Female Vs Male Homosexuality

[rockfox]

Gal 5:21

STRONGS NT 2970: κῶμος

κῶμος, κωμου, ὁ (from κεῖμαι; accordingly equivalent to German Gelag; cf. Curtius, § 45); from (Homer h. Merc., Theognis) Herodotus down; a revel, carousal, i. e. in the Greek writings properly, a nocturnal and riotous procession of half-drunken and frolicsome fellows who after supper parade through the streets with torches and music in honor of Bacchus or some other deity, and sing and play before the houses of their male and female friends; hence, used generally, of feasts and drinking-parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry; plural (revellings): Romans 13:13; Galatians 5:21; 1 Peter 4:3. (Wis. 14:23; 2 Macc. 6:4.) (Trench, § lxi.)

Certainly orgies are part of that but I was struck by how much it reminded me of Slut Walks and BLM protests.

Dionysus or Dionysos is the god of the grape-harvest, winemaking and wine, of fertility, orchards and fruit, vegetation, insanity, ritual madness, religious ecstasy, festivity and theatre in ancient Greek religion and myth. He is also known as Bacchus (/ˈbækəs/ or /ˈbɑːkəs/; Greek: Βάκχος,

My understanding of the history of the worship of these fertility gods was that they'd hold a festival with sexual performances and mass orgies. So like an LGBTQ+ parade where everyone has a mass orgie at the end.

 

[rockfox]

Hey rock can you elaborate?
I think I'm missing a piece of the puzzle here. Are you saying the Masoretes who preserved the Hebrew bible used in all bible translations injected lies?
I'm sure I'm missing something here so just probing to see what that is so I can learn.

I don't think Jeremiah is prophesying in that verse; there is no "beware" in the Hebrew; it basically says this thing already happened. I thought this verse was rebuking scribes who added commentary or some other improper scribal practice within the text in Jeremiah's day.
If we are not to take the Masoretic text as the go-to Hebrew text which superior text replaces it?
shalom

Maybe it's not a prophecy, but it is as good a prophetic given it happened before and again and still happens today (I'm looking at you NIV).

I've seen enough examples of seemingly intentional changes to Christological OT passages to conquer with the Eastern Orthodox opinion that the Masoretes modified the scriptures in an attempt to weaken the case for Christianity. Numerous example such as NT quotes of the OT including things found only in the LXX or more closely following it (sometimes reading completely differently than the Masoretic text), the famous Isaiah virgin passage change, or the modification to 'dates' in the Abraham lineage (in which Josephus agrees with the LXX and DSS against the Masoretic Text).

 

[bluearrow89]

@bluearrow89 You're missing a key distinciton in Romans 13...God didn't grant them unlimited authority. Government isn't God with us. They have a specific sphere of authority and have no authority beyond that. We are not bound to obey governmet when it overstep's it's authority (otherwise we'd have to obey when they tell us to denounce Christ). Likewise there are other authorities among us: the church, the family (father), etc.

And sex and marriage falls under the authority of the father, not the state. We are under no obligation from God to obey government in those matters.

I know this is an old reply but I haven't been on here the last few weeks due to crazy holiday schedule. I just want to clear this up. I have never said that the government has unlimited authority. I actually said that the government only has authority until it oversteps the bounds of scripture and what God has commanded. But things like stop signs and one way streets don't fall under the category of something that goes against God's law.

 

[IshChayil]

Maybe it's not a prophecy, but it is as good a prophetic given it happened before and again and still happens today (I'm looking at you NIV).

OK so we are agreed that it is not in prophetical language and not considered theologically to be a prophecy and as such not a specific prophecy fulfilled by the Masoretes. good.
If we are just commenting on the human condition than it's a bit sensational and unfair to assert it's speaking specifically about the Masoretes; preservers of the only complete original language TaNaKH (Old Testament) we have today.

I've seen enough examples of seemingly intentional changes to Christological OT passages to conquer with the Eastern Orthodox opinion that the Masoretes modified the scriptures in an attempt to weaken the case for Christianity.

Yeah, you'll excuse me if I don't lean on the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches for their "opinions." I have visited several Eastern Orthodox churches in Russia. My favorite one was where the priest was axe-murdered for being overly friendly to Jews.
It was a sweet church; they even say "shalom" to you when you enter. They also had astrology pamphlets for the public in that church so there's that. Appeal to Authority definitely invalid when appealing to those guys.

Numerous example such as NT quotes of the OT including things found only in the LXX or more closely following it (sometimes reading completely differently than the Masoretic text), the famous Isaiah virgin passage change...

