LIES ABOUT THE TALMUD (Page 5)

DontNeedChrist:

This didn't really fit the "lies" about the Talmud topic but I'll keep it up for educational purposes.

God is real: i think i confused the first tract about god studying torah.But still your explanation makes no sense.The point isnt in the moral of the story.Its in the fact that you believe those stories literally happened.Thats nonsense.And the story itself is a bit silly to demonstrate that moral. Here is the passage for the first claim Bamidbar Rabba (19:7)

Also deal with the other one that i mistakenly posted.It still presents similar idea of GOD studying the torah ...which is silly

DontNeedChrist:

Nobody here has ever claimed these stories actually happened. Most Jews do not believe these stories are literal. Whoever is telling you otherwise is mistaken. I've said time and again that these are STORIES, ALLEGORIES, EUPHEMISMS, TALES, ILLUSTRATIONS, LESSONS, COMMENTARIES, DEBATES, etc.

If you feel they are "nonsense" and "silly," then why the obsession? It's not for you anyway.

Bamidbar Rabba is not part of the Talmud. If you studied the Talmud you would know that.

God is real: first you are factually wrong about who believes those stories.Even Rambam and ALL RABBIES believe the story of akhai to be taken ltierally.Name one rabbie that disagrees with that approach

DontNeedChrist:

You have admitted to never reading the Talmud so you have no place calling it out. Read it then we'll talk. Enough GIR. Enough.

God is real: you are deflecting the point.You havent read it either.And i dont need to read the talmud to know what people think about it.

Jaguar Essence: @ "I DON'T need to READ the talmud TO KNOW what people think about it."

DontNeedChrist:

THE CLAIM:
"Every goy who studies the Talmud and every Jew who helps him in it, ought to die." - Sanhedrin, 59a Abhodah Zarah 8-6

THE TEXT:
"And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A gentile who engages in Torah study is liable to receive the death penalty; as it is stated: “Moses commanded us a law [torah], an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that it is an inheritance for us, and not for them.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement from a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? It is derived from that which is stated: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a man does he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). The phrase: Which if priests, Levites, and Israelites do they shall live by them, is not stated, but rather: “A man,” which indicates mankind in general. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest."

THE SUMMARY:
The Abhodah Zarah 8-6 is a complete fabrication. Even the reference number is incorrect. It should read "Abhodah Zarah 8a or 8b." A number such as 8-6 can never exist in the Talmud.

Sanhedrin, 59a is reported a dialogue between two rabbis, the first of whom does indeed fanatically advocate death for a heathen who studies the Torah (NOT the Talmud), The second rabbi effectively demolishes his colleague’s argument by pointing out that the heathen who studies the Torah succeeds in elevating himself to the status of a High Priest.

DontNeedChrist:

THE CLAIM:
"Jews are cruel, lack compassion and lust for revenge. They practice retaliation in kind: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. If someone puts out your eye, go ahead and put out HIS eye. Give him a dose of his own medicine." Even the John Paul II accused Jews of applying this injunction literally, in a 1980 encyclical.

THE TEXT:
The Torah says, three times: You shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. [Ex. 21:23-5] A fracture for a fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Just as he inflicted an injury upon a person, so shall it be given to him. [Lev. 24:20] And you [shall have no] pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. [Deut. 19:21]

THE SUMMARY:
There is absolutely no record of Jews ever doing this. The Talmud in Tractate Bava Kamma which deals with damages states the injunction refers only to FINANCIAL COMPENSATION. Its purpose is to set a limit to it: Do not ask for more than the value of an eye for the loss of an eye. The penalty must be proportional to the offense, not higher than the offense. Jews do not run around poking each other's eyes out contrary to what ignorant haters may claim.

DontNeedChrist:

Rabbi Shim'on bar Yochai says: If “eye for eye” really meant retaliation, what would you do if a blind man put out the eye of another man, or if a person missing both hands cut off the hand of another, or if a person missing both legs broke the leg of another? You could not physically retaliate in kind. Yet the Torah says, “You shall have only one standard of law," which implies that the law should be applied the same way to all. So it clearly means monetary compensation.

DontNeedChrist:

THE CLAIM:
Many xtian websites claim to present quotes from Jewish sources to claim that the rabbis and sages support the idea that the messiah is Isaiah 53's suffering servant. (Sanhedrin 98b)

THE TEXT:
"The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of G-d and afflicted...'"

These "Jewish sources" given by missionaries usually boil down to one of four areas:

• Outright lies (totally made up);
• Misquoted (badly mistranslated beyond all recognition);
• Out of context -- ignoring the overall meaning of the sage;
• Taking homily (not meant to be read literally, but rather for the moral purpose) as if it were plain meaning (drash as p'shat).

This quote is:
• Out of context - ignoring the overall meaning of the sages;
• Homily not meant literally (actually this is a HUMOROUS exchange in the Talmud).

SUMMARY:
The entire discussion in treatise Sanhedrin is nothing but an academic exercise based on the clever application of various scriptural verses, but it is not intended to be taken seriously; it can even be seen as mocking the xtian obsession with the “name” of their pseudomessiah. Unbeknownst to people who do not study the Talmud, there are many places wherein humor is used in story telling. The humor is lost here on those who choose to cherry pick for their agenda of finding "proof texts" about the xtian messiah in Jewish writings.

For Jews, the messiah's name has never been important—the only thing that matters is whether he succeeds in accomplishing his prescribed list of tasks.

Bottom line is that Sanhedrin 98b is saying that no one knows who the messiah will be, or when he will come let alone what is name might be or even who his "son" is. The exact OPPOSITE of what xtians claim the tractate is about.