The Talmud: What it is and what it isn't!

[calm]

The Talmud concerns both the Oral and the Written Torah, combined they form the Torah. So what percentage concerns the Torah? All of it.

As a Christian, my understanding about the Covenant is:

The Old Covenant [Talmud] heralded by the Jewish folks was replaced by the New Covenant which identified the reality behind the shadow: for the true Jews; for a spiritual people seeking a heavenly citizenship in “heavenly places in Christ Jesus” [New Jerusalem]. Ephesians 2:6
Ephesians 2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

In this sense, they too follow after Abraham who plainly declared that he was not seeking a visible homeland but an invisible homeland. “For he [Abraham] looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God” Hebrews 11:10
Hebrews 11:10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

As the converted Jewish scholar/apostle Paul declared: “"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God." Romans 2:28
Romans 2:28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.

So, everyone who subscribes to the ideas expressed by Jesus (New Covenant) are now known as Jews and not those who claim Abraham as their father.

In the Old Testament Scriptures, God’s chosen people were known as Israelites or Jews. The Israelites were the ones “to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.” (Romans 9:4)
Romans 9:4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

Yet the Apostle Paul tells us, “They are not all Israel which are of Israel. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” St. Paul goes on to explain, “That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (Romans 9:6-8) The promise in Genesis was given to Abraham “because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Romans 9.6
Romans 9:6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Calm

 

[calm]

The Old Testament prophets, speaking infallibly and without error, said that there would be a group called Israel and Jew which would not be the rightful heirs of Abraham.

As previously noted, Isaiah said to the true heirs of Abraham, “Thou shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name … and you shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall … call his servants by another name.” (Isaiah 62:2; Isaiah 65:15)
Isaiah 62:2 The nations will see your vindication, and all kings your glory; you will be called by a new name that the mouth of the LORD will bestow.
Isaiah 65:15 You will leave your name for my chosen ones to use in their curses; the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name.

Although God changed the name of His chosen ones once, He will never do so again, for He said of this new name, “I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.” (Isaiah 56:5)
Isaiah 56:5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever.

In regards to "The Promised Land" ...

The ancient lands of Edom and Moab:
God said in Deuteronomy 2:5, 9 that He would never give those lands to the Jews.
Deuteronomy 2:5 Do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to put your foot on. I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own.

Joshua 23:15-16 and 2 Chronicles 7:19-22 not only teach that the covenant was conditional, but they also specify that the Jews would lose their land grant if they broke the covenant.
Joshua 23:15 But just as all the good things the LORD your God has promised you have come to you, so he will bring on you all the evil things he has threatened, until the LORD your God has destroyed you from this good land he has given you.
http://bible.cc/2_chronicles/7-19.htm

The Jews did not keep the conditions of the covenant, and for this reason God took away the kingdom of God from them, Matthew 21:42-45, and gave it to the New Israel (Galatians 6:16,) the Church which consists of believing Jews and Gentiles.
http://bible.cc/matthew/21-42.htm
http://bible.cc/galatians/6-16.htm

The final disappearance of the old covenant took place in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the Temple, the City of Jerusalem, and the Jewish state. There is no statement or hint in the New Testament that God will revive the Jewish state. The inheritance of the new Spiritual Israel is not land in the Middle East, but rather the New Jerusalem in heaven. The old Jerusalem on earth is of absolutely no importance to God's people, John 4:21, Galatians 4:24-28, Hebrews 12:18-24.
http://bible.cc/john/4-21.htm
http://bible.cc/galatians/4-24.htm
http://bible.cc/hebrews/12-18.htm

The Apostle Paul refers to Christians as the faithful sons of Abraham, the circumcision, and as members of the commonwealth of Israel. In so doing, he was referring to the Church which follows the teachings of Jesus ... a spiritual Israel. Paul also mentioned the "Jerusalem above" as the "mother of us all", and his identification of the "heavenly Jerusalem" was with the "church of the firstborn".
http://bible.cc/galatians/4-26.htm

 

[calm]

My identical twin brother wrote this little blurp years ago.

Because I operate a server on an old Pentium 3 in my own home, it may be a bit slow to click and read on-line.
It may be simpler to right-click and download it.

I only posted it for you and will take it off-line in 12 hours or so.

Spiritual Israel:
(Microsoft WordPad Document)
http://www.pair-annoyed.com:9090/NEWS/US-Religion-IsraelOfGod-SpiritualIsrael-RomansDiscussion.rtf

----

Here is another document which might interest you.

