fireofice wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 9:07 am
Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 7:40 am
Over time, the only "Jews" that remained were those who are these ideological descendants of the Pharisees, as
all Jews today follow the Talmud (there is one in every synagogue, and Jews discuss the Talmud far more than the Torah itself, which is more of a symbolic icon for its "promises" by God). The only "Jews" who are not followers of the Talmud/Pharisees are the Karaites, who are a tiny sect which has been largely rejected by Judaism (and Israel, at least up until very recently). The Karaites are true "Old Testament Jews", following the Torah but rejecting the Talmud.
This may be true, but it has no bearing on the fact that pre Talmudic Jews were also Jews. A religion changing doesn't mean the people changed. Anti-semitism existed long before Christianity.
https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/cassi ... n-the-jews
https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/valer ... -expulsion
The point is that all Jews today are descendants of the Pharisees (at the very least, ideologically), so we cannot reasonably confirm whether Jews of other ideological systems from two millenia ago shared the same precise pattern of behavior. The Pharisees were a minority at the time but still large enough to be recognized (and apparently often disliked) for their behaviors and traditions.
This isn't to say we should conclude that other Jews of the period didn't ever behave in problematic ways, but it does limit the sources for reliable data, and it is almost a moot point since all Jews today are of the Pharisees, anyway.
Thomas Dalton also has a book called
Eternal Strangers that records criticism of Jews going all the way back before Christianity and thus before any "Talmud" existed.
https://armreg.co.uk/product/eternal-st ... -the-ages/
And much of the criticism of Jews regarding usury existed before Christianity as well:
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2 ... and-usury/
And a strategy to take over the world through lending and borrowing can be found within the Old Testament itself, no Talmud needed.
Given all this, it seems very likely that the pre Talmudic and post Talmudic Jews are the same people.
Again, it's possible but more difficult to confirm. Jews for the last ~2,000 years have been Pharisaic/Talmudic. Isolated reports in much earlier years might reflect a similar pattern of behavior in other Jews but I would need to start by reading Dalton's book and do additional research to start forming an opinion on this. For now, I'm skeptical there is enough information to conclude on it. The Jews and their Talmud (and the Pharisees before them), as I understand it, are inseparable. Many of their behaviors are derived directly from specific practices and interpretations of the Talmud (and Oral Torah), which were not shared among other Jews. To imagine modern Judaism without the Talmud is quite difficult.
Moreover, the Jews not belonging to the Pharisees (i.e. the majority of them) predominantly converted to Christianity and/or assimilated into the broader (e.g. Roman) society, which further complicates the question of whether these other Jews were indeed the same "Jews" we know today. If so, this would mean a vast portion of Europe (i.e. almost anyone descending from or mixed with Roman/Mediterranean blood) is part-Jewish.
Complicating things even further is that recent genetic studies show that Ashkenazi Jews (i.e. the vast majority of "Jews" as we commonly see/interpret them today) descend from small pool of individuals just some ~700 years ago:
.
Callafangers wrote:Jesus of Nazareth vehemently opposed these "traditions", as did most of the other Jewish groups of the time.
Not according to the New Testament. Here's what Jesus said about the Pharisees:
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, burdensome loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. - Matthew 23:1-4
So Jesus was explicitly
pro oral law of the Pharisees. His only criticism was to not behave as they behaved because they were hypocrites, but their oral law was divinely inspired. If Jesus were around at the time of the Talmud, he would most likely
endorse it. Yes, Jesus had conflicts with other Jews, but even
religiously he was on the same page.
This interpretation is not correct. While Jesus shows some respect for the role of the scribes in interpreting and conveying the Written Law, the fact of how the Pharisees 'behaved' is derived directly from their practices of their "Oral Torah [Law]" (which deals with practical application and behavior in everyday life). Jesus calls this out as problematic repeatedly (e.g. Matthew 15:1–9, Mark 7:1–13), referring to the "traditions of men", which are behavior indicated as being exclusively of the Pharisees. Examples of this behavior include ritual hand-washing and similar practices, which are known (even today) as being of the Oral Law, and not the Written Law. It is very clear that Jesus opposed these traditions (and increasingly those who practiced them).
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5:17-20
Here Jesus is saying that the law still applies until the world ends. So he is here once again being explicitly pro Jewish law, not against it.
Yes, this is the Written Law, and there are clear distinctions made between it and the Oral Law, the latter of which Jesus only spoke against (and very clearly so). His respect and adherence to the Written Law was challenged at times and the above is an example of His defense of the Written Law. He did not defend the Oral Law (hence needing to
exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees).
Of course, if you maintain as Hitler did that Jews are a race and not a religion, then this is all moot anyhow. He's a Jew by race, end of story. Although granted, Hitler did have some (I believe false) beliefs about Jesus being an Aryan, but that's another issue.
Hitler spoke highly of Jesus, although he had complex feelings on the matter due to internal religious conflict in Germany (and his foremost priority of uniting the German people) and, later in the war, due to Christian nations turning against Germany (no doubt due to Jewish subversion). Nonetheless, he refers to God and/or Jesus Christ [always positively] hundreds of times throughout his speeches.
