, that treat patients whether they are Jews or non-Jews? And that some of those jewish doctors are religious? What "the sages say" in the talmud are debates/opinions and not "authoritive".

How about a very famous Jewish doctor, Maimonides? He not only treated non-jewish patients, he was religious and wrote commentaries on the Talmud and knew exactly what was in it. OBVIOUSLY it is not "forbidden to heal a Goy". *smdh*

Also, Israel is the only Jewish country in the world and yet always sends medical teams and supplies to countries around the world (with the consent of the countries) to treat patients injured by disasters. That includes countries with no jewish populations at all.

I know this because I was an EMT/nurse and now work packing the medical supplies for these emergencies. These supplies are for use in any emergency, both in Israel and other countries. As I told another antisemite on this forum, none of the supplies are marked "jew"/"non-jew". They are all the same.

Maimonides also had a serious problem with Christianity. I mean, I'm not a Christian, I don't believe in the doctrine, but the Christ himself, how can you not have love for that being? Actually I was going to try reading Maimonides for myself and see how that turns out.

The idea that Israel is capable of acting with any kind of disinterested humanitarian motives... I'm not sure I swallow that pill.

Originally Posted by Zivan

Er...from reading the website, and seeing the edits.

Originally Posted by Zivan

No, but look at all the variations between English translations. That is why people "version shop".

And it is very well known the people cherry pick and quote mine to "prove" the New Testament says whatever they want it to say.



If you wanted to, (but I do not think you do) you can find opposing opinions. The info above about jewish doctors is one example.



And you know this how? Have you personally spoken with these scholars? Can you read their thoughts? How do you arrogantly state that they "don't understand it's essential message"? Simply because they have the ability to read the original Greek and you do not? Or simply because they do not agree with your personal opinion (from only reading English translations) of what the "essential message" is?

Normally, scholars who "read the Bible in Greek" have not only put in the time and effort to learn Greek they also study the historical background of the time to put the Biblical writings in context. For that reason, many of them also learn Latin.

Until you have put in the time and effort to learn the original language(s) and historical background, IMO you do not have the right to judge those scholars who have.

Well I dunno, if they really understood it IMO they wouldn't be either Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox etc., because these dogmas have nothing to do with the teaching of Christ. Intellectualism is often counter-intutive obfuscation.

Originally Posted by Zivan

Adding the phrase "the Nazarene" in the English translation, which is not in the Aramaic/Hebrew text, is not only "questionable" it is a wrong/made up "translation".

Ok, you found one mistranslation.

[shankara]

Originally Posted by Zivan

Speaking of the "next world"

I notice you didn't respond to what I said but changed the subject. Nice rhetorical trick. On the other hand you did raise a good point, the doctrines of Predestination etc., are quite inhumane.

----

So I'm going to post one quote by an Israeli Rabbi. I would post more, and there are many many more, but I haven't got the time at present to go through all of them in order to verify them. The quote is as follows:

Quote:

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”

“In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

“This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.”

“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created.”

Given language like this, doesn't it seem quite reasonable to assume that there is something in this person's religious beliefs (and therefore somewhere in it's sacred texts) which says that the Goyim are less human than him?

Furthermore, one only has to look at what's going on in Israel. Any sensible person can see that it's an apartheid state. It's also a Jewish state. Isn't it stretching the boundaries of possibility a bit to say that the fact that it's an apartheid state has nothing to do with the fact that it's a Jewish state?

All the horrible things their doing to the Palestinians, it's clear that Jewish life is valued far above Palestinian life. A soldier who kills an unarmed Palestinian in cold blood takes 9 months. A girl who slaps a soldier takes (I believe) three years. Innocent protestors shot with exploding bullets... All of this insane cruelty... Are we supposed to believe that all of this has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism?

[Zivan]

Originally Posted by shankara

So I'm going to post one quote by an Israeli Rabbi. I would post more, and there are many many more, but I haven't got the time at present to go through all of them in order to verify them. The quote is as follows:

That rabbi did say those horrible things and it is beyond disgusting, revolting, and completely indefensible. His statements were condemned by Jews in Israel and around the world. He issued an apology but that does not change the fact he said those vile things.

He also said that Israeli soldiers deserved to die because they were not religious, and that jewish holocaust victims also deserved to die because they were reincarnations of sinners. Those, and other statements he made were also condemned.

Originally Posted by shankara

Furthermore, one only has to look at what's going on in Israel. Any sensible person can see that it's an apartheid state.
..............

If you want to discuss Israel, start a new thread. This thread is about the talmud.

[shankara]

I feel that the last thing I wrote pretty much dealt with the majority of your criticisms.

Originally Posted by Zivan

That rabbi did say those horrible things and it is beyond disgusting, revolting, and completely indefensible. His statements were condemned by Jews in Israel and around the world. He issued an apology but that does not change the fact he said those vile things.