Israel Of God
(Microsoft WordPad Document)
http://www.pair-annoyed.com:9090/NEWS/US-Religion-IsraelOfGod-BookletComplete.rtf

Calm

 

[Sherman123]

The Old Testament prophets, speaking infallibly and without error, said that there would be a group called Israel and Jew which would not be the rightful heirs of Abraham.

I'll address the quotes in sequence.

1. For your first quote this is how we translate it "And nations shall see your righteousness, and all kings your glory, and you shall be called a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall pronounce." & "No longer shall "forsaken" be said of you, and "desolate" shall no longer be said of your land, for you shall be called "My desire is in her," and your land, "inhabited," for the Lord desires you, and your land shall be inhabited." Just to clarify.

2. Mount Seir and the Land of the Moabites is not conquered and does not constitute the Land of Israel. As Rashi explains this passage means:

"[I have given Mount Seir] to Esau for an inheritance: from Abraham. I gave ten nations to Abraham, seven of them for you [the seven of Canaan], and the Kenites, the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites (Gen. 16:18-21), who are Ammon, Moab, and Seir. One of them is for Esau, and the other two are for the children of Lot (Gen. Rabbah 44). As a reward [for Lot] for going with him [Abraham] to Egypt and for keeping silent when Abraham said, regarding his wife, “She is my sister,” He treated him [Lot] as his [Abraham’s] son [to inherit part of the land promised to Abraham] (Gen. Rabbah 44)."

and

"and do not provoke them to war: God forbade Israel only to wage war against Moab. However, Israel did frighten them, appearing before them, armed for battle. Therefore, it is written,“And Moab was very frightened of the people” (Num. 22:3) because Israel plundered and looted them. Regarding the children of Ammon, however, it says (verse 19),“Do not provoke them”-with any kind of provocation, as a reward for the modesty shown by their ancestress [Lot’s younger daughter], who did not publicize her father’s conduct, as did his elder daughter, who named her son Moab [מוֹאָב like מֵאָב, from the father] (Baba Kamma 38b)."

These lands do not match the borders of the 'promised land'. Moab lying east of the Jordan and Edom to the far south of the Negev. Though these lands are later conquered after the Conquest of Canaan and there is an intimation that the final borders of the 'Land of Israel' will be larger than what was initially given.

3. The covenant is explicitly everlasting. Your verse talks about punishment for transgressions, it says nothing about the conditionality of the covenant. The covenant established in Lech Lecha in Bereisheis is explicit, clear, and everlasting: "And I will establish My covenant between Me and between you and between your seed after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant, to be to you for a God and to your seed after you."

4, 5, and 6. We do not consider the Christian Gospels to be canonical in any way so I'm not sure what there is to address.

 

[Hawkins]

What matters is When, not What.

Oral laws are conveyed orally only before AD 70, and under the strict enforcement of the Pharisees. The Jews have almost nothing left after AD 70. This can be told be a comparison of the Jewish concepts in today's Judaism and that mentioned in Josephus' works. They are completely different.

It's after everything being destroyed in AD 70, including the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees together with the Sudducees and Essenes that started from as late as 300 AD that a group of Rabbis, most likely from the less controlled Egypt, tried to revive Judaism. They are not the same group of elite Rabbis in Jerusalem before AD 70, who adapted the Pharisaic concepts. That's why a rather Sudducee set of concepts are developed as what we can see in today's Judaism. Along with the newly developed Judaism, it comes the Talmud which is the oral laws in the written form with study notes.

 

[RAMOSS]

What matters is When, not What.

Oral laws are conveyed orally only before AD 70, and under the strict enforcement of the Pharisees. The Jews have almost nothing left after AD 70. This can be told be a comparison of the Jewish concepts in today's Judaism and that mentioned in Josephus' works. They are completely different.

It's after everything being destroyed in AD 70, including the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees together with the Sudducees and Essenes that started from as late as 300 AD that a group of Rabbis, most likely from the less controlled Egypt, tried to revive Judaism. They are not the same group of elite Rabbis in Jerusalem before AD 70, who adapted the Pharisaic concepts. That's why a rather Sudducee set of concepts are developed as what we can see in today's Judaism. Along with the newly developed Judaism, it comes the Talmud which is the oral laws in the written form with study notes.

You actually have that backwards. Modern Judaism developed from the Pharisees. The Sadducee were very temple oriented , and because irrelevant after the temple was destroyed. The Sadducee , for example, did not believe in the 'world to come',,, i.e. they did not believe in an afterlife. Nor, did they accept the idea of a Messiah.

