Judaism - True or False Religion?

Uh huh, I guess you could call it that. It is also considered binding on observant Jews, or at least most of it is. The practices of orthodox Jews on the Sabbath clearly follow the Talmudic teaching. It has nothing in common with the spirit of God's own commandments about the Sabbath, which was to be a day of rest and joy, not of obsessional trivia and unnecessary inconveniences.

Which is exactly what the Oral Law is:

quote:

---

The Talmud has two components, the Mishnah which is the first written compilation of Judaism's Oral Law, and the Gemara, a discussion of the Mishnah (though the terms Talmud and Gemara are generally used interchangeably). It expands on the earlier writings in the Torah in general and in the Mishnah in particular, and is the basis for all later codes of Jewish law, and much of Rabbinic literature.

​

Talmud - Wikipedia

---

You wouldn't recognize the most excellent support for your opponents' position if it bit you in the ass, which it regularly does. Maybe you're numb in that region from all the biting.

Why yes, the Jewish sabbath is confirmed in the Talmud. That is because the talmud is a collection of the laws. amd what is custom for that time period was recorded.As for your intepretation that the sabbath is not being kept in the 'spirit of God's own commandments'.. you first have to show you are right, and the Jews are wrong.Yes, according to your view, Judism is a 'false' religon. However, that does not concern the Jews. Your misinterpretation of the Jewish scriptures have no bearing on what they believe.The Jews follow the Torah. The Talmud is just commentary on the Torah. You can't seem to get that.You claim Judaism is a 'false religion' based on your reliigons scripture. You have to prove that your religious writings are 'true'. I am sorry, but that is just opinion. For that matter, I can 'prove' that the New Testament is false teaching, based on what is in the parts of the bible Christians share with the Jews, and with some of the items in the New Testament. That is just as valid as your proclaimation of declaring the Jewish religion false.By the standards you declare Judaism false, Judaism can declare Christianity false. And by those same standards, Islam can declare both CHristiantiy and Judiasm false, and then we can throw Hinduism
in the mix, and get all things get even more confused.To make matters worse, some Christian deomoninations call other christain demoninations not to be christians. Some christians say that Catholics are the "Whore of Babaylon" and that the Pope is the antichrist. (If you dont' believe me there, look at a "JacK CHicK tract" about Catholism).Personally, it seems silly for me to think that God would insist that he be worshipped with one set of words, and be so narssistic that he would have to be believed in one way (or at all). Judaism is a faith of works, and defines both rightousness and sin as actions (not states). Christinaity is different. However , I will leave you with a
Zen Buddhist saying

Yes, and the custom made a shambles of the Torah's true spirit, added obsessional burdensome rules to God's law, which is exactly what Jesus was condemning. No, I don't. I merely have to show you a body of well argued opinion on the subject that suggests that I am right and you wrong. I am not obliged to convince you or anyone. What I posted from the Talmud amply demonstrates my contention that what Jesus was condemning in the Pharisees was the laws that are now in the Talmud, or whatever was once the Oral Law, the Jewish commentaries on the Torah, which are considered binding on observant Jews even to today, showing that Judaism IS what Jesus was condemning. You don't have to agree with the condemnation, but the point has been made. Of course the Jews are going to continue to believe what they believe. Why would you think I would expect otherwise? Fairness merely requires you to acknowledge that I made my point, that Jesus was condemning Judaism, based on the principles described, whether you agree with the condemnation or not. Oh my, what a silly accusation. It's obvious I get it, and have shown in return that this "just a commentary" contains what Jesus was condemning, the EMBELLISHMENT of the Torah, and that He therefore was condemning Judaism itself, since Judaism follows these Talmudic embellishments. No I don't. What an utterly ridiculous idea. All I have to do is demonstrate the particular facts I claimed follow from what I believe, and that there is logical consistency. In a sense. Your view has its own consistency. It is according to the New Testament and Jesus that the Jewish religion is false, but you don't have to believe the New Testament or Jesus. You are free to continue to judge the New Testament and Jesus false based on the Jewish view of the Hebrew scriptures with just as little credibility as you are imputing to my arguments. Yes in a sense that is true, and debate is really ultimately impossible as it's all a matter of interpretation. With good reason, perhaps. I'm not a fan of Jack Chick but most of the Reformers also considered the Catholic Church to be the Whore of Babylon. There's plenty to suggest that that may be the case. Well, you are welcome to your opinion of course, but I believe I've made my point: Jesus was condemning Judaism.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 01:21 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 01:27 AM