He also said that Israeli soldiers deserved to die because they were not religious, and that jewish holocaust victims also deserved to die because they were reincarnations of sinners. Those, and other statements he made were also condemned.

Perhaps this individual was an extremist. From what I've seen from documentaries however, there are Ultra-Orthodox whose attitudes towards gentiles are not vastly different. Soon enough they will almost be a majority in Israel due to their high birth rates. Though I've never actually been in a Yeshiva and heard what they're saying, their belief in Jewish Supremacism is pretty obvious.

The Hassidim Kabbalists also, who believe that the non-Jewish souls come from Satan and that converts aren't actually converts but Jewish souls who got lost. Amongst them there is also a lot of Jewish Supremacism. Without having time to seek out and verify a lot of quotes, here is one from the founder of Chabad Lubavitch:

"Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness."

"A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews."
('The Great Rebbe' Menachem Mendel Schneerson)

Originally Posted by Zivan

If you want to discuss Israel, start a new thread. This thread is about the talmud.

Israel is the visible manifestation of Jewish Supremacism. Indeed the whole injunction of the Talmud about it being legally permissible to kill a goy has in fact been publically demonstrated in the case of the Jewish soldier who received only nine months in jail for shooting a disarmed Palestinian, who was laying on the ground, in the head. There were I believe a lot of voices in Israel who called for him not to be punished even that little. This proves that the Talmud's injunction...

"The Gemara challenges: But wherever there is liability for capital punishment, this tanna teaches it; as it is taught in the first clause: With regard to bloodshed, if a gentile murders another gentile, or a gentile murders a Jew, he is liable. If a Jew murders a gentile, he is exempt."

...is a common opinion and is interpreted literally.

All the rest of it, like the mass murder of peaceful demonstrators in recent weeks, shows that there Jewish life is valued much more highly than that of the Goyim. This seems to fit well with the quote of the Talmud:

Rabbi Ḥanina says: A gentile who struck a Jew is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated when Moses saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew: “And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Exodus 2:12).
And Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who slaps the cheek of a Jew is considered as though he slapped the cheek of the Divine Presence; as it is stated: “It is a snare [mokesh] for a man to rashly say [yala]: Holy” (Proverbs 20:25). The verse is interpreted homiletically to mean: One who strikes [nokesh] a Jew is considered as though he hurt the cheek [lo’a] of the Holy One.
(Sanhedrin 58b)

Practise is evidence of belief, is it not? As outside of Israel there are not any Rabbinical courts which can imprison people or a Jewish military which can kill people, the behavior of Israel and it's people is where we can most clearly see whether the injunctions of the Talmud which are cynically (or naively) fobbed off as "minority opinions" etc., are actually practiced.

[dudalb]

I see some people here have no idea of what the Talmud is.
Hint It's a record of commentaries, arguments, and decisions on topics arising from interpretation of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). A lot of totally different,opposing arguments and opinions are given in the text. It's not a book of statute law,it's more like legal journal with lots of court transcripts. Just because something is in the transcripts does not mean it is binding law.

[shankara]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I see some people here have no idea of what the Talmud is.
Hint It's a record of commentaries, arguments, and decisions on topics arising from interpretation of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). A lot of totally different,opposing arguments and opinions are given in the text. It's not a book of statute law,it's more like legal journal with lots of court transcripts. Just because something is in the transcripts does not mean it is binding law.

I already mentioned this when talking about the context of the quotes, which admittedly I didn't check before I posted. However I did check them afterwards and found nothing in the surrounding text directly refuting the quotes which I posted.

After doing this I was told that I couldn't possibly understand what the Talmud said without speaking Hebrew (evidently the translation is so terribly inaccurate that there would be no chance of me comprehending in English).

A criticism which I already addressed above.

Edited by kmortis:

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

[kmortis]

If you want to discuss the Talmud, this is the place. If you want to discuss Israel, there's a thread in another forum where you can do that. If you want to discuss one another, do it in a pub. Anymore discussion that is not about the Talmud will be considered off topic and treated more harshly than I did with this current lot of off topic posts.

Posted By:kmortis

[Myriad]

Ooh, that Talmud. Sure is long. Is there a large-print version?

[shankara]

Originally Posted by Ilan Pappe foreword to "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" by Israel Shahak

The texts of the Halakhah, Mishna and the Talmud, some of which have been obscured from the public eye for political reasons, reveal an inhuman, utterly unacceptable perception of the non-Jew, the gentile

I hope this is considered on topic as it makes clear that the perception that the Talmud contains certain heinous doctrines is not something that I just thought of myself or got from Stormfront or whatever other white supremacist groups might happen to think similar things about the Talmud.

[shankara]

I'm not going to continue posting here as I think we all have our minds made up and none of us are going to move an inch (which is fine, everyone has the right to their opinions and indeed it's healthy that we all have different opinions of course).

