Judaism and the Talmud mostly ignore Jesus. We don't "reject" him. Accepting Jesus is not a default condition. Do you "reject " Asclepius?
For You Who Do Not Know What The Tnakh Is
- Thread starter Squeaky
- Start date
Judaism and the Talmud mostly ignore Jesus. We don't "reject" him. Accepting Jesus is not a default condition. Do you "reject " Asclepius?
beameup
New member
The "Orthodox" derived from the Pharisees.
The Karaite Jews still adhere to the Tanakh only.
The Essenes became belivers in Yeshua Messiah.
Not sure what became of the Sadducees.
Since we are in a Christian theology only forum, yes, Jesus is the default condition.
But to be clear, as I understand it pre-rabbinic or pre-Talmudic Judaism is the religion of Jesus and his first century followers. He, in fact, advocated a return to pre-rabbinic faith and practice, having rejected not Judaism but some of the false teachings of the rabbis. That is not to say that all rabbinic teachings were false, but some clearly were according to Jesus.(I'm thinking here of Akiba, whereas I've heard Rambam has much of interest to say--not that I can read either in the originals.)
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
No. It is the default position for Christians, but not for others. The idea that anybody who is not Christian has "rejected" Jesus is wrong.
As I understand it this is the "Religion" section of the forum and thus all religions are open to discussion. As far as "a Christian theology only forum" I think that is the ECT board at the top of the main page, ("Exclusive Christian Theology").
I stand corrected ... I guess. I honestly can't tell which forum I'm in on this app. I thought it was ECT. Oh, well. With apologies.
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
The Qumran Community was primarily overseen and administered by Kohanim and Levites, (Zadokite brethren of the "Sadducees" in Jerusalem, but vehemently opposed to the views of the Sadducee sect, and thus the separation). Moreover they called their community Damascus, (Damesek, likely because they understood dam-mes(h)ek to mean "blood inheritor"). In the days of Saul/Paul it is not likely that Jerusalem had authority to bind in Damascus Syria, but rather, it was more likely the other way around. Therefore which Damascus was it that Saul went to in Acts 9:1-8? Jerusalem surely had authority to bind in Damascus-Qumran.
Some, to be sure, have never heard the good news that is the story of Jesus, so they cannot be said to have rejected it. That is true. And some have never heard the story rightly presented. Perhaps they have not rejected it either, since they have never heard the real truth. But there are others who refuse to hear because of preconceived ideas they have, so they never take the time to sincerely investigate Jesus' story. Those have truly rejected him--having judged him beforehand.
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
Interesting! But unless Qumran also had a street called Straight, I think we can conclude Paul went to Syria.
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
I said
Thanks for the information about the old testament I didn't know that. But that could be why I didn't understand it.
Traverse upon(over the length of) the way(avenue-street) which is called straightWay. :chuckle:
I said
I know Jesus very well. The reason I look at different things is to see if I can believe in anything else. lol I cant.
I said
You see now there is another piece of knowledge I didn't have. That Sadducees were of the Qumran.
God's Truth
New member
The talmud not only rejects Jesus, they speak the worst things imaginable about him.
God's Truth
New member
The Jews have heard of Jesus and have rejected him.
God's Truth
New member
Jesus came to fulfill the old law, and give the guidelines for the new law and testament. Then he shed his blood on the cross for the new testament/covenant.
I, on the other hand, may not look for other things to believe in, but I can see Jesus, the Truth, in many places. Sometimes unexpected places. It is fun to see how God has "infected" everything with tiny revelations of himself. I know infected isn't really the right word, but it seems more active than, "He has left reminders." And I like the idea that God is at work undermining the false systems of Man's thinking.
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
Sorry, but that is not what he said. I don't know if it is accurate, but he said the two groups were related genetically, brethren, but opposed to one another in terms of teaching. Just wanted to clarify.
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
No, the Sadducees, (Tzaddukim), were rulers at Jerusalem in that time; and the ruling families of the Priests, (and many of the wealthy families also), were primarily of the Sadducee mindset, (a sectarian disposition). However the Zadokites, (Tzaddokim), were physical brethren and sons of Tzadok the Kohen or Priest. The term Sadducee may or may not actually refer to Zadokites, (though most assume that is what the term refers to). Those of the priesthood that were of the Sadducee mindset where likely also flesh and blood Zadokites, (but not necessarily).