Judaisms Core

[Ebionite]

and Jesus?

Yes, his use of the name of Elohim and the description of Elohim from the Psalms that he referenced in John 10:34 would support that.

 

[Ebionite]

Since you didn't check out the link I provided you, the above is a moot point. So why didn't you check it out, Ebionite?

No link can change the facts about Moses in Exodus 19-20.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Clearly, it's used as a substitute name for YHWH but it's unclear why the plural is used.

Actually, it is clear why the plural is used. It is just a matter of if one knows about or accepts the earliest explainations from Jewish sources of how the Hebrew language works and why the Torah is written in the way it is.

 

[Betho_br]

So, this is my major issue with the Christian translations of the so-called "New Testament." In most cases, "theos" refers to a divine elohim, a type of divine magistrate, and not to the sacred tetragrammaton. The term "the Lord" is related to the Hebrew term "Adonai," which is always used for human lords. This relationship is only partially disrupted by one of the interpretations of John 14:10, 20, supported by a few Trinitarian formulas.

 

[dybmh]

That is an interesting claim. Are Psalms not accepted in Judaism?

The OP has confirmed, he is asking about Christ, "Da man". Not the concept, which is adopted and adapted by Christians for their religion.

Christ, the man, is irrelevant to Judaism. We don't need a Christian savior. We're good. God takes good care, always.

 

[dybmh]

Tehillim are accepted in the Hebrew form, and not the Koine Greek, Latin, modern Greek, English, King James English, American English, French, Italian, German, Polish, Russian, or any other translated "Psalms" or interpretation available.

I know what you mean; hopefully others do too.

 

[dybmh]

Does it say in the Talmud that Jesus is boiling in excrement for eternity?

It doesn't say that. But, it's easy to get confused. You need to drop the assumptions then read the original Aramaic without any commentary added to it.

 

[Betho_br]

Christ, the man, is irrelevant to Judaism. We don't need a Christian savior. We're good. God takes good care, always

Even I, who consider myself a Christian, do not need this "Christ" preached by this pseudo-Christianity.

 

[dybmh]

However, Catholic authorities have accused the Talmud

You're operating on information which is at least twice removed from the original quotations. It's poor methodology to find this interesting in any way other than, "Someone, somewhere says Catholic authorities don't like the Talmud".

 

[dybmh]

Judaism has never given Jesus another thought

I don't think anyone said "had never". But it was never the core of Judaism to reject Jesus. The Spanish inquisition, though, didn't help with Christian / Jewish interfaith dialogue. Wink-wink.

 

[dybmh]

I don't think the word itself means even in Christianity anything else than anointed

The Christian meaning of anointing, though, is not faithful to the meaning in Psalms or in the Hebrew Bible. We do not anoint with spirit. We anoint with oil.

 

[Ebionite]

It doesn't say that.

Yes, the name of Jesus is not present. IIRC Yeshu is an acronym for "may his name be blotted out", and of course Yeshu is similar to Yeshua.

 

[Jimmy]

I don't think anyone said "had never". But it was never the core of Judaism to reject Jesus. The Spanish inquisition, though, didn't help with Christian / Jewish interfaith dialogue. Wink-wink.

Why’d the Talmud keep getting rid of the parts of Jesus in new additions? I mean, if they never gave Jesus a thought then why cave in?

 

[dybmh]

You made the claim of unreliability,

There are passages in the epistles which range from misrepresenting the original Hebrew of the Torah to flat out lies.

The strongest example is the absolute trash that's written about the eternal priesthood transferring to Christian disciples.

Also the misrepresenting of the meaning of Jesus being a curse to the law because he was as hung from a tree? I think, I don't have it memorized.

There's other things too, but, I stopped reading when it became obvious that the epistles were ... not something I can appreciate.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, the name of Jesus is not present. IIRC Yeshu is an acronym for "may his name be blotted out", and of course Yeshu is similar to Yeshua.

More than that. It cannot be Jesus son of Mary. The dates don't line up. There is no eternal punishment for Jews in our Scripture. Per scripture, the max is just under 12 months, though, conventional interpretation limits it to just over 11 months. Because of this, it cannot be Christ-Jesus boiling in excrement for eternity. That's just plain false. People who say that are disclosing their ignorance.

 

[dybmh]

Why’d the Talmud keep getting rid of the parts of Jesus in new additions?

Don't know to be honest. It could be they were questionable / controversial and the publishers decided it would be better to remove it? I wish I could tell you.

However, it's important to understand what the Talmud is, and also what it isn't. That, in itself, clears up a lot of these issues. The Talmud is dialectics. The Talmud is not scripture, not even close.

Dialectic - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[dybmh]

No they are not. Moses was a member of Elohim.

And ... you just fell off the wagon, friend.

 

[Ebionite]

There are passages in the epistles which range from misrepresenting the original Hebrew of the Torah to flat out lies.

Yes. I meant historically unreliable, i.e. not real documents written by a Pharisee called Paul of Tarsus.

 

[Ebionite]

And ... you just fell off the wagon, friend.

No, it's right there between the chapters.

So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.
And Elohim spake all these words, saying,
I [am] YHWH thy Elah, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exodus 19:25-20:2

 

[dybmh]

They are one and the same.

They're one. Period. Maybe that's the best place to stop. They're the same? My vote? That's a bit much.