Okay.
The above statement is unqualified.
No, I don't think so. The Jewish thinking I'm talking about is not something I object to. You are taking a us vs them position. The Jewish thinking I'm referring to is right there in the Bible. Probably in the
Pirkei Avot which, in the past, I've published (reproduced) on several of my websites. My thinking is corrupted often. I have to watch it.
It is a universal declaration in opposition to Traditional Jewish thinking. It needs qualification to limit the scope.
Wouldn't that, by its very own nature, be corruption? Or at least the indication of some corruption?
What sort of Jewish thinking are you talking about? All Jewish thinking?
All thinking, really. Specifically in context I'm referring to religion in general and in this particular case, Jewish/Christian. What it means, simply, is that the tradition that we know comes from the original and is changed contrary to that. I use the immortal soul. The Bible doesn't teach the soul is immortal. Modern theology tradition deviates from that. That's just one example.
If you look back to the post which I quoted ( #73 ) you'll see there are no examples of Jewish Thinking given. The assertion "Traditional Jewish thinking is corrupt" is completely unsupported.
For example, this is how one could qualify it:
"Jewish Thinking which deviates from Torah has been corrupted by pagan ideas.". The qualification is "which deviates from Torah". Then if you give some examples it's a much stronger argument. Lacking both qualification and examples, it's just name calling.
Trying to save us time - let me think. I gave the example of the immortal soul. Your definition of deviation is right on. The immortal soul is an example. The Jewish thinking itself hasn't really been corrupted. It's still there, I think, pretty much as it was. If you have interpretations which deviate from that, and you can trace it to some external influence, you see it documented historically, that's corruption. Now, like the "Christian" trinity, for example, can be argued to be scripturally supported. You could be given scriptural references that make you say, okay, yeah, that seems reasonable, but just because you can make a good case for the trinity being supported scripturally, it isn't. It isn't the way Moses or Jesus thought. And you can see that with, again, I think, a better argument. And then you have the historical documentation.
On the other hand, the Pirkei Avot, that isn't really contrary to the Torah. It isn't a part of it, it's separate but you don't, I don't think, I don't recall, it being contrary to Moses or the Torah. You see what I mean? Various Jewish traditions exist. Some of them in line with and some of them not, with the Torah, Moses etc. The same with Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism, etc. Religion is often syncretistic. The tradition expands or enhances on the original, and that's okay -
unless it contradicts it.
I've got it, so Christianity, the original, the teachings of Jesus, the disciples, Paul, is in line with Moses, David, Abraham. Jewish thinking. In fact it is literally Jewish thinking, but Jewish thinking became something else and that is the tradition you see today. The same with Christianity.
