I need help in witnessing to Orthodox Jews.

[BT]

Part of my ministry is involved in witnessing to some Orthodox Jews who I work with and interact with on a daily basis.

This issue is this. The Talmud ( I bet you saw that coming a mile away). I've tried to use the approach of , "I won't use the New Testament and you won't use the Talmud." To which my friend agrees... it takes him an average of about 8 seconds to refer to the Talmud.

I'm no Talmud expert but I've read enough portions of it to form the opinion that it is not what he thinks it is, equal to the Law and the prophets. I've heard its history from him.

My issue. How can I witness to an Orthodox Jew who refuses to read the New Testament, and holds the Talmud as at least equal to the Old Testament (all parts included).

I have a real burden for this man. I would really appreciate any advice you can give me... from a Messianic Jewish perspective.

Shalom

[visionary]

As Yeshua talked with Nicodemus at night, He went right to the point, " you must be born again." In the Old testament are a lot of stories of this experience that people have when they come in contact with the supernatural. Moses on Mount Sinai, the 70 who were baptised in the spirit and prophesied with the two that were still in the camp prophesying too. Isaiah spoke of His experience with the Holy One. Ezekiel also. Ask Him about His personal experience with Jehovah. Sometimes to get through all the arguments you have to go to the courts of heaven and have the Holy Spirit speak to His heart in a personal way. Lead Him to the Temple, in prayer, where He can ask for the blessings of prophecy, baptism of the Holy Spirit, where the covenant is placed in His heart.

Bottom line for anyone, is the personal experience of the Holy One, who is our true shepherd, for only He can lead anyone in all truth. We are messengers of this truth, that it is lving and real in yours and our hearts. We know Him, who lived and died, and was ressurected, according to the fulfillment of the spring type feasts. He was the one who was, is and is coming soon.

I love Isaiah 48:16 to show that there are three in one. I do not know where you and He have common ground, but I am sure you do. Start with those things, and grow together into the deeper truths of the temple of God and the festivals of God. There you will find, the fulfillment of the prophecies of Yeshua, the ministry of Yeshua, and the endtime prophetic links that will knit all the prophectic verses together.

May you be blessed with the Spirit of God in your ministry, that His name be praised. May you be blessed with the testamony of Yeshua, that He may see His salvation that God has provided for Him.

Visionary

[Henaynei]

There are several here who can help you with this discussion - simchat_torah, The Thadman among others. Hopefully they will chime in shortly ;)

You CAN show salvation through Yeshua using the T'NaKh only - I have heaard it said, by those well schooled in the Talmud, that you can also show it from the Talmud - but Talmud is a study for the very firmly grounded in scripture and unless your freind is an orthodox rabbi he is basically just parroting what he has bee taught Talmud says ;)

[simchat_torah]

There are several here who can help you with this discussion - simchat_torah,
Ok ok ok ok... ;)

I'm here... :P


First, there is nothing in the Talmud that speaks of "jesus". Every mention of "jesus" in the Talmud refers to a different historical figure than the one you know as messiah. I would pose to you that not a single time does it refer to the christian messiah. You see, the name "jesus", or Y'shua rather, was a fairly common name during that day and age. As well, there were variants such as "yeshu", etc, that were used quite often.

Every instance that Yeshua, Y'shua, or Yeshu are mentioned in the Talmud it does not refer to the christian messiah.

This website categorically goes through each Talmudic reference of 'jesus' and shows how it does not apply to the one you know as the messiah:
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html)
and
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html)

It is antisemetic rhetoric being echoed through the dark ages unto today that says the Talmud is anti-jesus. This is quite wrong.


Secondly, you might want to express to him that the "new testament" is a set of Jewish documents. If he is allowed to use the Talmud, which does not refer at all to "jesus", then you should be allowed to refer to the Jewish set of documents better known as the new testament. Various Rabbis have recently come to the conclusion that "jesus was a Jew", etc....
Take a look at a few of these quotes from Jewish sources:

"In all his views and actions Jesus was a Jew. As a pious Israelite he fulfilled all the commandments. He saw in God his Father in heaven, had pity on the poor, supported the stumbling, and loved the repentant, in whose place even the perfectly just are not allowed to stand, as a talmudic saying puts it. He was also afflicted with the typical Jewish failings. He never saw the sublime and beautiful in nature, and he never smiled. He carried on his teaching amid tears, threats, and promises...Jesus was the most Jewish of all Jews, more Jewish even than the great teacher Hillel."

---Joseph Klausner, Historian and Professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem
"Yeshu Ha-notzri" (Jerusalem 1922); "Jesus of Nazareth", trans. Herbert Danby (New York: Macmillan 1925).


"It will seem paradoxical to the Christian that the Jew can learn from Jesus how to pray, the true sense of the Sabbath, how to fast, the meaning of the kingdom of heaven and the last judgment. The open-minded Jew is always deeply impressed by Jesus' opinions, and he understands that here is one Jew speaking to other Jews."

---David Flusser
"Inwiefern kann Jesus fur Juden eine Frage sien?", in Concilium, X, no. 10 (Oct. 1974), p. 598


"Jesus was a Jew, Hebrew of Hebrews. Whatever I believe with respect to the imputed miracle of his birth, his mother, Mary, was a Jewish woman. He was reared and taught as a Jew. He worshipped in the synagogue. He spoke no language save Hebrew...Jesus did not teach or wish to teach a new religion."

---Rabbi Stephen Wise
"Challenging Years: The Autobiography of Stephen Wise (New York: Putnam, 1949), p. 281



These few quotations I have provided should be sufficient to allow him to look into the docuements of the New Testament, to at the very least, examine them for their Jewish veracity.

If he brings to you any specific Talmudic passage that you'd like to question, let me know here and Ill give you reference to it.

Anyway, if there's any other way you want me to help, let me know.

shalom,
yafet

[Amandine]

I love Isaiah 48:16 to show that there are three in one

Um..it does? *reading..re reading...reading chapter...re reading..??*
-Catherine

[visionary]

Um..it does? *reading..re reading...reading chapter...re reading..??*
-Catherine

Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.


Here "there am I" = Yeshua because as you can see "hath sent me."
now "the Lord God" = the Father
and "his Spirit" = the Holy Spirit

There you have the three in one sentence.

[Sephania]

fits nicely with John 8:58 :)

[JewishHeart]

I believe like visionary said, the power of the Holy Spirit is enough witness! My wife was Orthodox and had an experience with G-d. Prayer and intercession is a powerful tool. Also knowing evangelism without tears is useless. You have a genuine burden and I have noticed Jewish people searching after G-d notice pureness of heart, sincerity, and burden. They know that they are not just another niche on your "saved" belt, but you carry genuine burden. I would also like to say is friendship with honesty. Don't use friendship to "get to him." Develop friendship to learn from him as well and you will learn about each other together. Genuine burden cares about salvation, but it goes even deeper into friendship.

[BT]

Why do you write the word "G-d"....:confused:

[JewishHeart]

out of respect for His name

[Sephania]

Why do you write the word "G-d"....:confused: To avoid a possible infraction of the mitzvah to not take the L-RD's name in a casual manner. Many won't even write the tetragrammaton, and most just refer to it as "the name". His name is holy and should be treated as such. Now G-d is not his name but the English is treated that way. The dashes are so it isn't totally spelled out so if someone deletes a post or if written on a peice of paper it can't just be treated like so much trash. :) I hope that was clear, my mind isn't fully working yet.;)

[BT]

To avoid a possible infraction of the mitzvah to not take the L-RD's name in a casual manner. Many won't even write the tetragrammaton, and most just refer to it as "the name". His name is holy and should be treated as such. Now G-d is not his name but the English is treated that way. The dashes are so it isn't totally spelled out so if someone deletes a post or if written on a peice of paper it can't just be treated like so much trash. :) I hope that was clear, my mind isn't fully working yet.;)

I think that's simply awesome.

[BT]

[/font]
Ok ok ok ok... ;)

I'm here... :P


First, there is nothing in the Talmud that speaks of "jesus". Every mention of "jesus" in the Talmud refers to a different historical figure than the one you know as messiah. I would pose to you that not a single time does it refer to the christian messiah. You see, the name "jesus", or Y'shua rather, was a fairly common name during that day and age. As well, there were variants such as "yeshu", etc, that were used quite often.

Every instance that Yeshua, Y'shua, or Yeshu are mentioned in the Talmud it does not refer to the christian messiah.

This website categorically goes through each Talmudic reference of 'jesus' and shows how it does not apply to the one you know as the messiah:
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html)
and
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html (http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html)

It is antisemetic rhetoric being echoed through the dark ages unto today that says the Talmud is anti-jesus. This is quite wrong.


Secondly, you might want to express to him that the "new testament" is a set of Jewish documents. If he is allowed to use the Talmud, which does not refer at all to "jesus", then you should be allowed to refer to the Jewish set of documents better known as the new testament. Various Rabbis have recently come to the conclusion that "jesus was a Jew", etc....
Take a look at a few of these quotes from Jewish sources:

"In all his views and actions Jesus was a Jew. As a pious Israelite he fulfilled all the commandments. He saw in God his Father in heaven, had pity on the poor, supported the stumbling, and loved the repentant, in whose place even the perfectly just are not allowed to stand, as a talmudic saying puts it. He was also afflicted with the typical Jewish failings. He never saw the sublime and beautiful in nature, and he never smiled. He carried on his teaching amid tears, threats, and promises...Jesus was the most Jewish of all Jews, more Jewish even than the great teacher Hillel."

---Joseph Klausner, Historian and Professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem
"Yeshu Ha-notzri" (Jerusalem 1922); "Jesus of Nazareth", trans. Herbert Danby (New York: Macmillan 1925).


"It will seem paradoxical to the Christian that the Jew can learn from Jesus how to pray, the true sense of the Sabbath, how to fast, the meaning of the kingdom of heaven and the last judgment. The open-minded Jew is always deeply impressed by Jesus' opinions, and he understands that here is one Jew speaking to other Jews."