Let me stop you there.
There is no Isaiah virgin passage change and the Masoretic text of Isaiah is amazingly close to that of the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah text. I'll 1st demonstrate this claim regarding the "virgin birth" passage in question.
Masoretic text:
לָ֠כֵן* יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם א֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל׃
Isaiah 7:14 the word you allege changed by the Masoretes is ha'almah "the maiden" in bold

Dead Sea Scrolls text [from cave 1 at Qumran]:
לכן יתן יהוה הוה לכ [אות] ה֯נה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקרא שמו עמנואל
the same word ha'almah "the maiden" appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls as in the Masoretic text

Now let's examine the Septuagint
1διὰ τοῦτο δώσει Κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημείον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ λήμψεται καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ·
Here we have these words in bold he' parthenos "the virgin / the maiden"
That's right, it can be translated "virgin" and it can also be translated "maiden." A perfect choice for the translation since the Hebrew original as penned in Isaiah chose a word 'maiden' which properly interpreted in context (of being a sign from G-d i.e. she's giving birth) makes perfect sense to understand it as "virgin."
Proof that the Greek word is used in the Septuagint both ways follows:

parthenos is used to map to Hebrew betulah "virgin" 42 times: Ge 24:16; Ex 22:16, 17; Lev 21:3, 14; Dt 22:19, 23, 28; 32:25; Jdg 19:24; 21:12; 2 Sam. 13:2, 18; 2 Kings 19:21; 2 Ch 36:17; Es 2:17; Job 31:1; Ps 44:15; 77:63; 148:12; Isa 23:4; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5; Je 18:13; 26:11; 28:22; 38:4, 13, 21; Lam 1:4, 15, 18; 2:10, 13, 21; 5:11; Ezek 9:6; 44:22; Amos 5:2; 8:13; Zec 9:17
parthenos is used to map to Hebrew ne'urah "a lasse, young unmarried girl, parents of newly wedded girl" 5 times: Ge 24:14, 16, 55; 34:3; 1 Sam 1:2
parthenos is used to map to Hebrew kalah "a bride" 1 time: Jer. 2:32
parthenos is used to map to Hebrew b'tulim "evidence of virginity" 1 time: Le. 21:23
parthenos is used to map to Hebrew 'almah (the word in question) twice: ​

Ge 24:43; Isa 7:14
The last one is our verse; we see that the translators of the Septuagint chose the same Greek word to map to 'almah in both passages. In Genesis 24:43 she is indeed 'a maiden'; and this is the proper understanding here "maiden" since later in the narrative we are given the additional information that she is also a b'etulah "virgin."
Targum Onqelos translates the word from Genesis as 'ulemah in Aramaic meaning "a youth."

OK now we've seen that the Greek word parthenos is not simply "a virgin" but has a spectrum of meanings ranging from 'a bride' to 'a lasse' or even the 'parents of a newly married girl.' As such, it is improper speculation to assume some wicked intent against the guys who bring us our only complete Hebrew bible.
For more support on the ambiguity of parthenos here is an example of the adjectival form used in an excerpt from Koine Greek outside the bible:

The adj. παρθεν(ε)ίος is found...παρήγκελκά συ (l. παρήγγελκά σοι) ἄλλα (for accentuation, Archiv vi. p. 379)
ἅπαξ ὅτι ἆρε̣ν (l. ἆρον) τὰ παρθένειά σου τέκνα, “I have charged you more than once ‘Take away your children born of a maiden’ ”​

Moulton, J. H., & Milligan, G. (1930). The vocabulary of the Greek Testament (p. 494). London: Hodder and Stoughton.
The initial entry from this lexicon (which is often quoted by BDAG) is simply, "“maiden,” “virgin”

In similar vein the massive Liddell Scott British lexicon of Greek begins the entry for parthenos thusly:
1. maiden, girl
2. of unmarried women who are not virgins
3. the Virgin goddess, as a title of Athena at Athens, of the vestal virgins
4. the constellation Virgo
5. pupil
6. Metaphor of the number seven
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (p. 1339). Oxford:Clarendon Press.

In summary, maybe you shouldn't be so hard on the Masoretes. The added vowels to the only complete Hebrew bible we have and if anyone actually thinks the Septuagint is any more 'reliable' then think again.
There are so many variances to the textual manuscripts of the Septuagint that it took nearly 100 years to create a complete critical edition for it. The result is the fabulous Göttingen Septuaginta and it's a massive 67 volumes critical edition of the Septuagint. We find nowhere near these kinds of variations in the Hebrew text of the Tanakh. I love the LXX as a resource and not a day goes by usually when I am not looking something up in there to see how the ancients understood the Hebrew text, but there's just simply not any evidence of the Masoretes intentionally changing words in scripture.
This kind of conspiratorial perspective makes a huge assumption and that's that Jews really care what Christians think. I care of course, but to get my drift there are very few references to Christianity or the Christ in the sea of talmud (think 40k pages) and I've only noticed 1 reference to Christian "error" in the entire Miqra'ot G'dilot (Rabbinical commentary on the bible, also known as Der Rabbinerbibel).
Ironically it was the Jews who continued to maintain the "oracles of God" which were entrusted to them as put forth by the Apostle Shaul. If someone thinks this stopped after Christianity was started then please show me the Hebrew bible that was maintained by the Gentile believers and we'll just use that from now on (happily).
That's right, the Gentile believers did not care to maintain the Hebrew scriptures so it seems God continued to use the Jews for this task, and so we have thankfully, the Masoretic text miraculously and meticulously preserved.
If anyone is interested in learning how the Septuagint is used critically in understanding the Masoretic text along with the Dead Sea scrolls, I recommend The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (3rd edition, revised and expanded

