An Open Letter to Mel

[Guest idolsmasher]

The man who wrote this article is a Jew and, yes I believe him. I have read this other places as well, it's easy to find.

[Guest yod]

Really?

Do you want to buy beach front property here in Dallas really cheap???

[Guest shiloh357]

The Talmud and what was written in it should be taken with a grain of salt. The Talmud asserts in Chapter 1 of Tractate Pirkei Avot, that there is an unbroken chain of Jewish Torah observance which is untrue, and Scripture proves it. The Talmud has been altered over the centuries and much has been deleted and added to it in order to prevent Jewish people from seeing Jesus.

The Talmud is not to be taken seriously. Much of what is critical of Jesus in the Talmud has been added only within the last one thousand years. It began with the Jewish Scholar Rashi in 1100 A.D., and has continued to this day.

In the days of the pogroms and iquisitions (and BTW, Maimondides lived during or just after the Spanish inquistion), Jewish scholars in the Talmud started reinterpreting Messianic passages so that people would believe that they referred to Israel and not the Messiah. This was done as a response to persecution, not out of theological stubbornness. The so called "Christians" of Europe during the Middle Ages and since have have driven the Jews to hate Christianity and Jesus because of what they suffered suppposedly "in His Name."

Quoting the Talmud is silly if you do not know the motives behind what was written.

[Guest yod]

thanks for clearing that up.

[JP1]

as far as the whole antisemitisim or however you spell it goes, the romans were the ones who crucified christ, the romans beat him and nailed him

Yeah, and I'm curious - how come the Italians aren't all in an uproar for being blamed for the death of Christ?

[Guest idolsmasher]

The Talmud and what was written in it should be taken with a grain of salt. The Talmud asserts in Chapter 1 of Tractate Pirkei Avot, that there is an unbroken chain of Jewish Torah observance which is untrue, and Scripture proves it. The Talmud has been altered over the centuries and much has been deleted and added to it in order to prevent Jewish people from seeing Jesus.

The Talmud is not to be taken seriously. Much of what is critical of Jesus in the Talmud has been added only within the last one thousand years. It began with the Jewish Scholar Rashi in 1100 A.D., and has continued to this day.

In the days of the pogroms and iquisitions (and BTW, Maimondides lived during or just after the Spanish inquistion), Jewish scholars in the Talmud started reinterpreting Messianic passages so that people would believe that they referred to Israel and not the Messiah. This was done as a response to persecution, not out of theological stubbornness. The so called "Christians" of Europe during the Middle Ages and since have have driven the Jews to hate Christianity and Jesus because of what they suffered suppposedly "in His Name."

Quoting the Talmud is silly if you do not know the motives behind what was written.

You and I may know the Talmud is wrong, but it is standard rabbinical study and teaching. Go to any Jewish website forum like "ask a rabbi" and you will see the Talmud is very highly regarded as correct interpretation of the Torah. To blame Christians for Jewish teaching is just plain nonsense. The Jewish leaders have always sought to undermine the influence of Christ and Christians on their congregations. What you are suggesting is someone's imagination.

[Guest yod]

The Talmud isn't inspired by God so it doesn't matter what is in it.

It's known as Oral Torah and they claim that Moses received it at Sinai also...but they didn't write it down until the 2nd Century. Yeah...right.

They remembered every word for 1,700 years before they got around to using a pencil?

There are many sages who contributed to the Talmud and Mishna. Some were wiser than others.

There certainly are things that were written for the specific purpose of counter-acting christian theology....just as there were some reactions in christianity to jewish writings.

It's hard to imagine that anyone would believe that one you just passed though. Why are you so quick to believe that? I mean, if Yeshua wasn't crucified as the Bible says then you are living a lie as a christian.

[Guest idolsmasher]

It's hard to imagine that anyone would believe that one you just passed though. Why are you so quick to believe that? I mean, if Yeshua wasn't crucified as the Bible says then you are living a lie as a christian.

I don't know why you would think that I would believe that. I believe it's in the Talmud. My point was that it's in one of Judaism's holiest books (set of books actually) that the Jews killed Jesus and they teach their own people that so I don't see why they should get so upset about gentiles thinking that. Is the Talmud anti-semetic?

[Guest yod]

Stoning someone according to the Law (as this "missing" passage claims they did) would not be "killing" it would punishing and well within the Law of Torah. I would guess this was a cover up for the sin of the Sanhedrin.

For the High Priest or Sanhedrin to send ANYONE to a crucifixtion is against the Torah. Most Pharisees would have had a major problem with that....not to mention the thousands of Yeshua's followers which covered the Mount of Olives on Palm Sunday.

I thought you were saying that you actually believed He was killed by stoning then put on a cross?

I'm so confused.

[Guest idolsmasher]

Stoning someone according to the Law (as this "missing" passage claims they did) would not be "killing" it would punishing and well within the Law of Torah.

Well, they took it out of the Talmud at one point, but it ain't missin sonny, it was preserved, and stoning was punishment by being pummelled to death. You make it sound like a slap on the wrist.

I would guess this was a cover up for the sin of the Sanhedrin.

For the High Priest or Sanhedrin to send ANYONE to a crucifixtion is against the Torah. Most Pharisees would have had a major problem with that....not to mention the thousands of Yeshua's followers which covered the Mount of Olives on Palm Sunday.

This could be I suppose, but why was it removed but yet preserved? Splain that! Would it have been preserved if it was thought to be a lie?

I'm so confused.

Well, I agree with you there! At least you admit it!