---David Flusser
"Inwiefern kann Jesus fur Juden eine Frage sien?", in Concilium, X, no. 10 (Oct. 1974), p. 598


"Jesus was a Jew, Hebrew of Hebrews. Whatever I believe with respect to the imputed miracle of his birth, his mother, Mary, was a Jewish woman. He was reared and taught as a Jew. He worshipped in the synagogue. He spoke no language save Hebrew...Jesus did not teach or wish to teach a new religion."

---Rabbi Stephen Wise
"Challenging Years: The Autobiography of Stephen Wise (New York: Putnam, 1949), p. 281



These few quotations I have provided should be sufficient to allow him to look into the docuements of the New Testament, to at the very least, examine them for their Jewish veracity.

If he brings to you any specific Talmudic passage that you'd like to question, let me know here and Ill give you reference to it.

Anyway, if there's any other way you want me to help, let me know.

shalom,
yafet
Thank you very much. I will use all of this to see if I can convince him that reading the New Testament is at least permissable. I appreciate your help!

[simchat_torah]

How's it going, and do you need any more help? Is the information I provided worthwhile to the discussion? What else do ya need?

shalom,
yafet

[BT]

How's it going, and do you need any more help? Is the information I provided worthwhile to the discussion? What else do ya need?

shalom,
yafet
Thank you simchat_torah. You're information has been helpful to me in my understanding of the talmud (which is highly limited). It didn't do much good with my friend though. His Rabbi told him that the NT was a fairy tail and that he should not read it (it would be a sin, he called it "prohibited"). We are still able to talk though, and even though we have agreed that he can not use the talmud (to explain verses) and I can not use the New Testament (to explain verses or prophecies), whenever I ask.. "where do you see that" he says, "It's in the Talmud". He's funny :) I won't give up but to tell you the truth I'm running out of ideas. I will continue to pray for him and witness to him, and as things come up I'll refer back to you if that's ok.

Would you, as a Messianic Jew, say that the Talmud is something that a Christian should study? I've heard different opinions on this.. that it is not good, that it is good in spots, that it is not necessary, that it is necessary etc. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on this book (or collection of books rather).

[simchat_torah]

Would you, as a Messianic Jew, say that the Talmud is something that a Christian should study?
Yes. Y'shua quoted it often and drew from its sources when he taught. If you want the fullest understanding of your messiah, it is best to search out what he referenced.


shalom,
yafet

[MalkyEL]

Quote:
Would you, as a Messianic Jew, say that the Talmud is something that a Christian should study?

Yes. Y'shua quoted it often and drew from its sources when he taught. If you want the fullest understanding of your messiah, it is best to search out what he referenced.

MalkyEL:
Simchat,
Could you please supply proof to support your above statement. According to historical sources, the talmud was not written until quite a bit after the time that Jesus was here.

[Henaynei]

The heart of Talmud is Mishna - and this has existed since Sinai - it is the halakic decisions based on applying HaShem's instructions to our lives - aka Oral Traditions/Law - and Yeshua did quote from this rather regularly ;) One example is the "famous" Golden Rule - he was quoting/paraphrasing/building on the great rabbi Hallel

[MalkyEL]

Quote:
The heart of Talmud is Mishna - and this has existed since Sinai - it is the halakic decisions based on applying HaShem's instructions to our lives - aka Oral Traditions/Law - and Yeshua did quote from this rather regularly One example is the "famous" Golden Rule - he was quoting/paraphrasing/building on the great rabbi Hallel

MalkyEL:
So are you saying then, that G-d needs to quote man to get His point across?

[Henaynei]

Quote:
The heart of Talmud is Mishna - and this has existed since Sinai - it is the halakic decisions based on applying HaShem's instructions to our lives - aka Oral Traditions/Law - and Yeshua did quote from this rather regularly One example is the "famous" Golden Rule - he was quoting/paraphrasing/building on the great rabbi Hallel

MalkyEL:
So are you saying then, that G-d needs to quote man to get His point across? I did not say anything about HaShem *needing* to quote man - that , you did.

I am saying that G-d uses that which He equips man to do - all the time..... Did Yeshua use clothing someone else made?, and sandals someone else cobbled?, and food that someone else prepared?, and housing that someone else built?, and a man-made Temple?

HaShem inspires man every day and uses the product of that inspiration to teach, heal, save lives and souls - every day - even today.......

[Sephania]

The heart of Talmud is Mishna - and this has existed since Sinai - it is the halakic decisions based on applying HaShem's instructions to our lives - aka Oral Traditions/Law - and Yeshua did quote from this rather regularly ;) One example is the "famous" Golden Rule - he was quoting/paraphrasing/building on the great rabbi Hallel
But who inspired Hillel?;)

[simchat_torah]

Could you please supply proof to support your above statement. According to historical sources, the talmud was not written until quite a bit after the time that Jesus was here.
If you know anything about the Talmud, you know that the main bulk of its text quotes Rabbis who lived hundreds of years before its compilation.

[simchat_torah]

Henaynei provided an excellent example. Hillel is quoted rather often in the Talmud, yet he lived prior to Y'shua.

[MalkyEL]

Simchat:
Henaynei provided an excellent example. Hillel is quoted rather often in the Talmud, yet he lived prior to Y'shua.

MalkyEL:
The question is, was Hillel expounding on scripture? Keep in mind that the Talmud was not written until the third century C.E., which is much later than both Hillel and Yeshua, who’s lives overlapped.

Speaking of Hillel, and other man made systems of interpretation, etc. From a post of mine on another forum:

While we are on the topic of Hillel, some scholars have said that the Messiah could have been born as early as 7 BCE to as late as 4 BCE. That would mean that the Messiah was approximately 14 to 17 years old when Hillel died. Hillel did not proclaim Him to be the promised Messiah according to history. We must also examine Hillel's grandson, Gamaliel, who had a glimpse possibly, but also did not proclaim Him as Messiah.

Acts 5

27 And bringing them, they stood in the sanhedrin. And the high priest asked them,
28 saying, Did we not strictly command you that you not teach in this name? And behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine and intend to bring this man's blood on us.
29 And Peter and the apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed and hanged on a tree.
31 This One God has exalted to be a Ruler and Savior to His right hand in order to give repentance and remission of sins to Israel.
32 And we are His witnesses of these things. And so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.
33 But those hearing were cut to the heart , and they took counsel to kill them.
34 Then there stood up one in the sanhedrin, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law honored among all the people. And he commanded the apostles to be put outside a little space.
35 And he said to them, Men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men.
36 For before these days Theudas rose up, boasting himself to be somebody; a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves to him; who was slain. And all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nothing.
37 After this one, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the Registration, and drew away considerable people after him. Yet that one perished; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered.
38 And now I say to you, withdraw from these men and let them alone. For if this counsel or this work is of men, it will come to nothing.
39 But if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God.

MalkyEL:
Keeping in mind, that Ishmael's thirteen rules were based on Hillel's seven rules, gives us understanding that the system as a whole, was not accurate in it's ability to define who the Messiah was. And of course there is Paul, who was trained under Hillel's grandson:

Acts 22
1 Men, brothers and fathers! Hear my defense now to you.
2 And hearing that he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, they all the more kept silence. And he said,
3 I am truly a man, a Jew born in Tarsus in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the exactness of the law of the fathers, being a zealous one of God, as you all are today.

These rules of interpretation, which Paul was well versed in, did not help Paul define who the Messiah was. As a matter of fact, scripture tells us that Paul was on his way to Damascus to persecute some of the Messiah's followers, when he was convinced of the fact that Yeshua was the promised Messiah, not through any man made system for the interpretation of scripture, but by encountering the Messiah, and ending up temporarily blinded.

You see, the Messiah clearly states, that no man comes to the Father, but by Him....not by any man made system to interpret scripture including kabbalah.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I often find it amazing that people still believe that they can define The Almighty Infinite Creator of the universe with a four level man made system.

Or that some would think that He would quote the writing’s of men to teach His Truth. Which came first, as He was the Word made manifest from the beginning.

[simchat_torah]

The question is, was Hillel expounding on scripture?
Yes. All of the Torah does.

But the point is, Y'shua directly quoted Hillel. As well, Y'shua quoted various other Rabbinical sources (including the Talmud) in almost everything he taught. Nary a parable he told was of his own invention.
Keep in mind that the Talmud was not written until the third century C.E., which is much later than both Hillel and Yeshua, who’s lives overlapped.
Hillel and Y'shua's life overlapped by approxiametely 14 years. What does this have to do with anything?

As well, I've stated this before and I'll state it again:
"the main bulk of the Talmud's text quotes Rabbis who lived hundreds of years before its compilation."
Hillel did not proclaim Him to be the promised Messiah according to history.
so?
Gamaliel, who had a glimpse possibly, but also did not proclaim Him as Messiah.
So?

Unless you're going to spout some sort of antisemetic babble from this, these observations are entirely pointless.

Keeping in mind, that Ishmael's thirteen rules were based on Hillel's seven rules, gives us understanding that the system as a whole, was not accurate in it's ability to define who the Messiah was.
That is very strange logic.
But ignoring the faulty logic expressed in this quote, Sha'ul used Hillel's principles overwhelmingly in his letters. Does this invalidate Sha'ul?
These rules of interpretation, which Paul was well versed in, did not help Paul define who the Messiah was.
Again, faulty logic... but once more, ignoring logic...
Why then did Sha'ul use Hillel's forms of interpretation, the 7 rules, etc. when writing his letters?
not through any man made system for the interpretation of scripture
You keep emphasizing this "man made" lingo. No one says that Hillel is 'inspired', but rather it is a way of examining scripture.
You see, the Messiah clearly states, that no man comes to the Father, but by Him....not by any man made system to interpret scripture including kabbalah.
You bring two entirely unrelated topics into a sentance and consider it proof?
more strange logic.
I often find it amazing that people still believe that they can define The Almighty Infinite Creator of the universe with a four level man made system.
No one defines G-d using Hillel's rules or the Talmud for that matter. The Talmud teaches us how we can observe the mitzvot in the Torah. Hillel teaches 'forms' on how to interpret scripture from a Hebraic standpoint. In fact, I'll include a document in the next post to show Hillel's 7 rules and Paul's use of them.
Or that some would think that He would quote the writing’s of men to teach His Truth.
Ah... now I see where it is all coming from. Fear to admit the humanity of the messiah.