 

[Logicman]

We believe that the individual known as Jesus did not fulfill the requirements of the Moshiach to put it gently. Furthermore we believe that the covenant and the laws of the Torah are eternal.

Which Messiah are you talking about - Messiah ben David or Messiah ben Joseph?

Ancient Jews believed the Messiah would be divine.

Jeremiah 23:5-6 - The Messiah as God

 

[Sherman123]

Which Messiah are you talking about - Messiah ben David or Messiah ben Joseph?

Ancient Jews believed the Messiah would be divine.

Jeremiah 23:5-6 - The Messiah as God

We disagree. We read the verse as follows:

"In his days, Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name that he shall be called, The Lord is our righteousness.

ובְּיָמָיו תִּוָּשַׁע יְהוּדָה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח וְזֶה שְּׁמוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִקְרְאוֹ יְהֹוָה | צִדְקֵנוּ:"

Which Rashi concisely explains as: "The Lord is our righteousness: The Lord will vindicate us during this one’s days."

This has been the understanding since time immemorial and is not controversial within Judaism.

 

[Logicman]

We disagree. We read the verse as follows:

"In his days, Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name that he shall be called, The Lord is our righteousness.

ובְּיָמָיו תִּוָּשַׁע יְהוּדָה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח וְזֶה שְּׁמוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִקְרְאוֹ יְהֹוָה | צִדְקֵנוּ:"

Which Rashi concisely explains as: "The Lord is our righteousness: The Lord will vindicate us during this one’s days."

This has been the understanding since time immemorial and is not controversial within Judaism.

Yes, I understand the rabbis often disagree. But either way it is the name of a person, and some of the rabbis conclude that speaks of the Messiah.

By the way, here's an article on why Israel missed its Messiah.

https://righterreport.com/2014/02/11/why-israel-missed-its-messiah/

God bless!

 

[Sherman123]

Yes, I understand the rabbis often disagree. But either way it is the name of a person, and some of the rabbis conclude that speaks of the Messiah.

By the way, here's an article on why Israel missed its Messiah.

https://righterreport.com/2014/02/11/why-israel-missed-its-messiah/

God bless!

Oh of course it refers to the Moshiach, he just isn't divine.

 

[Hawkins]

You actually have that backwards. Modern Judaism developed from the Pharisees. The Sadducee were very temple oriented , and because irrelevant after the temple was destroyed. The Sadducee , for example, did not believe in the 'world to come',,, i.e. they did not believe in an afterlife. Nor, did they accept the idea of a Messiah.

You are so ill-informed. Read Josephus' works to get a clue about Pharisaic concepts, then ask a Jew today for his concepts about;

Predestination, sheol, immortal soul, freewill and etc.

Pharisees are also temple oriented. That's why the temple court called Sanhedrin is composed of mainly the Sudducees and Pharisees. The Sadducees are those controlling the rites, it by no means says that Pharisees have nothing to do with the temple. Just like in the older days, the Jews in majority is temple oriented, though only the Levites can be promoted as priests. You thus can't say that the Levites are more temple oriented.

As a matter of fact, the Sadducees are not temple oriented at all. They are rather the rich and the politicians controlling the rites and Sanhedrin. They don't actually care about religions. That's why they are afraid of the Pharisees in terms of religious issues as the Jews (in Judea) in majority are adapting the Pharisaic concepts. They only accept the first 5 books as authenticated however it is the Pharisees who enforced the continued canonization of the OT.

That said,

Essene belief:
Strict predestination
freewill is more like delusion
human soul is immortal
sheol is a place for humans souls
angels exist, there is after llfe

Sadducee belief:
Strict freewill
no predestination
human vanishes along with the physical death
sheol is just another word for grave
no angels nor after life

Pharisee belief: (in between the 2)
Man has freewill
Predestination also exists
human souls are immortal (there's variety of how this works)
sheol is a place for immortal souls
angels exist, there is after life

 

[calm]

Is “Jewish” a religious designation or an ethnic identity?

Calm

 

[Sherman123]

Is “Jewish” a religious designation or an ethnic identity?

Calm

Both.

 

[calm]

Both.

Do you know when "Jewish" was first recognized in international law as being an ethnic identity or is it just a spiritual thing?

Calm

 

[Sherman123]

Do you know when "Jewish" was first recognized in international law as being an ethnic identity or is it just a spiritual thing?

Calm

I have no notion of when, or if, 'Jewish' has any particular recognition in international law.

 

[calm]

I have no notion of when, or if, 'Jewish' has any particular recognition in international law.