Man! The fighting and fussing that we humans do in religious forums! I for one vote that no matter what I say in this thread, please try and stick to the Spirit of love and realize that we all have our own beliefs and that God loves ALL of us! OK?Now...my synopsis on the various comments that I am about to scroll through:1) Keep in mind that Jesus was/is of Jewish lineage. He is NOT condemning Judaism, IMHO. I think, Faith, that what Jesus was condemning was Religion. Grace was never meant to abolish Law. Grace, or Charisma, which is in essence the Spirit working through us, is Christs influence upon the human heart.It may be true that much of the oral commentaries have become unnecessary. Breaking a tassel and then refusing to do anything else until the tassel is reattached can be shown as an awareness of God and an attempt to respect Him over all other activities.Ramoss has a good point about religion oneupsmanship and the implications of human ego.Jar condemns Fallwell, Swaggert, and Dobson, but I highly doubt whether he means to condemn the entire church! But Faith! Thats what makes debate possible! Allow me to bring a few scriptures into our little public room: Consider the context of this scripture, spoken by Jesus.1) Is Jesus telling Israel that they will be blind until they become Christians?2) If Jesus were here today, would He condemn believers or non-believers? OR...would He condemn anyone? Yet...He IS here, today....in the form of the Holy Spirit. As His Body, it is WE who are representing Him to the people whom we come in contact with on a daily basis. Are we to tell the Muslims, for example, to get with the program and accept Jesus? It is not Jesus whom they will accept.....it is us!My point is that Jesus was condemning Religion!By the way, Faith....on a personal note----the reason that I single you out to respond to is because I love you and don't like to see you so feisty! Feel free to rant at me and argue with me, though! I may be wrong as well as anyone!Lets all just remember that we are collectively attempting to understand spirituality as we each see it. If my premise is true---that Jesus condemned religion, it follows that none of our religions are right. The goal here is for our Spirituality to be somewhat in communion----no easy task at EvC forums! This message has been edited by Phat, 02-15-2006 04:13 AM

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Excuse me??? I don't see any particularly excessive "fighting and fussing" going on here.And I don't happen to agree that God loves everyone either, Phat. And I'm not being funny. Well you are wrong and I've shown HOW you are wrong in my posts. Judaism practices the very things that Jesus condemned, which means He condemned Judaism. We don't need to get all literalminded and expect that He called it "Judaism." That was a term that developed in response to Christianity to describe those practices of the Pharisees and other leaders of Judea that He condemned. Phat, excuse me but I can't think you've actually read the argument here. Yes, in a general sense he was condemning Religion. That is what the Pharisees and scribes practiced, a man-made religion they imposed on God's word. This is what Jesus was condemning. This man-made religion was codified in their Oral Law which has since then been written down in the Talmud. And since this Religion is what today's Pharisees continue to practice under the name of Judaism, Jesus was condemning Judaism.{ABE: It is also true that this CAN be discussed in relation to ANY kind of pharisaical or "religious" practices in any context, and there have been many such religious deviations within the Christian Church over the millennia. Some of the commentators I quoted in Message 12 apply the condemnation to Christian practices for instance. But that is another subject. The subject on this thread is the specific practices of the Jews themselves which Jesus condemned and which they continue to practice. IF YOU LOVE THE JEWS YOU WILL PRAY THAT THIS RECOGNITION MIGHT HELP TO LEAD THEM TO CHRIST You have completely misconstrued the debate here. Nobody is talking about Law vs. Grace, Phat. We are talking about what Jesus condemned in the Pharisees and He certainly did not condemn the Law. He condemned them for NOT practicing the Law. He condemned them for EMBELLISHING the Law. He condemned them for ADDING TO the Law and making it an obnoxious burden to the people. Not being allowed to flip a light switch on the Sabbath is today's version of what Jesus was condemning. This is NOT the Law. This is a mockery of the Law. I have no idea what you are trying to say. The oral commentaries are still THE MAIN BASIS for observant Jewish practice, Phat, so your declaration that they may have "become unnecessary" might be heard by practicing Jews as a bit presumptuous of you. You aren't making much sense I'm afraid. Phat, for heaven's sake, I was making a polite concession to Ramoss. In the case of this argument certain facts are at issue and I believe I won my point on the question of facts. That is, Jesus was in fact condemning Judaism itself when He condemned the Pharisees, because Judaism practices what they practiced. I believe that point has been made. But as for siding with Judaism or with Christ, that's all a matter of interpretation. Just realize that you can't agree with both because they contradict one another. I think that is the most likely interpretation of the passage, yes. I have no idea what you think you are saying. I am representing the teachings of Christ and defending them accurately as far as I can. Scripture tells us that people are converted by HEARING -- which is only possible by PREACHING. If anybody accepts me or you they are in trouble. It is the word of God they must accept. For heaven's sake, Phat, YOU are the one who needs to get a grip. I've made a perfectly solid point in this thread. I've proved my case by good debating skills, by facts and evidence. What on earth are you doing coming along here and making this into some kind of personality contest? Excuse me, but that is NOT my aim at all. I am here to debate the cause of Jesus Christ as I understand it from His word. It's a matter of TRUTH, Phat. This isn't about some wishywashy idea of "spirituality" at all. I'm sorry, but I've made my case here. Jesus condemned Judaism, which may be called "religion" if you like, but it is also specifically Judaism. That is NOT the task here. The task for me is to defend the word of God. What communion can light have with the darkness, Phat?This message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 09:00 AM

No, you have not shown me a 'body of evidence' at all. You have merely made vague references to things in the New Testament, that upon further examination, did not say what you aaid it did.The references you gave was not Jesus condemning Judaism. It was Jesus condemning the hypcracy of those in power. If you look at what is attributed to Jesus, you will find the reoccuring theme of the hypocracy of those in power.. and reaching out to the poor and needy.However, you made your contempt of all things Jewish very clear. Your distortions of what Judaism believes , and what is said about Judaism
in the New testament make that clear. I am sure that all the Jewish people are in AWE that you know what they believe better than they do themselves.I see you are also picking up the prejudice against the Catholic church too. Forgive me if I don't accept a word you say about Catholism either.