The fact is, the messiah quoted Rabbinical sources in nearly everything he taught. Hardly a parable he taught was of his own inspiration. The fact is, G-d had moved in the Jewish people long before the Messiah came, and Y'shua came to divide that which was inspired of HaShem and that which was not. He didn't come to start a new religion. He didn't come to cast off every known understanding of G-d. He didn't come to throw away everything that G-d had wrought in the people up to that point.

Shalom,
yafet

[simchat_torah]

THE SEVEN RULES OF HILLEL

The Seven Rules of Hillel existed long before Hillel, but Hillel was the first to write them down. Hillel and Shamai were competitive leading figures in Judaism during the days of Y'shua's youth. Hillel was known for teaching the Spirit of the Law and Shamai was known for teaching the letter of the Law. Whole books have been written about the similarities between the teachings of Y'shua nd those of Hillel. Y'shua's teaching largely followed that of the School of Hillel rather than that of the School of Shamai.

For example, Y'shua's famous "golden rule":

Whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even to them, for this is the Torah and the Prophets.
(Mt. 7:12)

This reads very closely with Hillel's famous statement:

What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour that is the whole Torah...
(b.Shabbat 31a)

Upon Hillel's death the mantle of the School of Hillel was passed to his son Simeon. Upon Simon's death the mantle of the school of Hillel passed to Gamliel. This Gamilel spoke in defense of the early Nazarenes (Acts 5:34-39) he was the teacher of Shaul/Paul (Acts 22:3). In 2Tim. 2:15 Paul speaks of "rightly dividing the word of truth." What did Paul mean by this? Was he saying that there were right and wrong ways to interpret the scriptures? Did Paul believe there were actual rules to be followed when interpreting (understanding) the Scriptures? Was Paul speaking of the Seven Rules of Hillel? Paul was certainly taught these rules in the School of Hillel by Hillel's own grandson Gamliel. When we examine Paul's writings we will see that they are filled with usages of Hillel's Seven Rules (several examples appear below). It would appear then that the Seven Rules of Hillel are at least part of what Paul was speaking of when he spoke of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth." (2Tim. 2:15).

The Seven Rules of Hillel are:

1. Kal V'Khomer (light and heavy)

Kal v'khomer is the first of the seven rules for understanding the scriptures written by Hillel. Hillel did not invent the rules, in fact they are so old we see them used in the Tenach.

The kol v'komer thoughtform is used to make an argument from lesser weight based on one of greater weight. It may be expressed as:

If X is true of Y then how much more X must be true of Z
(Where Z is of greater weight than Y)

A kol v'khomer argument is often, but not always, signalled by a phrase
like "how much more..."

The Rabbinical writers recognize two forms ok kol v'khomer:

kal v'khomer meforash - In this form the kal v'chomer argument appears explicily.

kal v'khomer satum - In which the kal v'khomer argument is only implied.

There are several examples of kal v'khomer in the Tenach.
Forexample:

Behold the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth:
much more the wicked and the sinner.
(Prov. 11:31)

And:

If you have run with footmen and they have wearied you,
then how can you contend with horses?
(Jer. 12:5a)

Other Tenach examples to look at:

Dt. 31:27; 1Sam. 23:3; Jer. 12:5b; Ezkl. 15:5; Esther 9:12

For those who wish to look as rabbinical usage of implied occurances:

Num. 12:14 & b. BK 25a; Dt. 21:23 & m. San. 6:5
Lev. 21:16-21 & Num. 8:24-25 & b.Hul. 24a

There is also an important limitation to the kal v'khomer thoughtform. This is the dayo (enough) principle. This is that the conclusion of an argument is satisfied when it is like the major premise. In other words the conclusion is equalized to the premise and neither a stricter nor a more lenient view is to be taken. (m.BK 2:5) Rabbi Tarfon rejected the dayo principle in certain cases (b.BK 25a)

There are several examples of kal v'khomer in the New Testament. Y'shua often uses this form of argument.

For example:

If a man recieves circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the Law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on the sabbath?
(Jn. 7:23)

And:

What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.
(Mt. 12:11-12)

Other examples of Y'shua's usage of kal v'khomer are:

Mt. 6:26, 30 = Lk. 12:24, 28
Mt. 7:11 = Lk. 11:13
Mt. 10:25 & Jn. 15:18-20
Mt. 12:12 & Jn. 7:23

Paul uses kal v'khomer in:

Rom. 5:8-9, 10, 15, 17; 11:12, 24
1Cor. 9:11-12; 12:22
2Cor. 3:7-9, 11
Philip. 2:12
Phil. 1:16
Heb. 2:2-3; 9:13-14; 10:28-29; 12:9, 25

2. G'zerah Shavah (Equivalence of expresions)

An analogy is made between two seperate texts on the basis of a similar
phrase, word or root.

Tenakh example:

By comparing 1Sam. 1:10 to Judges 13:5 using the phrase "no razor shall
touch his head" we may conlude that Samuel, like Samson, was a nazarite.

"New Testament" example:

In Hebrews 3:6-4:13 Paul compares Ps. 95:7-11 = Heb. 3:7-11 to Gen. 2:2 =
Heb. 4:4 based on the words "works" and "day"/"today" ("today" in Hebrew is
literally "the day"). Paul uses this exogesis to conclude that there will
be 6,000 years of this world follwoed by a 1,000 year shabbat.

3. Binyan ab mikathub echad (Building of the father from one text)

One explicit passage serves as a foundation or starting point so as to constitute a rule (father) for all similar passages or cases.

Heb. 9:11-22 aplies "blood" from Ex. 24:8=Heb. 9:20 to Jer. 31:31-34

4. Binyab ab mishene kethubim (Building of the father from two or more texts)

Two texts or provisions in a text serve as a foundation for a general
conclusion.

A Tenach example:

Ex. 21:26-27 speaks of only eyes and teet, however by use of the fourth rule of Hillel we can recognize that the provision aplies to other body parts as well.

A "New Testament" example:

In Heb. 1:5-14 Paul sites:

Ps. 2:7 = Heb. 1:5
2Sam. 7:14 = Heb. 1:5
Deut. 32:43/Ps. 97:7/(Neh. 9:6) = Heb. 1:6
Ps. 104:4 = Heb. 1:7
Ps. 45:6-7 = Heb. 1:8-9
Ps. 102:25-27 = Heb. 1:10-12
Ps. 110:1 = Heb. 1:13

to build a rule that the Messiah is of a higher order than angels.

5. Kelal uferat (the general and the partcular)

a general statement is first made and is followed by a single remark which
particularizes the general principle.

A Tenach example:

Gen. 1:27 makes a general statement which Gen. 2:7, 21 particularizes.

6. Kayotze bo mimekom akhar (analogy made from another passage)

Two passages may seem to conflict until a third resolves the conflict.

Tenach examples:

Lev 1:1 "out of the tent of meeting" and Ex. 25:22 "from above the ark of the covenant between the chrubim" seem to disagree until we examine Num. 7:89 where we learn that Moses entered the tent of meeting to hear YHWH speaking from between the cherubim.

1Chron. 27:1 explaind the numerical disagreement between 2Sam. 24:9 and 1Chron. 21:5.

Ex. 19:20 "YHWH came down upon Mount Sinai" seems to disagree with Dt. 4:36 "Out of Heaven He let you hear His voice" > Ex. 20:19 (20:22 in some editions) reconciles the two by telling us that G-d brought the heavens down to the mount and spoke.
(m.Sifra 1:7)

"New Testament" example:

Paul shows that the following Tenach passages SEEM to conflict:

The just shall live by faith
(Rom. 1:17 = Hab. 2:4)

with

There is none righteous, no, not one...
(Rom. 3:10 = Ps. 14:1-3= Ps. 53:1-3; Eccl. 7:20)

and:

[G-d] will render to each one according to his deeds.
(Rom. 2:6 = Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12)

with

Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man whom YHWH shall not impute sin.
(Rom. 4:7-8 = Ps. 32:1-2)

Paul resolves the apparant conflict by citing Gen. 15:6 (in Rom. 4:3, 22):

Abraham believed G-d, and it was accounted to him
for righteousness.

Thus Paul resloves the apparant conflict by showing that under certain circumstances, belief/faith/trust (same word in Hebrew) can act as a substitute for righteousness/being just (same word in Hebrew).

7. Davar hilmad me'anino (Explanation obtained from context)

The total context, not just the isolated statement must be considered for an accurate exegesis.

Conclusion:

Paul certainly would have been taught the Seven Rules of Hillel under Gamilel the grandson of Hillel. Paul clearly used these Seven Rules in his own exogesis. It is evident then that when Paul speaks of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (2tim. 2:15) he is speaking at least in part, of the Seven Rules of Hillel. These Seven Rules therefore are invaluable to Nazarene Judaism in interpreting (understanding) the Scriptures.

[simchat_torah]

As you can clearly see from the article above, Sha'ul extensively used the 7 rules of Hillel in scriptural interpretation.

shalom,
yafet

[simchat_torah]

I'm going to grab some Talmudic quotes that are in the NT texts... brb...

[simchat_torah]

Talmud and the Brit Chadasha

Again, I have to thank my friend BrookLaw for the groundwork laid to bring forth these quotes. She has many more if anyone is interested...


Sanhedrin 100a, attributes to Rabbi Meir the saying: "The measure which one measures will be measured out to him."

