Roy Schoeman's Book: "Salvation is from the Jews"

[Cam42]

From one of your sources that you cite:

[quote]Yet the ever-varying conditions of life called for new ordinances, and these were decreed in accordance with the needs of the time and the special cases to be determined. There were thus formed a traditional law and custom orally transmitted. Every decree of this kind (halakha), if it had existed from time immemorial and nothing further could be said in regard to its origin, was called a law given to Moses on Mount Sinai. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910)[/quote]

So, according to the Catholic Encylopedia, the Talmud has its origins in Mosaic times.

[quote]The Mishna of the Talmud was not canonized until the third century.[/quote]

Canonized is the wrong word, it was codified, but nevertheless, because that was the codification, that doesn't mean that the writings didn't exist from the time of the destruction of the temple. It is simply in the third century when the books were brought together.

I also assume that we are only speaking of the Babylonian and not the Palestinian Talmud? I asked this early on in another thread and you never answered. I would contend that the Palestinian Talmud probably existed in some form from close to AD 70 onward.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:
[quote]Yerushalmi has not been preserved in its entirety; large portions of it were entirely lost at an early date,while other parts exist only in fragments. (Jewish Encyclopedia)[/quote]

[quote]Linguistically, the Palestinian Talmud is Aramaic, in so far as its framework (like the elucidations of the mishnaic text by the members of the academies and the amoraic discussions connected with them) is redacted in that language; the greater portion of the terminology is in like manner Aramaic. (Jewish Encyclopedia)[/quote]

These quotes would seem to support my position of age as well as Schoeman's.


And from your first website listed:
[quote]The rabbis of Palestine edited their discussions of the Mishna about the year 400: Their work became known as the Palestinian Talmud (in Hebrew, Talmud Yerushalmi, which literally means "Jerusalem Talmud"). (Jewish Virtual Library)[/quote]

The impotice of this would assume that the writings were in existence before the 3rd century, if that is when they were codified.

Even if this were not the case, we know the teachings were known for centuries before, even if not written down. But the resistance doesn't mean that they were not written down, just that it was resisted.

Again your first website:
[quote]This decline in the number of knowledgeable Jews seems to have been a decisive factor in Rabbi Judah the Prince's decision around the year 200 C.E. to record in writing the Oral Law. For centuries, Judaism's leading rabbis had resisted writing down the Oral Law. (Jewish Virtual Library)[/quote]

Thanks for the ammo. I will use whatever you give me. I appreciate your help in proving my points. Any other websites you'd like to post?

Cam42

[james]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 12 2005, 01:12 AM']



So, according to the Catholic Encylopedia, the Talmud has its origins in Mosaic times.



[/quote]
You misunderstand. Judaics claim that an oral tradition was handed down from Moses and Abraham which was later recorded in the Talmud and then the Kabbalah. The statement you took from the Catholic Encyclopedia is merely stating the Orthodox Jewish position. That would have been clear if you included the following sentence in your quote:

[quote]...for orthodox Judaism of today it is an article of faith that Moses, at the same time that he received the written law recorded in the Pentateuch, also received detailed explanations of the different laws, which were handed down by tradition as oral law.[/quote]


While Orthodox Jews may believe this to be true, the Catholic church has never recognized it as being true.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on "Kabbalah:"

[quote]Of course, the Book of Creation [Sepher Yetzirah, Kabbalah] does not go back to Abraham, as has been claimed by many Kabbalists. Its ascription by others to Rabbi Akiba (d. A.D. 120) is also a matter of controversy. With regard to the Zohar, its compilation is justly referred to a Spanish Jew, Moses of Leon (d. 1305), while some of its elements seem to be of a much greater antiquity.[/quote]

This oral tradition did not come from Moses or Abraham, it was a man made tradition based on didactic reasoning used as a means of circumventing Biblical law. This is why Christ condemned this tradition and called the Pharisees who practiced it hypocrites.

Could this madness, in your opinion, have been given to Moses by God?:

[quote name='Babylonian Talmud' date=' Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 54b']Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast is treated as an old one.23 

What is meant by this? — Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.24 

What is the basis of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty [in that respect].25 

But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman.26

[u]Footnotes:[/u]

24. I.e., [b]Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.[/b]

25. At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.

26. Lev. XVIII, 22. [b]Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three[/b].[/quote]

Does this not place pope Clement VIII's condemnation of the Talmud and Kabbalah in it's proper perspective?