 

[FollowingHim]

@IshChayil, your above post is well explained, but I am not sure about the accuracy of this comment:

This kind of conspiratorial perspective makes a huge assumption and that's that Jews really care what Christians think. I care of course, but to get my drift there are very few references to Christianity or the Christ in the sea of talmud (think 40k pages) and I've only noticed 1 reference to Christian "error" in the entire Miqra'ot G'dilot (Rabbinical commentary on the bible, also known as Der Rabbinerbibel).

Christian scholars, most notably I B Pranaitis, have documented enormous numbers of passages with extremely negative commentary on Christianity in Talmud. For instance, this article has a long list of such references (the article itself I have not even read, I am referring solely to the reference list). To be very clear I'm not discussing the article itself, I'll just quote the references below.

I find it very difficult to reconcile your statement that there are "few references" to Christianity with the enormous number of such references documented by other scholars. Can you elaborate what you mean?

References to Jesus (said to be a summary list and not complete):

Sanhedrin, 67a -- Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira, a soldier

Kallah, 1b. (18b) -- Illegitimate and conceived during menstruation.

Sanhedrin, 67a -- Hanged on the eve of Passover. Toldath Jeschu. Birth related in most shameful expressions

Abhodah Zarah II -- Referred to as the son of Pandira, a Roman soldier.

Schabbath XIV. Again referred to as the son of Pandira, the Roman.

Sanhedrin, 43a -- On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus.

Schabbath, 104b -- Called a fool and no one pays attention to fools.

Toldoth Jeschu. Judas and Jesus engaged in quarrel with filth.

Sanhedrin, 103a. -- Suggested corrupts his morals and dishonors self.

Sanhedrin, 107b. -- Seduced, corrupted and destroyed Israel.

Zohar III, (282) -- Died like a beast and buried in animal's dirt heap.

Hilkoth Melakhim -- Attempted to prove Christians err in worship of Jesus

Abhodah Zarah, 21a -- Reference to worship of Jesus in homes unwanted.

Orach Chaiim, 113 -- Avoid appearance of paying respect to Jesus.

Iore dea, 150,2 -- Do not appear to pay respect to Jesus by accident.

Abhodah Zarah (6a) -- False teachings to worship on first day of Sabbath

References to Christians & Christianity:

Hilkhoth Maakhaloth -- Christians are idolators, must not associate.

Abhodah Zarah (22a) -- Do not associate with gentiles, they shed blood.

Iore Dea (153, 2). -- Must not associate with Christians, shed blood.

Abhodah Zarah (25b). -- Beware of Christians when walking abroad with them.

Orach Chaiim (20, 2). -- Christians disguise themselves to kill Jews.

Abhodah Zarah (15b) -- Suggest Christians have sex relations with animals.

Abhodah Zarah (22a) -- Suspect Christians of intercourse with animals.

Schabbath (145b) -- Christians unclean because they eat accordingly

Abhodah Zarah (22b) -- Christians unclean because they not at Mount Sinai.

Iore Dea (198, 48). -- Clean female Jews contaminated meeting Christians.

Kerithuth (6b p. 78) -- Jews called men, Christians not called men.

Makkoth (7b) -- Innocent of murder if intent was to kill Christian.

Orach Chaiim(225, 10) -- Christians and animals grouped for comparisons.

Midrasch Talpioth 225 -- Christians created to minister to Jews always.

Orach Chaiim 57, 6a -- Christians to be pitied more than sick pigs.

Zohar II (64b) -- Christian idolators likened to cows and asses.

Kethuboth (110b). -- Psalmist compares Christians to unclean beasts.

Sanhedrin (74b). Tos. -- Sexual intercourse of Christian like that of beast.

Kethuboth (3b) -- The seed of Christian is valued as seed of beast.

Kidduschim (68a) -- Christians like the people of an ass.

Eben Haezar (44,8) -- Marriages between Christian and Jews null.

Zohar (II, 64b) -- Christian birth rate must be diminished materially.

Zohar (I, 28b) -- Christian idolators children of Eve's serpent.