It is my understanding that the 1922 Mandate of Palestine recognized for the first time in an international instrument that the Jews constituted a "People" and not just a "Religion".
The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Prior to that "Jewish" was simply a religious belief.

I think that it is quite ironic that it took the confiscation of Palestinian Lands to introduce or recognize the term "Jewish People".

Calm

 

[Sherman123]

It is my understanding that the 1922 Mandate of Palestine recognized for the first time in an international instrument that the Jews constituted a "People" and not just a "Religion".
The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Prior to that "Jewish" was simply a religious belief.

I think that it is quite ironic that it took the confiscation of Palestinian Lands to introduce the term "Jewish People".

Calm

No, it was always considered to be both a religion and an ethnicity in that the Jewish people are a 'people' which is why endogamy is so important. This is a concept which goes back thousands of years to the root of Judaism and the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic Law.

What is stated in a 20th Century international instrument is irrelevant and not something I will address.

 

[calm]

What is stated in a 20th Century international instrument is irrelevant and not something I will address.

Oh! I easily understand where you are coming from.

Since I am not Jewish, I tend to think "legally" and not "religiously".

Whereas you base your thinking on Abraham being given a second special breath by God when he was 90 years old.

If it were not for the "Religious Belief" and the second breath idea, there could be no such "ethnic" claim. Because God did not alter the DNA of Abraham, or because when Abraham was 90 years old when first being introduced to his new found God he was not born as a Jew.

Jewish was just a new belief system and not a new race. Those who converted to "Jewish" after Abraham's visit with God had the same DNA as all others in the region.

Calm

 

[Sherman123]

Oh! I easily understand where you are coming from.

Since I am not Jewish, I tend to think "legally" and not "religiously".

Whereas you base your thinking on Abraham being given a second special breath by God when he was 90 years old.

If it were not for the "Religious Belief" and the second breath idea, there could be no such "ethnic" claim. Because God did not alter the DNA of Abraham, or because when Abraham was 90 years old when first being introduced to his new found God he was not born as a Jew.

Jewish was just a new belief system and not a new race. Those who converted to "Jewish" after Abraham's visit with God had the same DNA as all others in the region.

Calm

I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[calm]

I don't understand what you're saying.

I am sort of dancing on a pin (unable to explain in plain English) because I am not sure if I am able to say here what I want to say.

There will be charges of anti-Semitism.

And I already had enough of those arguments and endless pages of drive by ridicule.

We are talking about whether or not there is any such thing as "The Jewish People".

Calm

 

[Sherman123]

I am sort of dancing on a pin (unable to explain in plain English) because I am not sure if I am able to say here what I want to say.

There will be charges of anti-Semitism.

And I already had enough of those arguments and endless pages of drive by ridicule.

We are talking about whether or not there is any such thing as "The Jewish People".

Calm

I would say there quite certainly is, by either a religious or a secular definition.

 

[calm]

I would say there quite certainly is, by either a religious or a secular definition.

Well, we disagree there.

As a non-Jewish person, I believe that all those folks living in the immediate area where Abraham lived at the time were basically pagans (including Abraham himself) and married anybody or had children with anybody in the area.

Those living in the area at the time had the same bloodlines. The same DNA.

Christianity is not a "People", it is a Religion.

Christianity is not an "Ethnic Group", it is a Religion.

Why is Jewish said to be different?

A person can convert to "Jewish" and the DNA does not change.

So how can "Jewish" be a "People"?

Calm

 

[Sherman123]

Well, we disagree there.

As a non-Jewish person, I believe that all those folks living in the immediate area where Abraham lived at the time were basically pagans (including Abraham himself) and married anybody or had children with anybody in the area.

Those living in the area at the time had the same bloodlines. The same DNA.

Christianity is not a "People", it is a Religion.

Christianity is not an "Ethnic Group", it is a Religion.

Why is Jewish said to be different?

Calm

It is different because it has culturally unique practices wedded to a policy of endogamy which produces an ethnically insular group that passes on its heritage by birth, rarely through conversion, the sum of which is most easily described as a 'people'. The religious explanation is even easier.

 

[calm]

It is different because it has culturally unique practices wedded to a policy of endogamy

So Jewish Folks in Ethiopia have a specific or identical bloodline as those in Egypt as an example?

And what about Converted Jews? No bloodline there?

Calm

 

[Sherman123]

So Jewish Folks in Ethiopia have a specific or identical bloodline as those in Egypt as an example?

And what about Converted Jews? No bloodline there?

Calm

The provinance of Ethiopian Jews is a little more uncertain but there are very deep genetic ties between Ashekenaz and Sephardic Jews, more than they have in common with their local neighbors.