Dear dear, it is SO hard to argue with people who simply do not know how to follow an argument. Well, have a good day.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 09:02 AM

I am sorry, but repeating things without support is not an arguemnet. It has been already demostrated yoru claims about Jesus condeming Judaism is spurious.. yet you continue to repeat it, without support.

I supported it quite adequately. Denial seems to be your debate method of choice, however. Whatever.

Come on now.. you vagley mentioned some passages. Other people then showed those passages IN CONTEXT, and showed that what you claimed it said was not what it was said.As for your cut/pastes , that doesn't say anything about 'Judaism' being a false religion.As a matter of fact, if you READ the massive cut and paste you tried to push, it ways that the Pharasie and Saduccees (the ones in power) are the hypocrits, not that Judiasm is a false religion.Did you actually READ what you cut/paste?

I don't want to drag us too far off topic, Faith---but I must ask you to tell me what this scripture means: In order for people to "receive" Christ, they must receive Him from the messenger! Well...what does this scripture mean? Is not the world inclusive of everyone? Nevertheless, Faith...I will kindly butt out! Go on about your John The Baptist tirade against "The Pharisees" and equate it to LOVING the Jews by telling them they are WRONG. My Daddy always told me that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, though.

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

I answered the point about the context. Perhaps you missed it. There is more than one thing Jesus is condemning in the Pharisees. Their hypocrisy is one. The "eight woes," or curses against them, however specifically target their peculiar burdensome and falsifying additions to God's law.The quotes in Message 11 illustrate the obsessionalizing rule-making additions to the Bible by the Oral Law. They detail ritualistic handwashing, they discuss the nitpicking rules for the Sabbath, etc etc etc., all of which is commentary on the Bible of exactly the sort Jesus was condemning the Pharisees for. Did you need me to point it out word for word or something?It shouldn't even have needed all that. You should have recognized immediately that Jesus was condemning all of Judaism. The whole New Testament condemns it.Why is there a problem with this? You can still believe Judaism instead of the New Testament. You shouldn't of course, for the sake of your immortal soul, but you are quite free to do so.

Yes, and they receive the messenger BECAUSE OF THE MESSAGE, Phat, not because he/she is a likeable person or any such nonsense. They RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH of the message, and that is why they accept the messenger. Because God opened their ears to hear. The devil can be nice as all get out. In fact that's one of his favorite strategies, sweettalk 'em. Yes, God loves the world in the sense that He'd like to see all saved, but other scripture makes it clear that all will not be saved, that they will reject the message, and also that God hates the wicked. That's a complex theological dispute that WOULD take us way off topic. I would simply remind you that God said He hates the wicked, and specifically He hated Esau. If God said He hates anyone at all, then you can't contradict Him by saying He loves everyone. He doesn't. It is not our business to say whom He loves or hates, that's His business, but it is also very very presumptuous of us to claim that He loves everyone when He has clearly said He doesn't.He does, however, take care of everyone mercifully and kindly, and He does desire that all be saved. Only they won't be, many will continue to reject Him. That's one of the Proverbs, Phat, in the Bible. I don't see any vinegar here, Phat. Besides are we trying to kill flies here or what? John the Baptist? I'm flattered. Are you accusing God's prophets of violating His own Proverb?{ABE: That's funny! JOHN THE BAPTIST TIRADE? I'm quoting JESUS CHRIST!!!! HE is the one who spoke the curses against the Pharisees, Phat. Correcting lies, saving people from wrong beliefs, OUGHT to be regarded as loving people. Seems to me anyway.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-15-2006 11:29 AM

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth."
--II Tim. 2:15.There are progressive revelations in differing periods of time. The revelations given by Paul, for example, were for the Gentile church. The revelations today, I believe, are brought about by the fullness of times. We live in a Post-modern world, Faith. We are talking to a group of people who do not believe in absolutes and we cannot continually assert absolutes without patiently explaining them. Jesus was condemning the ONLY Religion of that time...but He was NOT condemning Judaism and preaching Christianity! He was attempting to tell the people who thought that they had all the answers that they were missing the point.My challenge, as a Christian, is to relate to people in this modern world the same way. They won't listen to me if I merely quote scriptures. The Word may well never return void, but it is not some magical truth that hearers magically grasp! It takes a good personality to sell a product!