Matthew 7:2: "The measure you give will be the measure you get."
(Rabbi Meir was born after this statement was uttered by Y'shua)



Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
--Matthew 5:7

He who is merciful to others, shall receive mercy from Heaven.
--R. Gamaliel Beribbi, 3rd century C.E., Shabbat 151b




Freely you receive, freely give.
--Matthew 10:8

Just as I teach gratuituously, so you should teach gratuitously.
--R. Judah, 299 C.E., Bekoroth 29a




Let what you say be simply yes or no.
--Matthew 5:37

Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.
--R. Abaye, died 338 C.E., Baba Metzia 49a



Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
--Matthew 23:12

He who humbles himself for the Torah in this world is magnified in the next; and he who makes himself a servant to the Torah in this world becomes free in the next.
--R. Jeremiah, died 250 C.E., Baba Metzia 85b



Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the beam that is in your own eye?
--Matthew 7:3

Do they say, take the splinter out of your eye, he will retort: "Remove the beam out of your own eye."
--R. Johanan, surnamed Bar Napha, 199-279 C.E., Baba Bathra 15b



Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
--Matthew 5:10

Be rather of the persecuted than of the persecutors.
--R. Abbahu, 279-310 C.E., Baba Kamma 93a



Do not be anxious, saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?"
--Matthew 6:31

Whoever has a piece of bread in his basket and says, "What shall I eat tomorrow?" belongs only to them who are little in faith.
--R. Eliezer, died 117 C.E., Sotah 48b-




The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
--Mark 2:27

It (the Sabbath) is committed to your hands, not you to its hands.
--R. Jonathan ben Joseph, flourished after the destruction of the Temple, Yoma 85a



The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few.
--Matthew 9.37

The day is short, and the work is much; and the workmen are indolent, but the reward is much; and the Master of the House is insistent.
--R. Tarfon, 120 C.E., Aboth 2:15



"…it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him,'Take me as a proselyte, but on the condition that you teach me the entireTorah, while I stand on one foot.' Shammai instantly drove him away with a builder's measuring rod he happened to have in his hand. When the heathen
came before Hillel, Hillel said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not do
to your fellow man. This is the entire Torah. All of it; the rest is
commentary. Go ahead and study it.'"
(Shabbat 31a)

"Then one of the scribes [in Matt. 22:34-40, the Pharisees and Sadducees; in
Lk. 10:25-28, a lawyer], who had been listening to these discussions and had
observed how well Jesus answered, came forward and asked him, "Which is the
first of all the commandments? He answered, 'The first is, 'Hear O Israel:
the L-rd our G-d is the one L-rd, and you must love the L-rd your G-d with all
your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your
strength. The second is this: 'You must love your neighbor as yourself.'
No other commandment is greater than these.'" (Mark 12:28-31)





"At the approaching of Messiah, insolence will increase and honor will be held in contempt…The young will cause the faces of their elders to go pale, and the great will wait upon those of little worth. A son will revile his father. A daughter will rise up against her mother, a daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law. A man's enemies will be the inmates of his own house."
(Sotah 49b; Sanhedrin 97a and Ein Ya'akov, as loc.)

"I have come to set man against father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother in law; and a man will find his enemies
under his own roof."
(Matthew 10:35-36)

"… I have come to bring dissension. From now on, a family of five will be divided, three against two and two against three; father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother,
mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
(Luke 12:51-53)




"Abbaye asked Rabbah: What is your reason for not wanting to see him [the Messiah]? Should you say, 'Because of the birth pangs preceeding the Messiah's coming,' have we not been taught: R. Eliezer's disciples asked
him, 'What should one do to be spared the pangs of the Messiah?' 'Let him engage in study of Torah and in good deeds.'"
(Sanhedrin 98b)

"R. Isaac taught: In the year when the King Messiah reveals himself, all the kings of the nations of the earth will be agitated and frightened; they will fall upon their faces and be seized with pangs like the pangs of a woman in labor."
(PR, Piskas 35-37; Yalkut, Isa., ~499)

"For nation will go to war against nation, kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in many places; there will be famines. These are the first birth-pangs of the new age."
(Mark 13:8)


"In very truth I tell you, you will weep and mourn, but the world will be glad. But though you will be plunged in grief, your grief will be turned to joy. A woman in labor is in pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish in her joy that a child has been born
into the world."
(John 16:20-21)




"R. Yose bar Simon said: The nations of the earth will bring gifts to the
Messiah."
(MTeh 87:6)

"Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judaea during the reign of Herod. After his
birth astrologers from the east arrived in Jerusalem, asking, where is the
new-born king of the Jews?… they set out… entering the house, they saw the
child with Mary his mother and bowed low in homage to him; they opened their
treasure chests and presented gifts to him…"
(Matthew 2:1-11)



This is not necessarily quoted in the Brit Chadasha, but it's ideas have been argued over in doctrine for some time. If we look at this quote from the Mishnah we can see deeper insight. (I'm not sure if it is discussed in the Talmud, maybe BrookLaw can give us clarity on that)
Mishnah Abot 3:15a
"Everything is forseen, and [to everything is] free choice given."

There seems to be a false dychotomy of free will vs. predestination. What God has joined together, let no man seperate.
"Every part of G-d's character has two wings. Without this perfect balance, He would not fly. Some say G-d is filled with contradictions in defintion, I say G-d is defined in the contradictions. Grace vs. Judgement. No, I say Grace and Judgement in perfect balance." -Floyd McClung Jr.


Shalom,
Yafet.

[simchat_torah]

I would like to also highly reccomend the book The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565632443/qid=1091386637/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-7184335-5712606?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Brad H. Young. In this book, Brad Young documents the parables of Y'shua and shows us where they came from in Jewish tradition. As I've stated previously, almost every parable that Y'shua taught can be found in previous Jewish tradition.

fyi... the same can also be said of the L-rd's Prayer, and you can read its influences and origins in Brad Young's book: Background to the Lord's Prayer


shalom,
yafet

[MalkyEL]

Simchat,
Please supply the link to the original source of the document you quoted - The Seven Rules of Hillel.

Thank you

[simchat_torah]

Jewish Talmud confirms an early Gospel of Matthew



By Neil Altman and David Crowder



An ancient Jewish parody that quotes the New Testament's Gospel of Matthew may refute a major argument by biblical scholars who challenge the credibility of the Bible.

For more than a century, liberal scholars have contended that the Christian gospels are unreliable, secondhand accounts of Jesus' ministry that weren't put on paper until 70 to 135 AD or later -- generations after those who witnessed the events of Jesus' ministry were dead.

Today's more liberal scholars say the Gospel of Matthew may have been aimed at Jews, but it was written in Greek, not Hebrew. They also believe that the Book of Mark, written in Greek, was the original gospel, despite the traditional order of the gospels in the Bible, putting Matthew first.

But a literary tale dated by some scholars at 72 AD or earlier, which comes from an ancient collection of Jewish writings known as the Talmud, quotes brief passages that appear only in the Gospel of Matthew.

In his 1999 book, "Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times," Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University states that Rabban Gamaliel, a leader of rabbinical scholars in about 70 AD, is "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew."

The Talmud, a text not often touched by New Testament scholars, also contains a number of obvious references to Jesus and his family.

Jesus is called a Nazarene as one of the names given him. Another dubs him Yeshua Ben Pandira, which means Jesus born-of-a-virgin in a combination of Hebrew and Greek. His father was a carpenter, his mother was a hairdresser and Jesus, the Talmud says, was a magician who "led astray Israel."

And, it says, he was "hung" on the eve of Passover.

Gamaliel's tale, which happens to portray a Christian judge as corrupt, may be less valuable for its instruction than for casting doubt on the long-held theory that Matthew's gospel, though longer than Mark's, was written years later by someone after the apostle Matthew had died.

When Matthew's gospel to the Hebrews was written is important to biblical conservatives because an early Matthew would strengthen its credibility by making it possible, if not probable, that the tax collector whom Jesus recruited was the first to write and distribute his account of Jesus' birth, ministry and death.

Most liberal scholars would say Matthew's gospel didn't come along until 90 AD or later and was in Greek, separating the apostle from the Jews as well as book that bears his name.

But if Gamaliel quoted the Gospel of Matthew, then Matthew "had to be before 70 AD," said Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Theological Seminary.

In Rabbi Gamaliel's story, a daughter whose father had died offers a golden lamp as a bribe to a Christian judge known for his honesty, seeking a decision that would allow her to share her father's estate with her brother.

When the judge suggests that dividing the estate would be proper on the basis of a new law that had superseded the ancient Law of Moses, Gamaliel argues that the judge is wrong and loosely quotes a statement attributed to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew.

"Look further in the book, and it is written in it, 'I have not come to take away from the Law of Moses nor add to the Law of Moses ... .' " Gamaliel replies, and wins the case on the basis of that argument or the bribe he gave the judge -- a "Libyan *."

The Libyan * itself is a reference to Jesus and the mount he rode into Jerusalem.

The late English scholar, R. Travers Herford, called Gamaliel's story a "brutal parody of Christian belief." In his book, "Christianity in Talmud and Midrash," he points to a second reference to Matthew, in the reaction of the woman who lost the case, despite the golden lamp she gave as a bribe.

"Let your light shine as a lamp!" she says, throwing a sarcastic barb at the judge.

At Matthew 5:16, just before Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, he tells his followers that the lamp of their belief should not be hidden but "let your light shine before men."

Neil Altman is a Philadelphia-based writer who specializes in the Dead Sea Scrolls and religion. He has done graduate work at Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, Conwell School of Theology, and Temple University. He has a master's degree in Old Testament from Wheaton Graduate School in Wheaton, Ill., and was an American Studies Fellow at Eastern College. David Crowder is an investigative reporter for the El Paso Times in Texas.

[simchat_torah]

it is an article on Yashanet found here: http://www.yashanet.com/studies/revstudy/hillel.htm

fyi... I already know where you're headed with it, so be my guest.


But just for fun, I'll toss up a few of your own words you once spoke:MalkyEl:
The question was, are the facts presented true?

;)



now, be my guest :D

[simchat_torah]

Some people desperately try to take a razor and seperate out the life and teachings of Y'shua from its Jewish context. To do so is to totally destroy who Y'shua was. He was a Jewish Rabbi, who taught Judaism, lived as a Jew in Israel, attended synagogue and went to the Temple, read from the Torah, and used various Judaic sources in his teachings.

Many who spout antisemetic doctrine have desperately tried to sever each of those aspects of the Messiah.

:(

-yafet

[MalkyEL]

Simchat,

I used to follow James Trimm and his teachings, which is what you have posted. You can put your faith in whomever you choose. I choose to take a different path. Please post something to prove your point that I can respond to other than one man's theologically driven conjecture.

Shalom, MalkyEL

[MalkyEL]

Simchat:

Some people desperately try to take a razor and seperate out the life and teachings of Y'shua from its Jewish context. To do so is to totally destroy who Y'shua was. He was a Jewish Rabbi, who taught Judaism, lived as a Jew in Israel, attended synagogue and went to the Temple, read from the Torah, and used various Judaic sources in his teachings.