Zohar (I, 131a) -- Idolatrous people (Christians) befoul the world.

Emek Haschanach(17a) -- Non-Jews' souls come from death and death's shadow.

Zohar (I, 46b, 47a) -- Souls of gentiles have unclean divine origins.

Rosch Haschanach(17a) -- Non-Jews souls go down to hell.

Iore Dea (337, 1). -- Replace dead Christians like lost cow or ass.

Iebhammoth (61a) -- Jews called men, but not Christians called men.

Abhodah Zarah (14b) T -- Forbidden to sell religious works to Christians

Abhodah Zarah (78) -- Christian churches are places of idolatry.

Iore Dea (142, 10) -- Must keep far away physically from churches.

Iore Dea (142, 15) -- Must not listen to church music or look at idols

Iore Dea (143, 1) -- Must not rebuild homes destroyed near churches.

Hilkoth Abh. Zar (10b) -- Jews must not resell broken chalices to Christians.

Chullin (91b) -- Jews possess dignity even an angel cannot share.

Sanhedrin, 58b -- To strike Israelite like slapping face of God.

Chagigah, 15b -- A Jew considered good in spite of sins he commits.

Gittin (62a) -- Jew stay away from Christian homes on holidays.

Choschen Ham. (26,1) -- Jew must not sue before a Christian judge or laws.

Choschen Ham (34,19) -- Christian or servant cannot become witnesses.

Iore Dea (112, 1). -- Avoid eating with Christians, breeds familiarity.

Abhodah Zarah (35b) -- Do not drink milk from a cow milked by Christian.

Iore dea (178, 1) -- Never imitate customs of Christians, even hair-comb.

Abhodah Zarah (72b) -- Wine touched by Christians must be thrown away.

Iore Dea (120, 1) -- Bought-dishes from Christians must be thrown away.

Abhodah Zarah (2a) -- For three days before Christian festivals, avoid all.

Abhodah Zarah (78c) -- Festivals of followers of Jesus regarded as idolatry.

Iore Dea (139, 1) -- Avoid things used by Christians in their worship.

Abhodah Zarah (14b) -- Forbidden to sell Christians articles for worship.

Iore Dea (151,1) H. -- Do not sell water to Christians articles for baptisms.

Abhodah Zarah (2a, 1) -- Do not trade with Christians on their feast days.

Abhodah Zarah (1,2) -- Now permitted to trade with Christians on such days.

Abhodah Zarah (2aT) -- Trade with Christians because they have money to pay.

Iore Dea (148, 5) -- If Christian is not devout, may send him gifts.

Hilkoth Akum (IX,2) -- Send gifts to Christians only if they are irreligious.

Iore Dea (81,7 Ha) -- Christian wet-nurses to be avoided because dangerous.

Iore Dea (153, 1 H) -- Christian nurse will lead children to heresy.

Iore Dea (155,1). -- Avoid Christian doctors not well known to neighbors.

Peaschim (25a) -- Avoid medical help from idolators, Christians meant.

Iore Dea (156,1) -- Avoid Christian barbers unless escorted by Jews.

Abhodah Zarah (26a). -- Avoid Christian midwives as dangerous when alone.

Zohar (1,25b) -- Those who do good to Christians never rise when dead.

Hilkoth Akum (X,6) -- Help needy Christians if it will promote peace.

Iore Dea (148, 12H) -- Hide hatred for Christians at their celebrations.

Abhodah Zarah (20a) -- Never praise Christians lest it be believed true.

Iore Dea (151,14) -- Not allowed to praise Christians to add to glory.

Hilkoth Akum (V, 12) -- Quote Scriptures to forbid mention of Christian god.

Iore Dea (146, 15) -- Refer to Christian religious articles with contempt.

Iore Dea (147,5) -- Deride Christian religious articles without wishes.

Hilkoth Akum (X,5) -- No gifts to Christians, gifts to converts.

Iore Dea (151,11) -- Gifts forbidden to Christians, encourages friendship.

Iore Dea (335,43) -- Exile for that Jew who sells farm to Christian.

Iore Dea (154,2) -- Forbidden to teach a trade to a Christian

Babha Bathra (54b) -- Christian property belongs to first person claiming.

Choschen Ham(183,7) -- Keep what Christian overpays in error.

Choschen Ham(226,1) -- Jew may keep lost property of Christian found by Jew.

Babha Kama (113b) -- It is permitted to deceive Christians.

Choschen Ham(183,7) -- Jews must divide what they overcharge Christians.

Choschen Ham(156,5) -- Jews must not take Christian customers from Jews.

Iore Dea (157,2) H -- May deceive Christians that believe Christian tenets.

Abhodah Zarah (54a) --Usury may be practiced upon Christians or apostates.

