The Truth about the Talmud (Page 8)

Zanjan: XP, I deleted your post because of proselytizing. Nothing in it related to the topic either.

amoregrowers: It was believed back in Jesus day that the demons could not understand aramaic and therefore was the language that connected you to the Father without demonic attack.. who knows

Zanjan: Hmm, interesting.

Apokalupto: magical language no don't believe it.

amoregrowers: Speaking in tongues?

amoregrowers: https://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/150320_AngelsAramaic.html

Here is some info on so.e of the belief

Zanjan: Well, maybe it was the way He spoke - who knows how the tone was inflected? Maybe it was also the way He looked at someone together with body language, which is really important. Moses couldn't speak properly but He obviously had a profound presence; how else could He even get an audience with Pharoah?

Apokalupto: Jesus said my words are truth and they are Spirit and you are clean because of the word. it wasn't because they heard something necessarily, there was nothing magical about it or special in the language, it was the truth and spirit of the words and they heard it in faith, faith, I said faith so it went in their soul cuz they believed in it and it cleaned them. it had nothing to do with the language itself had to do with the truth that was in the the words that were spoken.

a magical language that has protective abilities against demonic forces sounds like something straight out of the sorceress land of Egypt to be frank.

Apokalupto: speaking in tongues is not magical, it's not necessarily Aramaic either, it can be any language, and it already assumes that you have the holy Spirit dwelling inside you which cleans the temple.

amoregrowers: You know everything Jesus said and believed and did was not recorded and written... John 21:25

Think about that. Maybe the oral tradition is very much valid.



Just a thought.

I would want to know the stuff not recorded..would you?

Apokalupto: I have observed over and over people who think that they believe in Jesus they actually believe that they know him but in their denomination or offshoot or strange doctrine they omit or deny that he is actually God manifest in the flesh, who died on the cross and was resurrected on our behalf, his blood forgiving our sins by his grace through faith, have or appear possibly to have demons or the very least dark mental/spiritual illnesses. of course not all of them but they seem to be susceptible.

I'm not sure a demon can dwell in the same temple with God. the spirit of God is a demon's bane, he will run and flee. they cannot live beside God's holy Spirit.

Apokalupto: do you believe that some of Jesus Christ's words that he spoke while he was on this Earth were also kept in an oral tradition AKA somewhere in the talmud?

Zanjan: I read the interesting link on language - in the example, the rabbis in the Talmud were pondering things that aren't mentioned in scriptures. The question is were they right to legally rule on such remote things? I don't think so.

Moses gave responsibility to the religious court (panel of judges) to deal with that which wasn't commanded in the scriptures. How far does one take this - where is the line one can't step over?

Seems to me the line must be within the circle of the Law of Moses.

For example, if Moses forbid one to gamble, the institution would identify what sort of activity gambling is. Is it betting material goods, tossing caution to the wind, investment, or gaming in general? Based on that identifier, the institution would legislate a by-law - that is, not a new law, but a sub-section under Mosaic law that's malleable. Then it would decide a reasonable corrective disciplinary measure for offenses.

If I were to put on that hat, I'd say normal gaming doesn't apply but betting money or anything that has to be paid out requires examination. For instance, investment is ok as long as one doesn't depend on loss/gain.

There will always be a need for clarification in a practice. The Talmud tried to justify that but it really didn't need to inform the populace about its internal deliberations.

Apokalupto: let me guess I was proselytizing again, is that the cause of deletion? I'm not finding a strict pattern here.

Zanjan: I guess you'll have to think on that more and take your chances. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't put in the effort with a long post until I was certain.

Apokalupto: so basically you are intentionally putting me at a disadvantage while I'm a guest in your thread. I would at least have clear lines so people know what to expect from the threadmaster.

Zanjan: Not really. I made the rules clear - if you're having difficulty, break up your single long post into a bunch of smaller posts - see what gets deleted. A process of elimination should inform you.

I do appreciate your efforts, otherwise I wouldn't be giving you tips.