MalkyEL:

Let's look at your statement in part:

1] He was a Jewish Rabbi

He most certainly was. Scripture records this.

2] who taught Judaism

Depends on one's definition. The Pharisees didn't think He was doing such a great job at what they deemed it to be. Many of today's rabbi's would take exception to your statement as well.

3] lived as a Jew in Israel

Yes He did, scripture records this as well.

4] attended synagogue

Scripture supports this statement, that He read and taught in the synagogues, and even healed in them on Shabbat

5] went to the Temple, read from the Torah,

Scripture supports these statements.

6] and used various Judaic sources in his teachings.

I would need to see scriptural proof of that, and your definition of Judaic sources, as we know He read from the scroll of Isaiah.

[simchat_torah]

Despite what you may think of James Trimm, even I distance myself from the man greatly, he does provide some interesting food for thought. Besides, it was YOU who said:
:MalkyEl:
The question was, are the facts presented true?
Reniging on this statement, are we?


Anyway, I am by no means a 'follower' of James Trimm. I don't attend Nazarene services, don't call myself a nazarene, don't frequent any of his websites, etc. While I think some of his articles are truly intruiging, I am making it evidently clear I am not a Trimmite as you'd like to label me.

[simchat_torah]

Depends on one's definition. The Pharisees didn't think He was doing such a great job at what they deemed it to be. The Pharisees disagreed with the Saducees, but they certainly wouldn't declare the Saducees to be outside of Judaism.
Many of today's rabbi's would take exception to your statement as well.
Oh? Let's see what modern Rabbis and Judaism says of Y'shua:
"In all his views and actions Jesus was a Jew. As a pious Israelite he fulfilled all the commandments. He saw in God his Father in heaven, had pity on the poor, supported the stumbling, and loved the repentant, in whose place even the perfectly just are not allowed to stand, as a talmudic saying puts it. He was also afflicted with the typical Jewish failings. He never saw the sublime and beautiful in nature, and he never smiled. He carried on his teaching amid tears, threats, and promises...Jesus was the most Jewish of all Jews, more Jewish even than the great teacher Hillel."

---Joseph Klausner, Historian and Professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem
"Yeshu Ha-notzri" (Jerusalem 1922); "Jesus of Nazareth", trans. Herbert Danby (New York: Macmillan 1925).


"If the many sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels which express his devotion to the Torah have even a grain of historical truth in them, then the charge of 'perverting the people' is just as unthinkable as that of 'blasphemy' (Mk 14:64; Mt 26:65), which none of the four Gospels show him committing. For neither his claim to be the Messiah (Mk 14:61 ff.), nor the usurpation of 'divine sonship' (Mt 26:63 ff.) are considered blasphemy or capital offences in Jewish law."

---Pinchas Lapide
"Israelis, Jews and Jesus", trans. 1979 by Doubleday & Company, Inc., pg. 47




"None of the Jewish historians...deny Jewish responsibility...In fact, Professor Klausner maintains that the Sadducees have a share in the blame...Just as the Jews handed Jesus over to the Roman procurator of the country, since they had no jurisdiction over 'capital crimes', so too the opponents of Rabbi Shneur Salman of Liadi handed him over to the Russuian authorities...If Jesus' crucifixion was a part of the plan of salvation, then the Jews were only playing their predestined role. And if God for unfathomable reasons led them to commit this exalted crime, in order to reconcile mankind...then we deserve indulgence, pity and love - and all Christianity's offenses against us remain unforgivable, till Israel one day finds redemption...We did that deed but I feel no guilt because of it. Therefore I am free to deal critically with the Gospels, as with any other great book that has stamped its seal on world history."

---J. Carmel (born 1901)
"The Bach Passion: Yes or No", Keshet, Tel Aviv, Spring 1973, pp. 46-63



"My heart bled over the loss [in the schools] of this tragic yet so tender book, so lovable and warm in its closeness to life. Alien? I felt no alienation reading it...Its native soil is our own land. If the prophet Elijah rode to heaven in a flaming chariot, why shouldn't Jesus rise from the dead and ascend into heaven? And, as in the case of Elijah, here too it is not the supernatural but the human, all too human, which gives wings to head and heart. Just as the figure of Elijah and his life story lose nothing of their pathos even when we have ceased to believe in his ascent into heaven, so Jesus and his story of suffering are in no way diminished if we can believe neither in his miraculous birth nor his resurrection...Scenes like those in Gethsemane, his agonizing prayer, the arrest at midnight, his outcry on the cross...the masterworks of world literature contain only a few such high points, such fateful moments."

"...If Confucious and the Koran have been translated into Hebrew...why not the New Testament, with its deeper and more human values? When I read the Gospel of Matthew, I understand how easy it is to reinterpret this chronicle of the ancient past into a fully relevant life story which has much to say to us even today."

"...When I speak of the Gospels, it is without any view towards incorporating yet another holy book into our literature. I take no pleasure in a canon, with all the narrowness implied in such a concept. My only concerns are of a literary, cultural and intellectual nature...As a matter of fact, the Gospels are religious writings, and anyone who wishes to be influenced by them in a religious way should be free to do so...There are people who derive religious insights from Dostoevsky. Others may react in a similar way to the Gospels. Why not? What are we afraid of? Or must we be anxious lest Jews once again look upon Jesus as Messiah and redeemer?"

---J. Carmel (born 1901)
"The Bach Passion: Yes or No", Keshet, Tel Aviv, Spring 1973, pp. 46-63



"It will seem paradoxical to the Christian that the Jew can learn from Jesus how to pray, the true sense of the Sabbath, how to fast, the meaning of the kingdom of heaven and the last judgment. The open-minded Jew is always deeply impressed by Jesus' opinions, and he understands that here is one Jew speaking to other Jews."

---David Flusser
"Inwiefern kann Jesus fur Juden eine Frage sien?", in Concilium, X, no. 10 (Oct. 1974), p. 598




I have so many of these I think I'll continue in my next post ;)

[simchat_torah]

"Jesus was a Jew, Hebrew of Hebrews. Whatever I believe with respect to the imputed miracle of his birth, his mother, Mary, was a Jewish woman. He was reared and taught as a Jew. He worshipped in the synagogue. He spoke no language save Hebrew...Jesus did not teach or wish to teach a new religion."

---Rabbi Stephen Wise
"Challenging Years: The Autobiography of Stephen Wise (New York: Putnam, 1949), p. 281



"Jesus had no other end in view than to animate men with faith in the one God and to urge them on to the practice of all the neighborly virtues and love for everyone, even enemies. May God grant us all, Jews and Christians, that we may follow the teaching of Jesus and his shining example, for our well-being in this world and our salvation in the next. Amen."

---Dr. Elie Soloweyczyk (Orthodox Rabbi)
"Kol Kore' o Ha-Talmud Wehabrith Hachadashah" (1875) III, 9.



"Jesus of Nazareth not only observed the law of Moses but also the statutes of the rabbis. If any of his recorded words or deeds seem at first glance to run counter to this, that impression quickly fades. If we carefully examine his life, we find everything about it in complete agreement not only with the Scriptures but also with tradition."

---Moses Mendelssohn (1729-86)
"Jerusalem" (Leipzig, 1843), p. 357



"The founder of Christianity never had the idea of abolishing the Torah, nor did his disciple Paul...The disciples of the Nazarene chose baptism instead of circumcision for men who did not wish to accept Judaism, and Sunday instead of the Sabbath as the weekly day of rest, to testify that they were not fully Jewish. The Nazarene and his disciples, however, kept the Sabbath most strictly and practiced circumcision, for they were after all Jews by birth and descent, and observed all of the Torah...Christianity was only founded for the Gentiles."

---Rabbi Jacob Emden (1696 - 1776)
"Lechem Shamayim" (Hamburg, 1757), pp. 35 ff.



"The founder of Christianity rendered a double benefit to the world. On the one hand, he used all his power to reinforce the Torah of Moses, for none of our wise men ever placed greater emphasis on the eternal binding force of God's teaching. On the other hand, he did the Gentiles a great service - if only they wouldn't thwart his noble intention, as certain blockheads have done, by not grasping the true sense of the Gospels - in that he did away with idolatry, freed them from the service of idols, and obliged them to observe the seven commandments of Noah...and in fact he tried to make them perfect by means of a moral teaching which is still more demanding than the Torah of Moses."

---Rabbi Oscar Z. Fasman
"Seder Olam Raba-we-Sutta (Hamburg, 1757), pp. 35 ff.



"To the charge that the Talmud defamed Jesus as a falsifier of the Torah, Rabbi Yechiel in the notorious Paris disputation (1240) conceded that the Talmud polemics referred to Jesus, "but not to Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth, who never rejected the Torah". The fact that Jesus (Yeshua, Yehoshua, Yoshua) was such a common Jewish name largly confirms this hypothesis. Josephus alone mentions a round dozen men who bore this name, while in the Talmud no fewer than twenty-one namesakes of Jesus appear among the rabbis."

------Pinchas Lapide
"Israelis, Jews and Jesus", trans. 1979 by Doubleday & Company, Inc., pgs. 82-83

[simchat_torah]

6] and used various Judaic sources in his teachings.

I would need to see scriptural proof of that, and your definition of Judaic sources, as we know He read from the scroll of Isaiah.
I'm speaking along the lines of Jewish tradition, not scripture in this example.

I've already shown you dozens and dozens of examples ranging from Hillel to the Talmud to the Mishnah. I've also shown you were Sha'ul quotes these sources as well as Y'shua. I suppose it is your choice whether you want to open your eyes and read those or not, but they are there in this thread.

Shalom and shalom,
yafet

[The Thadman]

The heart of Talmud is Mishna - and this has existed since Sinai

If I remember correctly, doesn't talk about Samaritans, Chanukah, and Purim appear in the Mishnah?

Peace!
-Steve-o

[insaneinthebrain]

I just happened to notice this and need to bring up an important point. If I remember correctly, talk about Samaritans, Chanukah, and Purim appear in the Mishnah. This makes me raise an eyebrow about Sinaitic claims.

Peace!
-Steve-o
I read somewhere, probably the book Rabbi Akiba's Messiah that I've been working through, that in the first century it was not believed that Oral "Law" went all the way back to Moses. It was viewed as tradition passed down...but not all the way from Sinai.

