OK the argument was made on the show "Christ in Prophecy" by a messianic rabbi promoting his new book. I thought this would get a wild but relatively civil debate going.
Again, the Talmud is a 'late' work, and not 'scriptural' or canon; it's sort of like a Jewish version of Thomas of Aquina's Summa Theologica, only a lot less sane than Thomas's work and not nearly as brilliant, given that it appears almost any idiot could get a few a lines in one of them and hardly anything is known about any of its contributing writers, plus there are more than one, and there are differences between them. IT does offer the occasional interesting arguments and logical exegeses, so is still worth study for those so inclined. The Summa Theologica is a much better choice in that line of teaching texts, though, by far.
compared to the TALMUD which is a comprehensive and very INCLUSIVE work spanning centuries------the "summa theologica" is a piece of dog shit and of no philosophical or historical valueWhat's 'Talmudic' about the idea? Most Jews aren't religious, and aren't covered under the OT covenants, i.e. they aren't the 'Chosen' of the OT, they're secular refugees, and Israel was formed as a result of Arab idiocy and genocidal thievery combined with the dire need for a safe haven for Jews in their own tribal homelands.
Israel is a tiny country. No need for the "s." Just say homeland.
There are more than just one tribe, and it's a homeland for more than one of them and more than one sect, hence the plural.
there is only ONE people called "THE JEWS"-----they are the descendants of the people that WAS called "THE KINGDOM
OF JUDAH" in the days following the return of the people who
were called THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL ---following the
Babylonian captivity. During the time of the roman occupation---
the whole land---including that which at one time was called
THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL and The KINGDOM OF JUDAH---
came to be called JUDEA. Now da joooos is da joooos.
My tribe, for example, is not JUDAH----but I am still a JOOO ----
Jesus was, according to the NT----of the Tribe of JUDAH----he was
a jooo too. like me. Your semantics and sophistry is STRAINED
OK the argument was made on the show "Christ in Prophecy" by a messianic rabbi promoting his new book. I thought this would get a wild but relatively civil debate going.
Again, the Talmud is a 'late' work, and not 'scriptural' or canon; it's sort of like a Jewish version of Thomas of Aquina's Summa Theologica, only a lot less sane than Thomas's work and not nearly as brilliant, given that it appears almost any idiot could get a few a lines in one of them and hardly anything is known about any of its contributing writers, plus there are more than one, and there are differences between them. IT does offer the occasional interesting arguments and logical exegeses, so is still worth study for those so inclined. The Summa Theologica is a much better choice in that line of teaching texts, though, by far.
compared to the TALMUD which is a comprehensive and very INCLUSIVE work spanning centuries------the "summa theologica" is a piece of dog shit and of no philosophical or historical value
Oh my, time for your meds, dear. You've obviously been missing your therapy classes, too.
Pic is stumped again