Edited February 12, 2005 by james

[Cam42]

What does this have to do with Roy Schoeman again?

[quote]You misunderstand.[/quote]

No, I think that I got it pretty close. It's origins, as I stated, were rooted in Mosaic times. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith seems to agree.

[quote]The laws contain moral precepts (ethical), juridical (legal), ritual and cultural (a rich assemblage of religious and profane customs). They are of a concrete nature, expressed sometimes as absolutes (e.g., the Decalogue), at other times as particular cases that concretise general principles. They then have the status of precedent and serve as analogies for comparable situations, giving rise to the later development of jurisprudence, called halakah, the oral law, later called the Mishna. Many laws have a symbolic meaning, in the sense that they illustrate concretely invisible values such as equity, social harmony, humanitarianism, etc. Not all laws are to be applied, some are school texts for the formation of future priests, judges and other functionaries; others reflect ideas inspired by the prophetic movement.  They were applied in the towns and villages of the country (Covenant Code), then throughout the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and later in the Jewish community dispersed throughout the world. (The Jewish People And Their Sacred Scriptures In The Christian Bible #43)[/quote]

So, again, what does this have to do with Roy Schoeman's book? Or is this simply a ruse in order for you to defame the Jewish faith?

Cam42

[cmotherofpirl]

James this thread is discussing a book.
Please stick to the topic.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Eremite, you confirm my worst fears about the effects that the Hebrew roots movement is having. I can only assume that you haven't studied Judaism and are only repeating something that you've heard someone else say.[/quote]

Yes, I am. The "someone else" is St. Paul and the Church.

[quote]How does this passage from the Kabbalah figure into your "Catholicsim is Judaism" theory?:[/quote]

The Kabbalah is an addition to Judaism by some of the seed of Abraham. As I told you before, Judaism is above all a PEOPLE, and then a religion. The descendants of Abraham have as their intention to follow the faith of their Fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to worship their God. Such is a Jew.

As for Catholicism being Judaism, Catholicism fulfills the law and the prophets perfectly, because it has been established by God. The Lord came not to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them. Most of the descendants of Abraham, unfortunately, are ignorant of this fulfillment in Christ. That does not, however, diminish their faith in Yahweh and their honest attempt to follow the faith of their fathers. Like Protestantism, errors in thought are inevitable to crop up among them, because they lack the authority of pre-Christian Israel. But just as Protestantism's errors do not make it a non-Christian religion, so the error of some of the descendents of Abraham does not make them non-Jewish progeny.

[quote]Does this not place Pope Clement VIII's eternal condemnation of Jewish texts in it's proper perspective?[/quote]

As cmotherofpirl said, this discussion has been about Roy Schoeman and the Catholic view of Israel. Clement VIII would have equally condemned the errors of Protestantism. The truth that remains in Protestantism, however, bears it as a Christian religion, and its honest followers as authentic Christians, their errors notwithstanding.

[james]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 12 2005, 09:19 AM']
No, I think that I got it pretty close.  It's origins, as I stated, were rooted in Mosaic times.  The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith seems to agree.



[/quote]
We're arguing apples and oranges here. I have stated that the Talmud and Kabbalah were not [i]written[/i] until after Christ's death and resurrection.

You are stating that the [i]origins[/i] of Talmud and Kabbalah were rooted in Mosaic times.

These are two very different things. Let's try to be clear.

I myself have stated that the Talmud and Kabbalah were based in an [i]oral tradition[/i] that was not [i]written[/i] down until after Christ.

This oral tradition did exist in Mosaic times. It was the tradition of the elders: the subject of much harsh criticism from our Lord in the Gospels. It was the tradition of the Pharisees which makes God's law of no effect.

The Talmud--the written tradition of the elders, is a book that's purpose is to circumvent Biblical law. That is why Christ condemned it and said that it "makes God's law of no effect."

[quote]"And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients,... But (Jesus) answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites... [b]making the word of God of no effect through your tradition[/b], which you have handed down. And many such things you do" (Mark 7:5-13)[/quote]

If one reads the Talmud, it becomes clear why Christ said this.

[quote name='Babylonian Talmud' date=' Tractate Baba Metzia, folio 33b']“Those who devote themselves to reading the Bible exercise a certain virtue, but not very much. Those who study Mishna (the first part of Talmud) exercise virtue for which they will receive a reward. THOSE, HOWEVER, WHO TAKE UPON THEMSELVES TO STUDY THE GEMARA (the second part of Talmud) EXERCISE THE HIGHEST VIRTUE.[/quote]

Reading this passage from the Talmud it becomes clear that Judaism takes it's cue from Pharisaism: the tradition of the elders which makes God's law of no effect. Judaism clearly places it's man-made law of the Talmud above God's law of the Bible.