Granted, I'm totally unable to defend this stance, so take it for what you will. ;)

[simchat_torah]

I just happened to notice this and need to bring up an important point. If I remember correctly, talk about Samaritans, Chanukah, and Purim appear in the Mishnah. This makes me raise an eyebrow about Sinaitic claims.
Some people take it too literal. I think the essence of the halacha has been around for a long time, and could possibly trace itself back to Sinai, but the Mishnah itself by no means traces back to Sinai. I doubt any real Rabbi would state that. Most would say its essence, its halacha, its spirit, goes back to Sinai.... but not the Mishnah itself.

In my opinion, many of the traditions predate 2cnd century ce by a long shot, and even possibly go back to Sinai, but that's about it.

-yafet

[sojeru]

To thadman and henny,

You are BOTH CORRECT!

Mishnah is the heart and has existed since sinai!
and it can be 100% stated as truth that nothing in Mishna was not of Sinai!

However, what must be understood is this-
there is Sinaitic Oral Tradition and there is Rabbinical Oral Tradition- both are Mishna!
What was the Rabbinical Oral Tradition?
Simple!
When the Bet HaMikdash was destroyed- this came into play...
So everything else can easily be viewed now.
-----------
Depends on one's definition. The Pharisees didn't think He was doing such a great job at what they deemed it to be.
I Can Show Otherwise
Scripture supports this statement, that He read and taught in the synagogues, and even healed in them on Shabbat
By This it should already show you much different than your current way of thaught.

I would need to see scriptural proof of that, and your definition of Judaic sources, as we know He read from the scroll of Isaiah.

Yafet answered this exceptionally


shalom u'brachot,
Antonio

[MalkyEL]

Simchat:

Despite what you may think of James Trimm, even I distance myself from the man greatly, he does provide some interesting food for thought.

While I think some of his articles are truly intruiging...

MalkyEl:

Some of the topics discussed on the sci-fi channel are interesting and intriguing, but I would not base my eternal salvation on them :)

Simchat:

The Pharisees disagreed with the Saducees, but they certainly wouldn't declare the Saducees to be outsideof Judaism.

MalkyEl:

They also did not declare that the saducees should be crucified.

MalkyEl:

First let's examine what the teachers of the law thought of His methods of proclaiming Judaism. If teachers of the law thought that the Messiah was doing an excellent job of teaching "Judaism", then why did they demonstrate it in this way:

1] By telling Him that He was possessed by demons:
Mark 3:22 John 7:20,48, 52, 10:20, 8:48, 52

and a liar: John 8:13

If they liked His representation of their religion so much, then why did they express it in the following ways:

Matthew 12:14 Then the Pharisees went out and held
council against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.

Mark 3:6 The Pharisees went out and immediately took
counsel with the Herodians against Him, how they might
destroy Him.

Luke 4:28 And hearing these things, all in the
synagogue were filled with wrath.
29 And they rose up and thrust Him outside the city,
and led Him up to the brow of the hill on which their
city was built, in order to throw Him down.

Luke 20:19 And the chief priests and the scribes
sought to lay hands on Him the same hour. And they
feared the people, for they perceived that He had
spoken this parable against them.

John 5:16 And therefore the Jews persecuted Jesus and
sought to kill Him, because He had done these things
on the sabbath day.

John 5:18 Then, because of this, the Jews sought the
more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the
sabbath, but also said that God was His father, making
Himself equal with God.

John 7:32 The Pharisees heard that the crowd murmured
such things concerning Him. And the Pharisees and the
chief priests sent officers to seize Him.

John 8:59 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him.
But Jesus hid Himself and went forth out of the
temple, going through the midst of them, and passed on
by.

John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone
Him

John 11:53 Then from that day they took counsel
together that they might kill Him.

John 11:57 And all the chief priests and the Pharisees
had given commands, that if anyone knew where He was,
he should make it known so that they might seize Him.

They even wanted His friends dead:

John 12:9 Then a great crowd of the Jews learned that
He was there. And they did not come for Jesus' sake
only, but also that they might see Lazarus, whom He
had raised from the dead.
10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put
Lazarus to death also,
11 because many of the Jews went away and believed on
Jesus because of him.

Simchat:

Oh? Let's see what modern Rabbis and Judaism says of Y'shua:


MalkyEl:

I am glad that some of the more liberal rabbi's speak nicely of the Messiah, and feel that he was a good man, and a rabbi, but we also have to examine where this acronym originated from:

Yimach Shmo V'zichrono

[simchat_torah]

I am glad that some of the more liberal rabbi's speak nicely of the MessiahLiberal???
David Fluesser? Probably one of the most respected professors to have walked down the halls of Hebrew University in Jerusalem?
Pinchas Lapide? Dr. Elie Soloweyczyk???
Joseph Klausner? (another Hebrew U. prof)
Liberal? These men????


Come come now... You're just being fecetious because you're losing an argument! Either you're entirely unfamiliar with these men, or you're purposefully being facetious. Either way, its way off base.


And again, as far as Trimm's article, I'll remind you of your own words:
http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gif
MalkyEl:
The question was, are the facts presented true?
http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gif


Now, back to the topic, the question was... is the Talmud worth studying? I pointed out that Y'shua himself quoted the Talmud, Paul used the Talmud, various other Rabbinical sources were quoted and used extensively in the NT. I think the case is clear. The Talmud is at least worth studying to understand the background of the Messiah.

As far as your charges against pharisees... interestingly, Sha'ul himself considered he was a pharisee among pharisees even after his conversion. He continued to use pharisetical argumentation, texts, and interpretation in his letters. Because certain individuals did not perceive the messiah when he came does not condemn the whole group. This is a dangerous and slippery path towards deep antisemetic thought and its simply not healthy.

Shalom,
yafet

[simchat_torah]

What modern Judaism thinks of Y'shua, or ancient Judaism for that matter, really has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I was merely being nice and pointing out that modern thought actually considers Y'shua to not only a good Jew, but a Jew who can be respected for his Judaic based faith-lifestyle.

The heart of the matter is how Y'shua himself treated Judaism, not the other way around. Y'shua was a Jew, and used Judaic texts in his teachings. This is well documented in this thread, and in my opinion, is indisputable.

While I will often take the time to answer rabbit trails, they are wholly unnecessary. Especially in this thread where a non-MJ has asked a simple question. Argument beyond the OP in this case should really be hampered.

Until Jews begin to see that Y'shua was a Jew who was faithful to Judaism, they will only see him as a pagan outsider. This was my original point when I replied to the OP.

shalom,
-yafet

[MalkyEL]

Simchat:
You're just being fecetious because you're losing an argument!

MalkyEL:
Anyhow…..

Simchat:
And again, as far as Trimm's article, I'll remind you of your own words:

Quote:
MalkyEL:
The question was, are the facts presented true?


MalkyEL:
Not until you can prove them by using research other than what you have presented by Mr Trimm.


Simchat:
Now, back to the topic, the question was... is the Talmud worth studying? I pointed out that Y'shua himself quoted the Talmud, Paul used the Talmud, various other Rabbinical sources were quoted and used extensively in the NT. I think the case is clear.


MalkyEL:
Pointing out and proving beyond the shadow of a doubt are too entirely different things.If you are happy with your determination using Mr Trimm article posted on a sacred name site as a source, that is fine. I will pass.

Simchat:

This is a dangerous and slippery path towards deep antisemetic thought and its simply not healthy.

MalkyEL:
Let's leave the accusations of anti semitic behavior out of this and pursue the facts of the matter.

Simchat:

What modern Judaism thinks of Y'shua, or ancient Judaism for that matter, really has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I was merely being nice and pointing out that modern thought actually considers Y'shua to not only a good Jew, but a Jew who can be respected for his Judaic based faith-lifestyle.

The heart of the matter is how Y'shua himself treated Judaism, not the other way around. Y'shua was a Jew, and used Judaic texts in his teachings. This is well documented in this thread, and in my opinion, is indisputable.

MalkyEL:

You stated on another thread that the Messiah practiced and taught rabbinic Judaism. This is clearly not the case. Scripture confirms that in the Gospels, as well as other writings.

[sojeru]

lol, Malkyel,

both Yafet and I can CLEARLY show you by the Nazarean Codocil (called "New Testament"), in the Bible (Tanakh) and in Rabbinical writtings that His Majesty Yeshuah taught and lived Rabbinical Judaism.

Just becaused you are not that well learned in Rabbinical Judaism doesnt mean that your perception is the correct perception.
I can assure you, that if you were to learn What Rabbinical Judaism is and all that it carries- you will most clearly see that he did INDEED teach this.

This is only my claim, I ofcourse have presented no facts and how Rabbinical Teachings are so infused within the Nazarean Codocil.

This is only my opening to you.

If you wish to see how with an open mind then we can go into the Jewish debates forum.
If you accept this call to debate, either Post a thread in that forum or Pm me so that I can open it.

I would advise you to take a look here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t103125&page=1&pp=30

this is an opener.

shalom u'brachot,
Antonio

[MalkyEL]

Sojeru:

both Yafet and I can CLEARLY show you by the Nazarean Codocil (called "New Testament"), in the Bible (Tanakh) and in Rabbinical writtings that His Majesty Yeshuah taught and lived Rabbinical Judaism.

MalkyEL:

I guess that I would first need your definition of rabbinical Judaism.

Sojeru:

Just becaused you are not that well learned in Rabbinical Judaism doesnt mean that your perception is the correct perception. I can assure you, that if you were to learn What Rabbinical Judaism is and all that it carries- you will most clearly see that he did INDEED teach this.

MalkyEl:

A few more questions if you don't mind.

Was the faith practiced by Messiah in the first century what you are referring to as rabbinic Judaism, and if so, is that the same faith practiced by the Jewish people today?

lf so, did the teachers of the law accept the Messiah as teaching this faith according to their standards and practices?

Do the ultra-orthodox of today consider the Messiah as a good representative of their beliefs?

Also, since we are told in scripture that Paul knew the will of G-d, and that he heard the voice of the Holy One, do the teachers of the law, past and present, agree with Paul's teachings, and consider Paul as a good representative of their faith, or rabbinic Judaism as you have titled it?