Iore Dea (159,1) -- Usury permitted now for any reason to Christians.

Babha Kama (113a) -- Jew may lie and perjure to condemn a Christian.

Babha Kama (113b) -- Name of God not profaned when lying to Christians.

Kallah (1b, p.18) -- Jew may perjure himself with a clear conscience.

Schabbouth Hag. (6d). -- Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording.

Zohar (1,160a). -- Jews must always try to deceive Christians.

Iore Dea (158,1) -- Do not cure Christians unless it makes enemies.

Orach Cahiim (330,2) -- Do not assist Christian's childbirth on Saturday.

Choschen Ham.(425,5) -- Unless believes in Torah do not prevent his death.

Iore Dea (158,1) -- Christians not enemies must not be saved either.

Hilkkoth Akum (X,1) -- Do not save Christians in danger of death.

Choschen Ham(386,10) -- A spy may be killed even before he confesses.

Abhodah Zorah (26b) -- Apostates to be thrown into well, not rescued.

Choschen Ham(388,15) -- Kill those who give Israelites' money to Christians

Sanhedrin (59a) -- `Prying into Jews' "Law" to get death penalty

Hilkhoth Akum(X,2) -- Baptized Jews are to be put to death

Iore Dea(158,2)Hag. -- Kill renegades who turn to Christian rituals.

Choschen Ham(425,5) -- Those who do not believe in Torah are to be killed.

Hilkhoth tesch.III,8 -- Christians and others deny the "Law" of the Torah.

Zohar (I,25a) -- Christians are to be destroyed as idolators.

Zohar (II,19a) -- Captivity of Jews end when Christian princes die.

Zohar (I,219b) -- Princes of Christians are idolators, must die.

Obadiam -- When Rome is destroyed, Israel will be redeemed.

Abhodah Zarah(26b) T. -- "Even the best of the Goim should be killed."

Sepher Or Israel 177b -- If Jew kills Christian commits no sin.

Ialkut Simoni (245c) -- Shedding blood of impious offers sacrifice to God.

Zohar (II, 43a) -- Extermination of Christians necessary sacrifice.

Zohar (L,28b,39a) -- High place in heaven for those who kill idolators.

Hilkhoth Akum(X,1) -- Make no agreements and show no mercy to Christians

Hilkhoth Akum (X,1) -- Either turn them away from their idols or kill.

Hilkhoth Akum (X,7) -- Allow no idolators to remain where Jews are strong.

Choschen Ham(388,16) -- All contribute to expense of killing traitor.

Pesachim (49b) -- No need of prayers while beheading on Sabbath.

Schabbath (118a). -- Prayers to save from punishment of coming Messiah.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Wow! I thought that Augustine was the originator of the premise of conversion by the sword. Seems like he gets the credit because he consolidated these premises.

 

[IshChayil]

@IshChayil, your above post is well explained, but I am not sure about the accuracy of this comment:

Christian scholars, most notably I B Pranaitis, have documented enormous numbers of passages with extremely negative commentary on Christianity in Talmud. For instance, this article has a long list of such references (the article itself I have not even read, I am referring solely to the reference list). To be very clear I'm not discussing the article itself, I'll just quote the references below.
I find it very difficult to reconcile your statement that there are "few references" to Christianity with the enormous number of such references documented by other scholars. Can you elaborate what you mean?

Regarding the laughable "expertise of Pranaitis" I'll leave it to a nice quote provided by Wikipedia,
"Cross-examination of Pranaitis has weakened the evidential value of his expert opinion, exposing lack of knowledge of texts and insufficient knowledge of Jewish literature. Because of his amateurish knowledge and lack of resourcefulness, Pranaitis' expert opinion is of very low value." -Царская Россия и дело Бейлиса, Tager, A., Moscow, 1934 (this coming from the side that wanted to believe him)

Most of the references are not to 'Jesus Christ' they are to a Yeshua who was a sourcerer. "Yeshua was not an uncommon name and zealous antisemites like Pranaitis often eager to discover some reverse hatred in Jewish texts clung to anyone with the name "Jesus." Even if we took, however, 100 examples and said they really were about him, again we are talking about tomes much much larger than the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

This kind of thing often happens when outsiders come in and try to find evidence of "christian hatred."
To help others understand why there is not much in Jewish lore about Yeshua of Nazareth we must understand, Jewish theology assumes that Christians go to heaven (the majority opinion rules in Judaism), hence there is no attempt to convert Christians. Though your point, even if I ceded it, is actually a bit distracting (as was my point regarding Talmud). My response was to rock's claim that Jews intentionally changed the Hebrew bible b/c they were so worried that the scriptures were so obviously pointing to Yeshua.
The main thrust of his argument leaned on the so called "change from 'virgin' to 'maiden'" which was summarily dealt with by my post.
let's get back to that. Are you agreeing with Rockfox's conjecture [the masoretes changed what they felt was the sacred word of G-d in order to knock out prophecies about Yeshua]?
**** multiple edits in the 5 minutes following original post***
Regarding 'christians are idolaters must not associate' that was true when it was written...
Ask any Hebrew roots or Messianic person if they believe the Christians of the day back then were idolaters or not. I totally believe that.