I would like to point out that a number of arguments actually relating to the Talmud were removed, just a couple off the top of my head:

- Questions relating to the likely accuracy of an academic translation (would it really be so inaccurate as to totally obscure the original meaning?)
- My comparison of the differing opinions of the Talmud to the opinions of Catholic Saints i.e. not fixed dogma of the Church but things that would be influential to certain Catholics.

Finally, in the spirit of criticism I would like to point out that a number of the quotes I found don't seem to have the same meaning as is ascribed to them by whoever originally found them (racial supremacists of some kind, I imagine). For example, I think it's very unlikely that the passage purportedly permitting the sodomy of nine year old boys actually means that.

Ciao.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by shankara

Originally Posted by Ilan Pappe foreword to "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" by Israel Shahak

The texts of the Halakhah, Mishna and the Talmud, some of which have been obscured from the public eye for political reasons, reveal an inhuman, utterly unacceptable perception of the non-Jew, the gentile

I hope this is considered on topic as it makes clear that the perception that the Talmud contains certain heinous doctrines is not something that I just thought of myself or got from Stormfront or whatever other white supremacist groups might happen to think similar things about the Talmud.

Let's try comparing apples to apples. The Talmud is 1,500 years old.

Who in the world, 1500 years ago, was writing or applying doctrines that did not have a heinous, inhuman, utterly unacceptable perception of the members of other religions and cultures?

No one, that's who.

Show me the hieroglyphics where the ancient Egyptians described the Hittites as "pretty decent hardworking folk." Show me the Sui Dynasty poetry lauding the virtues of Mongolians or Koreans. Show me the parts of the New Testament or the early Church writings where apostles are instructed to treat the practitioners and leaders of non-Christian religions with tolerance and respect. Show me anyone anywhere close to that era saying, you know, maybe capturing and enslaving "barbarians" from neighboring tribes, city-states, or nations isn't a very nice thing to do, because after all they're good people just like us.

You know what's a really heinous, inhuman, utterly unacceptable doctrine? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." That's not in some long-debated side dispute between accent rabbis, but right in the primary scripture itself.

So let's take a look at how Christians demonstrated better moral qualities by repudiating or eliminating that passage when they compiled their own Bibles.

Oops, they didn't. Instead they doubled down on it and cultivated a fondness for burning people alive.

If you judge people by what their ancestors wrote or thought 1,500 years ago, watch out for those beams in your own eye.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Myriad

So let's take a look at how Christians demonstrated better moral qualities by repudiating or eliminating that passage when they compiled their own Bibles.

Oops, they didn't. Instead they doubled down on it and cultivated a fondness for burning people alive.

One of the reasons why Christianity eventually took off was because it didn't preach human sacrifices nor the killing of pagans. Ironically, another important factor was that it actually had some role for women. In those days, most religions regarded women as strictly chattel property (like animals but not deserving of so much respect).

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by shankara

Hmm... Well from what I know about Jesus he was a serious and dangerous enemy of rabbinical orthodoxy, the kind of person they would likely remember.

If you read the histories from that time Jesus was one of many. There were Essenes, the Sadducees, etc. James was actually more successful at attracting a stable following than Jesus, and Saul of Tarsis actually managed to make the thing go in a way that was truly against the religious establishment by allowing non-Jews to join his religious sect.

Saul dressed his radical religion up with stories that made a political revolutionary into a religious one in order to avoid excessive censure and persecution from the State.

Quote:

I think it's completely crazy.

Its on par with hundreds of quotes from dozens of religious teachers from the world's religions. Essentially, people will justify any amount of crazy, racist stuff with religion to give utterly reprehensible beliefs and actions the veneer of respectability with some divine approval.

Quote:

Well I dunno, if they really understood it IMO they wouldn't be either Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox etc., because these dogmas have nothing to do with the teaching of Christ. Intellectualism is often counter-intutive obfuscation.

That would be your interpretation - those scholars obviously interpret it differently.

Quote:

Ok, you found one mistranslation.

Adding to a text to make it say something different is not a mistranslation, it is lying. It is an act of fraud.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by shankara

I'm not going to continue posting here as I think we all have our minds made up and none of us are going to move an inch (which is fine, everyone has the right to their opinions and indeed it's healthy that we all have different opinions of course).

I would like to point out that a number of arguments actually relating to the Talmud were removed, just a couple off the top of my head:

- Questions relating to the likely accuracy of an academic translation (would it really be so inaccurate as to totally obscure the original meaning?)
- My comparison of the differing opinions of the Talmud to the opinions of Catholic Saints i.e. not fixed dogma of the Church but things that would be influential to certain Catholics.

Finally, in the spirit of criticism I would like to point out that a number of the quotes I found don't seem to have the same meaning as is ascribed to them by whoever originally found them (racial supremacists of some kind, I imagine). For example, I think it's very unlikely that the passage purportedly permitting the sodomy of nine year old boys actually means that.

Ciao.

Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out....