[simchat_torah]

1) I have brought an enormous ammount of scholarly work to the table that has been ignored. I have masses of information concerning the Talmud in the NT, Y'shua and Sha'ul using Hillel and other sources, etc. I have also shown the attitude of modern Judaism towards Y'shua... all of this has yet to be recognized.

2) The topics at hand are now driving further and further away from the OP. The OP was a nice christian who simply wanted to know how he can share the messiah with his Jewish friends with a greater effect. I've attempted to steer the conversation back to the OP without success.

3) There are in fact some dangerous thought patterns that are headed in an antisemetic direction.


Because of the points listed above, I will consider this matter closed. I have made an excellent presentation of my case. So, unless my opponent wants to present new evidence, address what I've carefully and thoroughly laid out, or return to the subject at hand... I will not be returning comment.

Shalom and shalom,
yafet

[MalkyEL]

Simchat:

Because of the points listed above, I will consider this matter closed. I have made an excellent presentation of my case. So, unless my opponent wants to present new evidence, address what I've carefully and thoroughly laid out, or return to the subject at hand... I will not be returning comment.

MalkyEL:

Let's look at one of the sources that you posted. Notice the dates of when these people quoted lived and died. All were after the time of the Messiah.

Sanhedrin 100a, attributes to Rabbi Meir the saying:
"The measure which one measures will be measured out to him."

Matthew 7:2: "The measure you give will be the measure you get."
(Rabbi Meir was born after this statement was uttered by Y'shua)

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
--Matthew 5:7

He who is merciful to others, shall receive mercy from Heaven.
--R. Gamaliel Beribbi, 3rd century C.E., Shabbat 151b

Freely you receive, freely give.
--Matthew 10:8

Just as I teach gratuituously, so you should teach gratuitously.
--R. Judah, 299 C.E., Bekoroth 29a

Let what you say be simply yes or no.
--Matthew 5:37

Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.
--R. Abaye, died 338 C.E., Baba Metzia 49a

Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
--Matthew 23:12

He who humbles himself for the Torah in this world is magnified in the next; and he who makes himself a servant to the Torah in this world becomes free in the next.
--R. Jeremiah, died 250 C.E., Baba Metzia 85b

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the beam that is in your own eye?
--Matthew 7:3

Do they say, take the splinter out of your eye, he will retort: "Remove the beam out of your own eye."
--R. Johanan, surnamed Bar Napha, 199-279 C.E., Baba Bathra 15b

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
--Matthew 5:10

Be rather of the persecuted than of the persecutors.
--R. Abbahu, 279-310 C.E., Baba Kamma 93a

Do not be anxious, saying, "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?"
--Matthew 6:31

Whoever has a piece of bread in his basket and says, "What shall I eat tomorrow?" belongs only to them who are little in faith.
--R. Eliezer, died 117 C.E., Sotah 48b-


The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
--Mark 2:27

It (the Sabbath) is committed to your hands, not you to its hands.
--R. Jonathan ben Joseph, flourished after the destruction of the Temple, Yoma 85a

The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few.
--Matthew 9.37

The day is short, and the work is much; and the workmen are indolent, but the reward is much; and the Master of the House is insistent.
--R. Tarfon, 120 C.E., Aboth 2:15

MalkyEL:

All were after the Messiah had lived here on earth, so the question is, who is quoting who? The talmud was not written until 3 C.E. and later.

[simchat_torah]

unless my opponent wants to present new evidence
This is not new... we have already hashed over the fact that:
1) The Talmud cites sources much more ancient than its compilation
and
2) The essence of the Talmud's halacha, philosophies, theologies, etc... date back, in some cases, to Sinai.

[MalkyEL]

Simchat:

This is not new... we have already hashed over the fact that:
1) The Talmud cites sources much more ancient than its compilation


MalkyEL:

So does the Jewish Enclyopedia, but no one would say that the Messiah was quoting it. Why is your argument any different? The talmud is later writings, in a different, later form of Aramaic than the middle Aramaic that the Messiah spoke which ended around the second century C.E.


Simchat:

2) The essence of the Talmud's halacha, philosophies,theologies, etc... date back, in some cases, to Sinai.

MalkyEL:

Question:

Are there any things written in the talmud that were disputed by the Messiah in the NT scriptures?

[simchat_torah]

So does the Jewish Enclyopedia, but no one would say that the Messiah was quoting it. 1) The Jewish Encyclopedia does indeed cite its sources.
2) The Messiah quoted from some of the sources contained in the Jewish Encyclopedia, just like he did from the Talmud.
**See Brad Young's book on the Jewish background to the L-rd's Prayer for further insight**


Are there any things written in the talmud that were disputed by the Messiah in the NT scriptures? How is this relevant?


I also have to question your point in arguing all of this. The thread was originally intended to help an individual share with his Jewish friend about the Messiah. What are you attempting to accomplish?

I'm a bit confused,
Yafet

[insaneinthebrain]

**See Brad Young's book on the Jewish background to the L-rd's Prayer for further insight**This book appears to be out of print. :(

Edit: I just found it at First Fruits of Zion, and decided to order before it also vanishes from there. ;)

[simchat_torah]

Its an amazing resource. You'll truly enjoy it.

-yafet

[Henaynei]

MOD HAT ON
http://www.nehemiah-center.org/Henny.jpg

MalkyEL,

Sojeru has correctly stated that if you wish to debate this or discuss this with him you must do so in the Jewish Debates sub-thread in this forum - it can not be done here. So, if you wish him to respond to your questions you will need to open a thread there.....

b'Shalom
Henaynei
Moderator

This is only my opening to you.

If you wish to see how with an open mind then we can go into the Jewish debates forum.
If you accept this call to debate, either Post a thread in that forum or Pm me so that I can open it.

I would advise you to take a look here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t103125&page=1&pp=30 (http://www.christianforums.com/t103125&page=1&pp=30)

Sojeru:

both Yafet and I can CLEARLY show you by the Nazarean Codocil (called "New Testament"), in the Bible (Tanakh) and in Rabbinical writtings that His Majesty Yeshuah taught and lived Rabbinical Judaism.

MalkyEL:

I guess that I would first need your definition of rabbinical Judaism.

Sojeru:

Just becaused you are not that well learned in Rabbinical Judaism doesnt mean that your perception is the correct perception. I can assure you, that if you were to learn What Rabbinical Judaism is and all that it carries- you will most clearly see that he did INDEED teach this.

MalkyEl:

A few more questions if you don't mind.

Was the faith practiced by Messiah in the first century what you are referring to as rabbinic Judaism, and if so, is that the same faith practiced by the Jewish people today?

lf so, did the teachers of the law accept the Messiah as teaching this faith according to their standards and practices?

Do the ultra-orthodox of today consider the Messiah as a good representative of their beliefs?

Also, since we are told in scripture that Paul knew the will of G-d, and that he heard the voice of the Holy One, do the teachers of the law, past and present, agree with Paul's teachings, and consider Paul as a good representative of their faith, or rabbinic Judaism as you have titled it?

[sojeru]

hi henny,
thank you for reminding Malkyel,

but I Just want to add, that Many ORTHODOX Jews today will outright say that the "Nishmat kol Chai" in the siddurim was written by Hakham Tsefet (Peter), a pillar of the Nazareans.
This prayer is in every siddur and is recited on Shabbat.

Funny thing about it- Though I will have to do much , much more exstensive study on this- however, The other Jews who dont mention Peter at all, say that the prayer was actually written by Shimon ben Shetach.

Here is the Coincidence.
Bother Tsefet (Cefas) and Shimon share the same name- both of their names were Shimon:D
so it could actually be the same person- i just need to do some hard research.

lol
hope this is a help to everyone.
Shalom u'brachot,
Antonio

[MalkyEL]

Simchat,

When I entered into this discussion with you, I knew that it would be a challenge. Please do not interpret this to be insulting, because that is not my intent. Let me explain. I have been reading this forum for quite some time, and after a while, one can see patterns that develop. Here are some of the things that I have observed.

Many on this forum quote articles and information from sites such as yashanet and others as source of scholarly information on all things Jewish. What some of you may not have realized, is that yashanet is hosted by a webmaster who if I remember correctly, is a "former" Christian that in his earlier days published an online Christian newsletter. Now he is hosting a site that many claim as a Jewish authority.

When you claimed that the Messiah quoted from the talmud, I was not surprised. It is a buzz topic that many in the Hebrew roots are professing these days. A while back I watched you debate someone about the talmud, and you stated that it was not anti-Christian or anti "Jesus". You used a website that "explained" that the talmud was not refering to the "Jesus" of the scriptures, but another Jesus. There was one small problem that I saw with this statement, because Jewish sources state that it was Him that they are talking about. Here are some excerpts from an article found in the Jewish
encyclopedia titled "Jesus of Nazareth":


In Jewish Legend:

The Jewish legends in regard to Jesus are found in three sources, each independent of the others-(1) in New Testament apocrypha and Christian polemical works, (2) in the Talmud and the Midrash, and (3) in the life of Jesus ("Toledot Yeshu'") that originated in the Middle Ages. It is the tendency of all these sources to be-little the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death. In view of their general character they are called indiscriminately legends. Some of the statements, as that referring to magic, are found among pagan writers and Christian heretics; and as the Ebionites, or Judæo-Christians, who for a long time lived together with the Jews, are also classed as heretics, conclusions may be drawn from this as to the origin of these legends.


It ought also to be added that many of the legends have a theological background. For polemical purposes, it was necessary for the Jews to insist on the illegitimacy of Jesus as against the Davidic descent claimed by the Christian Church. Magic may have been ascribed him over against the miracles recorded in the Gospels; and the degrading fate both on earth and hereafter of which the legends speak may be simply directed against the ideas of the assumption and the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish legends relating to Jesus appear less inimical in character when compared with the parallel passages which are found in pagan authors and Christian sources, more especially as such legends are fixed and frequently occurring themes of folk-lore; and imaginations must have been especially excited by the historical importance which the figure of Jesus came to have for the Jews.