[quote]"The 'Jewish' religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees". (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 1943)[/quote]

[quote]
"With the destruction of the Temple ...Henceforth, Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees ... Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism & the life & thought of the Jew for all the future." (Jewish Encyclopedia)[/quote]

[quote]"After the conflicts with Rome (A.D. 66-135) Pharisaism became practically synonymous with Judaism."  (Catholic Encyclopedia)[/quote]


Now, I ask you, how is it possible that Christianity is a continuation of the tradition of the Pharisees, a tradition which Christ Himself specifically and repeatedly condemned? How could Christianity be a continuation of the tradition of the Pharisees who executed Christ and many of his disciples in order to suppress His teachings?

The premise of Schoeman's book, "Salvation is from the Jews", is that Christianity is a continuation of Judaism and that is a false premise. Therefore the entire book is questionable.

Edited February 12, 2005 by james

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Now, I ask you, how is it possible that Christianity is a continuation of the tradition of the Pharisees, a tradition which Christ Himself specifically and repeatedly condemned? How could Christianity be a continuation of the tradition of the Pharisees who executed Christ and many of his disciples in order to suppress His teachings?[/quote]

AGAIN, Judaism was a diverse religion, before and in the time of Christ. There were quite a few Jewish groups claiming different things. They were all Jews. You keep reducing Judaism (and Christianity) to a book. It cannot be done.

[quote]The premise of Schoeman's book, "Salvation is from the Jews", is that Christianity is a continuation of Judaism and that is a false premise. Therefore the entire book is questionable. [/quote]

A false premise according to whom? Are you speaking as a Catholic? If not, why are you lecturing a Catholic with much credibility on what Catholicism teaches?

[Cam42]

There is something quite puzzling about your statement....thus leads me to believe that you really have no clear idea on the subject.

First you say:
[quote]I myself have stated that the Talmud and Kabbalah were based in an oral tradition that was not written down until after Christ.[/quote]

Then you say:
[quote]The Talmud--the written tradition of the elders, is a book that's purpose is to circumvent Biblical law. That is why Christ condemned it and said that it "makes God's law of no effect."[/quote]

So which is it? Was the Talmud written before or after Christ's earthly life?

[quote]We're arguing apples and oranges here.[/quote]

No, actually we are not. The Talmud is based on the Mosaic oral tradition. Simple. I have actually given hard proof. This is something that I am now starting to think that you may be allergic to.


[quote]Let's try to be clear.[/quote]

As mud.

Cam42

[Cam42]

I am confused about something else, James....

How do you hi-jack your own thread? 'Cause you've done it.

Cam42

[james]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 12 2005, 11:13 PM']

So which is it? Was the Talmud written before or after Christ's earthly life?



[/quote]
If you're knowledgable of this topic you can answer that question yourself.

If you aren't knowledgeable of this topic, one must wonder why you're debating it.

[james]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 12 2005, 11:32 PM'] I am confused about something else, James....

How do you hi-jack your own thread? 'Cause you've done it.

Cam42 [/quote]
Actually, I've focused on one specific point. And here it is for the third time.

The premise of Schoeman's book, "Salvation is from the Jews", is that Christianity is a continuation of Judaism and that is a false premise. Therefore the entire book is questionable.

[Cam42]

Whaaaaaa......?????? You are confused. You are making no sense now.

How about we actually get you to post something about Roy Schoeman. You are the one who wanted to discuss his book.

Cam42

[Cam42]

"Salvation is from the Jews" is a quote from Luke's Gospel.

How can it be false premise?

Cam42

[james]

[quote][b]Q: What inspired you to write this book?[/b]

Schoeman: It seems obvious to me, as a Jew who has entered the Catholic Church, that [b]the Church is nothing else but "post Messianic" Judaism [/b]­ that is, the continuation of Judaism after the coming of the Jewish Messiah, now opened up to all peoples.[/quote]

The premise of Schoeman's book, "Salvation is from the Jews", is that Christianity is a continuation of Judaism and that is a false premise. Therefore the entire book is questionable.

[Cam42]

We know you think that, now why is that James....

Try a new line.

Cam42