Kelly

Good grief! Are you saying that Messiah figure that goes against the accepted norms of the day is "false?"

Excuse me, but maybe you've missed the whole point. The crucifixion would not have taken place had not Y'shua pissed off the religious powers that be of the day. He very obviously despised the Pharisees, and not without good reason, for the Pharisees were teaching the Talmud which was basically a Babylonian slave manual.

Just for starts…

Unfortunately, this isn't made up crap; it's documented. Y'shua preached an entirely DIFFERENT doctrine than the one preached by the Pharisees and that's what got him crucified. He wasn't a "sin offering." He was murdered and there is a huge freaking difference!

To say that a "dead Messiah is a false Messiah" is precisely the kind of thing the Pharisees would preach.

Y'shua's basic doctrine taught that forgiveness of one another was the ONLY thing that was capable of releasing people from the bonds of karmic law. You've got to remember that orthodox Jews all had an implicit belief in reincarnation. The priesthood browbeat people day in a day out that they were to eternally pay for their sins, and whether those sins were real or imagined, people had no hope except if they were "perfect" and who makes the grade there? Y'shua basically taught that forgiveness was a higher principal than karmic law. He did not say that karmic law, i.e. "the judge" did not exist, he simply said that if you don't want to pay the judge who requires eternal damnation then you must forgive one another. He said he didn't judge a man, nor did his Father. He said forgiveness of sin was up to the individual.

Paul(s) taught an extraordinarily different doctrine than Y'shua did.

Paul defines sin and leaves mankind with no grace

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like; of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do these things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:19-21)

"Know ye not that unrighteousness shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor revilers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. (I Cor 6:9-10)

Under Paul's Doctrine, even a newborn circumcised male is devoid of grace

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." (Eph 5: 2-4)

Then Paul has the balls to claim that HE can bestow grace

"Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace."(Php 1:7)

Essentially, Paul preaches an entirely different doctrine, and ultimately his doctrine simply returned the power back to the priesthoods, whereas Y'shua taught people that the power was in THEIR hands, and that forgiving one another is the only way to completely escape the doctrines taught about the eternal damnation of sin. Y'shua preached a doctrine of non-judgment, whereas Paul judged and judged and judged.

If it wasn't for Paul, there would have never been a Church of Rome, for it was by Paul's teachings that they justified themselves.

You guys seem to pick at gnats and avoid the issues…

aa5874

So, how did Paul's letters become canonised? How could the church writers claim Paul was an anti-Marcionite from the day he was converted by a bright light?

Paul claimed he preached Christ crucified. Paul claimed if Jesus did not resurrect, then he preached in vain.

If Paul was really the anti-Christ, how come no-one realised?

If Paul's Jesus was only Spritual, like Marcion, how is it that up to the 4th century, Eusebius canonised all the letters with the name Paul.

Surely Paul must have had an history of preaching Jesus crucified and resurrected on earth dating back to sometime around King Aretas when he was in a basket trying to escape a dragnet.

Now, if Paul's letters are so corrupted that the contents of the letters cannot be trusted, where can I find some credible information about Paul?.

Please do not tell me that corrupted epistles are the source for Paul.

Toto

A messiah that does not fit the definition of "messiah" is false. Christianity redefined the concept of messiah, but a dead messiah is a false messiah to the Jews.

The Talmud is usually dated at the earliest a few centuries after the Pharisees. How could the Pharisees be teaching from it? At some point, you quote Hyam Maccoby's Paul the Mythmaker. Are you aware that Maccoby thinks that the philosophy of Jesus was actually close to that of the Pharisees?

Documented where? Are you afraid to post references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which would show your real orientation?

What evidence do you have that orthodox Jews (of what period) believed in reincarnation?

This describes Christianity, not any form of Judaism. In Judaism, purification rituals removed sin or impurity.

I will stop here until you deal with these issues.

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=Kelly;5696043]
Leaving aside the fact that many of these "quotes" are not Talmudic (Zohar??; Midrasch [sic] Talpioth???) and that, so far as I know, there is no tractate in either the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud named Kerithuth (and what on earth is "Talmud IV / 8 / 4a"?), may we have the original Hebrew of these quotes, please. so that we can see for ourselves that they actually say what you claim they say?

Have you yourself ever looked at/read either one of the Talmuds, let alone at the actual Hebrew text of any of the "Talmudic" "quotes" you cite? (My guess is no. Am I wrong?)

Do you even read Hebrew? (Again, my guess is no. Am I wrong?)

Jeffrey

Toto

I believe that Kelly reads David Icke.

Scroll down to the quote from p. 136

Quotes from David Icke

There is a compilations of responses to similar claims here, detailing the mistranslations and obscure sources. (e.g. "The book "Midrash Talpiyyot" is appparently an obscure eighteenth-century Kabbalistic work that is little known and carries no authority whatsoever.")

Jeffrey Gibson

Perhaps so. But what's for certain is that she's (he's?) gone curiously silent. Very odd in the light of his/her (implicit) claims to be an expert on ancient history and source criticism.

Jeffrey