The earliest authenticated passage ascribing illegitimate birth to Jesus is that in Yeb. iv. 3. The mysterious phrase ("that man") cited in this passage as occurring in a family register which R. Simeon ben Azza is said to have found seems to indicate that it refers to Jesus (see Derenbourg in "R. E. J." i. 293), and here occur also the two expressions so often applied to Jesus in later literature- (= "that anonymous one," the name of Jesus being avoided) and
(="b astard"; for which in later times was used). Such a family register may have been preserved at Jerusalem in the Judæo-Christian community.

Jesus as Magician.

According to Celsus (in Origen, "Contra Celsum," i.28) and to the Talmud (Shab. 104b), Jesus learned magic in Egypt and performed his miracles by means of it; the latter work, in addition, states that he cut the magic formulas into his skin. It does not mention, however, the nature of his magic performances (Tosef., Shab. xi. 4; Yer. Shab. 13d); but as it states that
the disciples of Jesus healed the sick "in the name of Jesus Pandera" (Yer. Shab. 14d; 'Ab. Zarah 27b; Eccl.R. i. 8) it may be assumed that its author held the miracles of Jesus also to have been miraculous cures. Different in nature is the witchcraft attributed toJesus in the "Toledot." When Jesus was expelled from the circle of scholars, he is said to have returned secretly from Galilee to Jerusalem, where he inserted a parchment containing the "declared name of God" ("Shem ha-Meforash"), which was guarded in the Temple,into his skin, carried it away, and then, taking it out of his skin, he performed his miracles by its means. This magic formula then had to be recovered from him, and Judah the Gardener (a personage of the "Toledot"corresponding to Judas Iscariot) offered to do it; he and Jesus then engaged in an aerial battle (borrowed from the legend of Simon Magus), in which
Judah remained victor and Jesus fled.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/index.jsp and type "Jesus of Nazareth" in search window. It is the first article.

MalkyEL:

Now before we get into the accusations of anti-semitic "mindset", let me state this. If a few Jewish writers make comments that are against the Messiah, is it a mark on all Jews? Absolutely not. There are many non-Jews that have made negative and defamatory remarks about Jesus. Would that be considered a mark against all non-Jews? Absolutely not. The catholic church has performed some horrible deeds in it's history. Does this mean all catholics are bad? Absolutely not. In the end, it is about what is truth and what is not, whether we personally like the outcome or not. It is just that simple.

[simchat_torah]

What some of you may not have realized, is that yashanet is hosted by a webmaster who if I remember correctly, is a "former" Christian that in his earlier days published an online Christian newsletter. Now he is hosting a site that many claim as a Jewish authority.
I haven't made this claim, nor have I seen that claim made by anyone here. I have never referred to Yashanet before, nor do I consider it a "Jewish Authority". Simply put, it is one of literally hundreds of thousands of messianic websites on the www.

While I have read only a few of their articles, they themselves don't necessarily publish most of what's on their site. Their website is primarily a collection of various messianic articles that are found elsewhere.

So, instead of you speaking for me, maybe I can use my own words? Yashanet is NOT an "authentic" Jewish authority. In fact, I don't consider any of the messianic leaders today to be that of authentic Jewish authorities.

A while back I watched you debate someone about the talmud, and you stated that it was not anti-Christian or anti "Jesus".It isn't. Many of the Talmudic references that refer to "jesus" do not refer to the christian messiah. Many of these charges against the Talmud came about via antisemetic christian communities. These false accusations became so widespread that today you'll find many Jews who they themselves simply don't know that the Talmudic refences are not to the christian messiah.

You used a website that "explained" that the talmud was not refering to the "Jesus" of the scriptures, but another Jesus.
Actually, the Talmud refers to dozens of "jesus" characters. It was a very very common name in first century Israel.
There was one small problem that I saw with this statement, because Jewish sources state that it was Him that they are talking about.Uhhh... nope. Not a single passage in the Talmud refer to Y'shua HaMoshiach ben Yossef.

Let's examine your sources:

1) The first three paragraphs that you quoted do not cite where in the Talmud they are referencing. Unfortuantely, I can not take issue with you over these because you did not cite the Talmudic sources... nor can anyone accept these paragraphs for the very same reason.

2) Shabbat 104b (the first Talmudic source referenced above) is what the next chunck of text refers us to.



Gil Student's article called "The Jesus Narrative" had this to say concerning the Shabbat (or Shabbos) 104b section of the talmud:quote: Yeshu Ben Pandira, started his own sect and had many followers. His heretical and idolatrous teachings lasted centuries after his life but, like so many Jewish sects, slowly died out after the destruction of the Temple.


and



quote: ... Yeshu lived in the first half of the first century BCE during the reign of Alexander Janneus. He goes on to eloquently prove that Yeshu was not the christian messiah Jesus, but a different historical figure.




NOW, since we are discussing "authentic Jewish authority", I'll refer you to the Paris Disputation of 1241, where was officially and legally determined that none of the references in the Talmud to Jesus were about the Christian Jesus. This is the official statement of Judaism. So, unfortunately no matter how many misinformed articles you quote, the official Jewish stance is that the Talmud does not refer to the christian jesus.... ever.

Shalom,
yafet

[simchat_torah]

Gil Student's full text concerning Shabbat 104b:


Passage #1: Ben Stada
Talmud Shabbat 104b, Sanhedrin 67a
The text:
=================================
It is taught: R. Eliezer told the sages: Did not Ben Stada bring witchcraft with him from Egypt in a cut that was on his skin? They said to him: He was a fool and you cannot bring proof from a fool.

Ben Stada is Ben Pandira.

R. Chisda said: The husband was Stada and the lover was Pandira. [No,] the husband was Pappos Ben Yehudah and the mother was Stada. [No,] the mother was Miriam the women's hairdresser [and was called Stada]. As we say in Pumbedita: She has turned away [Stat Da] from her husband.
=================================




Summary
What we see from here is that there was a man named Ben Stada who was considered to be a practicer of black magic. His mother was named Miriam and also called Stada. His father was named Pappos Ben Yehudah. Miriam (Stada) had an affair with Pandira from which Ben Stada was born.

Proof
Some historians claim that Ben Stada, also known as Ben Pandira, was Jesus. His mother's name was Miriam which is similar to Mary. Additionally, Miriam was called a women's hairdresser, "megadla nashaia" [for this translation, see R. Meir Halevi Abulafia, Yad Rama, Sanhedrin ad. loc.]. The phrase "Miriam megadla nashaia" sounds similar to Mary Magdalene, a well-known New Testament figure.

Problems
1. Mary Magdalene was not Jesus' mother. Neither was Mary a hairdresser.
2. Jesus' step-father was Joseph. Ben Stada's step-father was Pappos Ben Yehudah.
3. Pappos Ben Yehudah is a known figure from other places in talmudic literature. The Mechilta Beshalach (Vayehi ch. 6) has him discussing Torah with Rabbi Akiva and Talmud Berachot 61b has Pappos Ben Yehudah being captured and killed by Romans along with Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva lived during the second half of the first century and the first half of the second century. He died in the year 134. If Pappos Ben Yehudah was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva's, he must have been born well after Jesus' death and certainly could not be his father.
-yafet

[MalkyEL]

MalkyEL said earlier:
A while back I watched you debate someone about the talmud, and you stated that it was not anti-Christian or anti "Jesus".

Simchat:

It isn't. Many of the Talmudic references that refer to "jesus" do not refer to the christian messiah.

MalkyEL:
And the ones that do, defame who He is according to the beliefs of His followers.

Simchat:

Many of these charges against the Talmud came about via antisemetic christian communities. These false accusations became so widespread that today you'll find many Jews who they themselves simply don't know that the Talmudic refences are not to the christian messiah.

MalkyEL:
Maybe you should contact the Jewish Encylclopedia then, and inform them that their articles that are researched and written by their Jewish scholars are incorrect, and of the anti-semitic nature of the writings that are housed on their website.

You also might want to contact Rabbi Lappin and tell him of his error:

"Do we really want to return to those dark times when Catholic authorities attempted to strip from the Talmud those passages that they found offensive? Some of my Jewish readers may feel squeamish about my alluding to the existence of Talmudic passages uncomplimentary toward Jesus as well as descriptive of Jewish involvement in his crucifixion. However, the truth is that anyone with Internet access can easily locate those passages in about ten seconds. I think it far better that in the name of genuine Jewish-Christian friendship in America, we allow all faiths their own beliefs even if we find those beliefs troubling or at odds with our own beliefs. This way we can all prosper safely under the constitutional protection of the United States of America."

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/lappin200309260936.asp

http://www.seekgod.ca/

[simchat_torah]

And the ones that do, defame who He is according to the beliefs of His followers.
Please show one.... just one.
You've failed to do so thus far.
Maybe you should contact the Jewish Encylclopedia then, and inform them that their articles that are researched and written by their Jewish scholars are incorrect, and of the anti-semitic nature of the writings that are housed on their website.

You also might want to contact Rabbi Lappin and tell him of his error:
No thanks. The authoritative Jewish decision was made in 1241 and stands to this day. Any Jewish source which recants that decision is outside of normative authentic Jewish authority (officially and legally) and isn't worth my time to deal with. Those Jews who want to make statements that are unofficial or outside of the legal constructs of Judaism are simply devising their own opinion, but are doing so outside of normative Judaism.

Shalom,
yafet

[simchat_torah]

You also might want to contact Rabbi Lappin and tell him of his error:Higher Truth used to tell me the same thing all the time about such sources ("you might want to contact so and so"). The problem is, these types of sources were always outside of normative Jewish authority. You can find these types of 'scholars' for a dime a dozen. Its not worth my time to address in discussions like these. When someone says "Judaism claims ABC because I found some random XYZ person who claims such" is, simply put, very misleadning... because it isn't "JUDAISM" making the claim, but merely a single individual.

Maybe its not necessarily you who is misleading, maybe its the source who is misleading... but they stand as misleading souces either way.


So, no thank you, I'd rather not 'contact' this person. I have too many real life issues that I'm swamped with at the moment to track down someone and explain to them that they are misinformed, or are outside of normative Judaism, etc. So while you, or Higher Truth, may sincerely (or facetiously) want me to contact these people, I'd rather let them do their own homework. Or, if people such as Rabbi Leppin already know of the official Jewish stance on these issues, then it would be a waste of my time because they have decided to publish outside of their respective authorities.

Shalom,
yafet