Apokalupto: you only said no proselytizing after I proselytized supposedly. the reason why I said that there are no strict patterns is because there's still appears to be by the same standard what you may consider proselytizing, I can't see the difference, some are deleted and some arent, so yes I am at a loss.

you can't expect people to remember all of their posts that you have deleted and use process of elimination. you already lost DNM and black panther, and likely soon to be amore and myself.

The topic of your thread is the truth about the talmud. we have gone off topic not a few times including yourself, but you deleted one of my comments for being off topic. I'm getting the sense you just don't like some of the things I say, is that true? it's okay if it is I'm not upset. honestly is key, Zan. be honest and clear with your guest, that's all anyone ever wants. I think that's pretty fair don't you?

Zanjan: We're off-topic right now but I haven't deleted your posts. Yes, you were proselytizing and this is something you should already have understood when posting in a public forum. If you want to showcase your own religion, you have your own topics for that. Here, we share in the exploration.

Proselytizing - dictionary Def:

" the action of attempting to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another."
Additionally, it's flogging your beliefs to those who haven't asked. (solicitation)

That is an oppressive atmosphere, especially when one chastises another for not agreeing or complying. This intimidates others and discourages them from contributing because they feel it's not a safe place.

My topics are safe places for the sincere - readers can trust that I will foster elevated conversations regardless of their background. Hopefully, they'll remain on topic or at least be able to engage in a worthy digression. We've done that from time to time and it's been enlightening; eventually, the captain has to steer the ship back on course.

Tip: If you don't trust me or yourself, try typing a post into a document then copy-paste to the board. Save the document so you can later ferry out what you think might not be acceptable and re-post it. I'll be glad to help you.

Apokalupto: there is much more proselytizing in this thread by me, or at the very least comments with a preaching nature. nothing oppressive. I still see a comment that sounds a lot like preaching that suggests that people who have certain wrong views of Jesus are susceptible to demonic possession, now according to what you have said and your rules and guidelines I'm surprised that you decided to delete other comments and not that comment.. according to your rules you have a lot more scrubbing to do. I think I know it's going on.

Flogging, also called whipping or caning, a beating administered with a whip or rod, with blows commonly directed to the person's back. It was imposed as a form of judicial punishment and as a means of maintaining discipline in schools, prisons, military forces, and private homes. Flogging.

you wouldn't have posted a flogging definition if you didn't want to direct it toward me. also prosthetizing is not flogging, that is a fake definition you know it and still added it. prosthetizing is actually biblical, that is to justify prosthetizing without it being viewed as "flogging." Jesus was flogged. regardless of definitions such a description does not apply to me and it is its own form of attack on character.

I'm sorry that my comments were viewed with such destructive and blood drawing abuse...

You've given me enough information to know what's going on here.

@Amore, I have asked you a question but don't expect me to reply to you in this thread. I am still curious what you think, you know where to find me if you decide you want to tell me what you think and talk about my question.

Apokalupto: Zanjan, I gave your last comment a thumbs down because that's what it deserves.

See you around.

amoregrowers: Ok im forming a response

Zanjan: "I still see a comment that sounds a lot like preaching that suggests that people who have certain wrong views of Jesus are susceptible to demonic possession,"

I allowed it because there was no identification of anyone in particular. People have said the same thing about Moses and Muhammad.

Flogging is a modern Canadian usage for oral battery and nagging.

The only punishment mentioned in the Bible is flogging. Ancient Jews had physical flogging but it was quite mild. It was both disciplinary and punitive, a replacement for capital punishment with the maxim number of strokes being 40. (39 to avoid mistakes). This was to prevent the death of the individual.

Leather wasn't used in the whip and only the less vulnerable parts of the body could be flogged. The body was examined to see if it could sustain the strokes. Sometimes, the remaining strokes were deferred to a better time, after the individual had stabilized and could endure them. All in all, it was very humane for the age.

Jesus was flogged by the Romans, not the Jews. Roman rules, in that case.