 

[Mojo]

Regarding the laughable "expertise of Pranaitis" I'll leave it to a nice quote provided by Wikipedia,
"Cross-examination of Pranaitis has weakened the evidential value of his expert opinion, exposing lack of knowledge of texts and insufficient knowledge of Jewish literature. Because of his amateurish knowledge and lack of resourcefulness, Pranaitis' expert opinion is of very low value." -Царская Россия и дело Бейлиса, Tager, A., Moscow, 1934 (this coming from the side that wanted to believe him)

Most of the references are not to 'Jesus Christ' they are to a Yeshua who was a sourcerer. "Yeshua was not an uncommon name and zealous antisemites like Pranaitis often eager to discover some reverse hatred in Jewish texts clung to anyone with the name "Jesus." Even if we took, however, 100 examples and said they really were about him, again we are talking about tomes much much larger than the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

This kind of thing often happens when outsiders come in and try to find evidence of "christian hatred."
To help others understand why there is not much in Jewish lore about Yeshua of Nazareth we must understand, Jewish theology assumes that Christians go to heaven (the majority opinion rules in Judaism), hence there is no attempt to convert Christians. Though your point, even if I ceded it, is actually a bit distracting (as was my point regarding Talmud). My response was to rock's claim that Jews intentionally changed the Hebrew bible b/c they were so worried that the scriptures were so obviously pointing to Yeshua.
The main thrust of his argument leaned on the so called "change from 'virgin' to 'maiden'" which was summarily dealt with by my post.
let's get back to that. Are you agreeing with Rockfox's conjecture [the masoretes changed what they felt was the sacred word of G-d in order to knock out prophecies about Yeshua]?
**** multiple edits in the 5 minutes following original post***
Regarding 'christians are idolaters must not associate' that was true when it was written...
Ask any Hebrew roots or Messianic person if they believe the Christians of the day back then were idolaters or not. I totally believe that.

Clarification: idolaters as in unrefined Roman/Greek pagans clinging to their old ways? Is that what you mean?

 

[Joleneakamama]

Most of the references are not to 'Jesus Christ' they are to a Yeshua who was a sourcerer.

This is to imply and believe as factual that this other Yeshua was somehow better known then the Yeshua who's followers came to be known as Christians. I find this extremely hard (as in impossible) to believe. It is far more likely that "sorcerer" was another charge on Yeshua of Nazareth given that we have verses in the New Testament like this passage in Luke chapter 11.
V 14 And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.

15 But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.

Even if we took, however, 100 examples and said they really were about him, again we are talking about tomes much much larger than the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

If this was truly mistaken identity then you would think some rabi after all these years might have corrected the Jews who spit after saying his name, or Jewish comedians who state in their "comedy" routines that they are glad He was killed.

The percentage of references in the mass of words matters far less than whether the references that exist are positive or negative. If there are ZERO positive references, then 100% of the references that do exist are negative and defaming. If this is true we can and should take these words of Yeshua from a bit later in the chapter to heart.

23He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

The fact that those in Judaism reject him is enough for me to reject them as His enemies. Those words Yeshua spoke were YHWH's words after all.

If you @IshChayil are truly a believer in Yeshua as being the Messiah I cannot fathom your defence of a document like the Talmud, while you teach here the concept of Lashon Hara.

Another side point. Jews want antisemitism to apply to them and be used to defend them exclusively, but Arabs, and many Christians are also descendants of Shem....as in shemites. So the cruel irony in acting like they are the only semites, and the only group that can beat people over the head with that label is not lost on some of us.

 

[FollowingHim]

@IshChayil, even if you are correct that a different Jesus is spoken of (which is debatable), the references to Christians and Christianity are far more important than the references to Jesus. This is because they actually have potential impact on the lives of people today. It doesn't really matter if someone hates Jesus, they can't hurt him, but if they incite violence against his followers today that is dangerous. So I would be more interested in your comments on the far more extensive list of passages against Christianity, which you did not address in your last comment.

I am not relying on the expertise or opinion of one scholar, I just mentioned his name because I am aware that the list of references I shared is compiled from his work. However, this has been the conclusion of many Christian scholars throughout the ages, going right back to the Disputation of Paris in 1233. In summary, up to that date the church had generally viewed the Jews as faithful followers of the Old Testament alone, but around that time the Talmud was brought to the attention of Christians. A convert from Judaism to Christianity translated key passages of the Talmud into French and Latin, causing enormous uproar, and resulting in a public trial in Paris and the Pope ordering the confiscation and burning of the Talmud. Obviously the Pope tended to react in such a manner to any heresy, and I'm not condoning the way they responded to this any more than I'd condone the Pope ordering the persecution of Protestant Christians - I mention this history solely to show that this is not about one man's scholarship (because that would simply invite character assasination as a response, and I would prefer to discuss the message not shoot the messenger). It is an issue that has been considered very serious by the wider Church for centuries, ever since the Talmud was brought to the attention of Christians.

I cannot help noticing the many parallels between the Talmudic statements about Christians, and the Quran and other Islamic writings. Both the Talmud and the various Islamic writings were written in a similar time period, and both not only promote oppression of and violence against Christians, but far more interestingly in my mind, both overtly state it is acceptable to lie to Christians in order to conceal the true teachings of Islam / Judaism. These parallels are fascinating.

It's one thing to disagree theologically. It's something completely different to present violence and deceit as the appropriate action in response to that theological dispute.

 

[Mojo]

This is to imply and believe as factual that this other Yeshua was somehow better known then the Yeshua who's followers came to be known as Christians. I find this extremely hard (as in impossible) to believe. It is far more likely that "sorcerer" was another charge on Yeshua of Nazareth given that we have verses in the New Testament like this passage in Luke chapter 11.

@IshChayil and @Joleneakamama, neither of you have provided evidence for your conjecture about who this Yeshua is referring to. Seems like it's a moot point until one of you does.

 

[IshChayil]

@IshChayil and @Joleneakamama, neither of you have provided evidence for your conjecture about who this Yeshua is referring to. Seems like it's a moot point until one of you does.

I humbly disagree brother. There is never an onus on someone to prove a negative (myself in this case).
If members of the antisemtic group British Israelites or Black Israelites, or any of the other pretenders wish to make claims that a certain "Yeshua" (common name like "Bob" in Hebrew) mentioned in our Jewish literature is referring to "The Nazarene" (how the Rabbis usually refer to him in those writings), the onus is not on me to show that the particular "Bob" of whom they are hoping is Yeshua is not in fact Yeshua.

@FollowingHim if you wish to have a discussion about anti-Jesus comments in the Talmud, please start a thread as this is distracting from RockFox's claim (liked by Joleane) that the HEbrew bible we have today was intentionally corrupted by the Maseretes and even prophesied of in Jeremiah. If you agree with this positioin that we do not have a reliable Old Testament in the Hebrew today I would be happy to respond in this thread to those comments. If you continue to quote antisemtic charlatons who did not even know what "Bava Batra" means (the thickest tractate in the Talmud -sheesh) I won't respond, I'll just ask you do cursory google searches on your "scholars" so I dont need to waste time debunking each one.
Your claims that Jews teach that it's ok to Lie to Christians about Judaism are untrue and antisemitic slander against Jews (show me your source I guarantee it's an antisemite again like your other source was, though perhaps not trying to convict a Jew of murdering a christina child and using his blood for matsa, like your scholar did); the only
situation this is allowed is in situations where the community is in danger (like they were under Martin Luther who had thousands of jews killed by convincing the leader of Saxony to evict the Jews in the winter time). In such situations yes, we are allowed to lie to the Gentiles who want us dead, or if by proxy want us dead.
I do not appreciate you placing us in the likes of the Muslims who overtly lie about their religion for the purpose of making converts (as do Mormons).
There has been enough antisemitism unchecked in the past that I think the admin would do well to tread lightly.

@jolean it's so much drivel but if you put it in a thread then I will respond -sigh Please remember he warnings Andrew gave you when posting here...

 

[Mojo]

This topic is going sideways and straying from the original inquiry about female vs. male homosexuality. Let's get it back on track.

One note:
@Joleneakamama, you referred to Jews as your enemies because they are not for Christ. I personally don't feel that way, but you are welcome to your opinion. However, if you feel that way, we need to remember the words of that Jesus we are for.

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. or if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

 

[IshChayil]

...
If this was truly mistaken identity then you would think some rabi after all these years might have corrected the Jews who spit after saying his name, or Jewish comedians who state in their "comedy" routines that they are glad He was killed.

So you never heard the Christian joke about how many jews fit in an ashtray? [Idon't even know how many times I heard that joke from Gentile christians]
come on Joleane, your case is so weak that you invoke the words of an evil comedian and try to claim this is a religious Jewish perspective? As if a religious Jew would set foot in a normal comedy club.
tsk tsk to all you who liked that reprehensible comment.

 

[Mojo]

Let's move on.

 

[FollowingHim]

@IshChayil, I raised this issue in response to a very specific statement of yours - that the Talmud barely mentioned Christianity or Jesus, and was not anti-Christian. I wanted to clarify that this is not necessarily accurate, because I am very concerned about the risk of people studying Talmud too deeply and going from Christianity -> Judaism. And then even to atheism (a very prominent early member of this forum followed that exact path, first renouncing Christ, but then renouncing God entirely, due to following this exact pathway). I felt a need to raise that opposing perspective to provide balance (by definition, as it is the opposing perspective, you do not agree with it - but your disagreement doesn't change the fact that the perspective exists).

So you never heard the Christian joke about how many jews fit in an ashtray?

For the record, I've never heard any joke along those lines myself. (Edit: And if I had, I certainly wouldn't call it "Christian")

I agree with both you and @Mojo that this is going off on a tangent, and it's best to drop this line of discussion here.

 

[IshChayil]

@IshChayil, I raised this issue in response to a very specific statement of yours - that the Talmud barely mentioned Christianity or Jesus, and was not anti-Christian. I wanted to clarify that this is not necessarily accurate, because I am very concerned about the risk of people studying Talmud too deeply and going from Christianity -> Judaism. ...

perhaps instead of being worried about people reading commentary on the bible, you could be more worried about introducing them to antisemitic literature?
That's what concerns me. People start reading works from charlatons who hated Jews->they read more stuff by more antisemites->the become antisemites.
perhaps your concern of the scary dangers of Talmud are right on, but then so are my concerns about antisemitism returning to mainstream Christianity and that my friend kills.
In your eagerness to refute Talmud in the future please be more careful (even a cursory google search) withthe sources you quote from. I would hugely appreciate that effort brother.

 

[IshChayil]

@IshChayil...
. (Edit: And if I had, I certainly wouldn't call it "Christian")..

well kudos to New Zealand. Some areas have better Christians than others.
Let's not hint about "no true Scottsman". I heard it from NUMEROUS Christians over the years.
So Joleane's calling out an ethnic, non-practicing Jewish comedian or saying horrible stuff and trying to smear the rest of us is out of line.
Antisemitism has a history within Christianity and we are finally freeing ourselves of it.
Let's not feed the fire to head back down that road.
(Sorry about the 2nd post to your 1 post, I didn't want to edit since I was sure you'd seen it already and might miss something).

 

[rockfox]

but there's just simply not any evidence of the Masoretes intentionally changing words in scripture.

That is a stretch considering you only considered 1 example I gave.

Now to be pedantic, I'm not aware of any quote where the ancient Jews state they intentionally changed things. But the large number of changes around Christological passages, and their outright removal of multiple book of scripture speaks volumes.

My favorite one was where the priest was axe-murdered for being overly friendly to Jews.
It was a sweet church; they even say "shalom" to you when you enter. They also had astrology pamphlets for the public in that church so there's that. Appeal to Authority definitely invalid when appealing to those guys.

Nor do I 'lean on'. I said I agree with them; based not on their bald opinion but based on the examples I've seen from them and others. But I bring them up as they are the largest faith stream of Christianity to prefer the LXX over the Masoretic for their OT and the only one pointing out it's corruptions.

So because 1 Orthodox priest behaved badly, the history and opinion of the entire faith movement is invalid? If that is the standard I could pick out all manner of Jews behaving badly, orders of magnitude worse. But I won't because it's an illogical argument born of emotion and tribalism. Or I could just quote the evil sayings from the Talmud those same people published. Samuel provided ample examples of their manner of thinking that demonstrate changing a few things in the scripture wouldn't be out of character for them. Why should I prefer the opinion of those who rejected Christ and wrote such things over those who accepted him and bore the Holy Spirit?

You know, I still remember being a kid sitting in church and looking up an OT verse that was quoted in the NT and it being completely different. The Christ, the apostles and the early church used the LXX; I don't know why we should prefer a version that came much later and has known issues.

Other readings for those looking for more information:

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/

https://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/Ma...brew-Rabbi-Yose-ben-Halafta-Zippori-160AD.htm

That's what concerns me. People start reading works from charlatons who hated Jews->they read more stuff by more antisemites->the become antisemites.
perhaps your concern of the scary dangers of Talmud are right on, but then so are my concerns about antisemitism returning to mainstream Christianity and that my friend kills.

You should be far more concerned about the mass volumes of anti-white, anti-christian hate being spewed by Jews daily as they foment a genocidal race war against Whites. Something that's actually getting people killed here and now.

 

[IshChayil]

That is a stretch considering you only considered 1 example I gave...

you only gave one concrete example and it was a doosey; I hope you see you were wrong on that claim now so hopefully we will not slander the righteous Masoretes any more.

I'll respond to the rest of your post when this stuff is moved to a new thread (also I haven't read the rest of your post yet, got stuff to do but I will read it I promise brother).