Did Jesus wear a prayer shawl (tallit)?

[LadyGarnetRose]

What bible is it that you're referring to? The Protestant truncated canon, or the scriptures that were used by the Church, supported in Rome in 382, supported and specifically named at Hippo in 393, ratified at Carthage in 397, supported by the Roman Bishop and agreed to by Jerome and Augustine, revalidated at the second synod of Carthage. That Rome now states that she did not ratify the canon until Trent is of no consequence to Eastern Christians, who have not been swayed by the vicissitudes of Roman conflict.
IOW, She is your mother to argue with, not ours.

Rome is not my mother.

So you mean the Jerome Vulgate...


One thing I must address, when I said "For Roman Catholics" and "For Calvinists" and the was completely ignored?

Or are you one that believes in order to be in Christ, one must be Eastern Orthodox?

And your results are errant. Go figure.
Moving along...


That's a very magnanimous statement. It seems only fair that we commend those with whom we agree.



Wonderful.



Actually, I gave you the opportunity to explain, which you have- sort of.

I don't think one should EVER stand in Judgement, capital J. That is for One, and we're not He.

That was a typo I meant judgment. And that of documents and how we can judge them as being correct.

Ahh, the tun of the phrase. You use the term "Judaism" interchangeably with the Rabbinics of the second century and the Hebrew Fathers. The Judaism of the Rabbinics, is this what you claim Christianity is?
We understand quite well where the faith of our Fathers comes from- Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. This is the root of Christianity and the root of Rabbinic Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism is NOT the root from whence we grow. Sorry, that's syncretism, and I must protest.

No I use Judaism as it is outlined in the Tanakh.

I am not grafted into Maimonides, I am grafted into Zerubbabel and Zadok and Rahab and Zechariah..and James and Jude and Paul and Peter.
Let us CAREFULLY craft these terms.

And I was not grafted, I am a Jew who knows that Yeshua is Messiah.

Judaism is Rabbinic Judaism, and it and Chistianity are not the same.

That is your definition. How about asking a Jew about the definition.

"Yes, Judaism is what is outlined in the Tanakh. Taken from the name Judah."

Who is the "we" that has had denominations come and go? Certainly not the Orthodox Church.
Would you claim that Temple era Judaism had fewer sects than modern Christianity? I mean, foget the gross exagerration the 28K denominations (nonsense). There are essentially 8-12 primary Christian Traditions. There perhaps 5-20 such sects in Temple era Judaism.

Did I say Orthodox Church?

I really do not appreciate the continual puting of words in my mouth.

The Gospel is our rule for all what is good and bad- that is, those of us who are Christians. The Gospel supercedes all, for it the word of the Word.

That's not what Yeshua said.

Which is exactly why the Protestant movements, of which MJ is one, come and go.

The first split of the Church was in 451, then the Great Schism in 1204, then Martin Luther...so on and so forth... So every Church can date itself back to the Apostles...


We have gotten hollared about Talmud, (in this and other threads) which we do not follow but some do read there is a great difference.

We go by what is written to do and what not to do in the bible. We strive to be like Yeshua...

How do you know how to be like Yeshua if you do not know the Law? Or how to go about living it?

Yeshua lived up to the Law perfectly. We are supposed to live as Yeshua, and strive to be like Yeshua.

How are we to do that if one does not know the law, and instead follows man made rules?

 

[ContraMundum]

You already have, and you've already played the race card. That's a new record- under 15 seconds.

...and you've tried to call a simple question based on established facts a race issue in a split second worthy of a Longines timer....a new record as well.

The Gentile Christians and Hellenized Jews- ie, the majority of the early Church- used the Septuagint. They did so for very practical reasons, reasons that had nothing to do with the later strife between Patristic writers and the Christ rejecting Rabbinics who cursed and put them out.

Which doesn't answer my question. Perhaps another thread.

Also- before you start- we *know* the #1 Rule of discussion with EO Christians- "Rule #1: Question all Protestants and all Protestant credentials but never, ever question the ECFs, especially the "Golden" boy who is reputed to have written our liturgy"

So forgive me if I don't sound terribly interested in going there with such bias.

To refer to the ECFs as "antisemitic"- in the sense that we use the term today- is distortion and malice aforethought.

Which is only half true, as we all know.

So, Iakka, what do you think- do you think Jesus wore tzitzit on a four cornered garment, and if so, what was it called?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

...and you've tried to call a simple question based on established facts a race issue in a split second worthy of a Longines timer....a new record as well.

Ahh, dance, dance. It was you who tossed the anti-Semitism, not I.

Which doesn't answer my question. Perhaps another thread.

Also- before you start- we *know* the #1 Rule of discussion with EO Christians- "Rule #1: Question all Protestants and all Protestant credentials but never, ever question the ECFs, especially the "Golden" boy who is reputed to have written our liturgy"

That's a clownish statement, based in nothing that I said, nothing more than an ad hominem.

Question away, Mr Red Herring.

So forgive me if I don't sound terribly interested in going there with such bias.

I can't say as I blame you for not wanting to strangle your own strawmen. Deflect away, sir.

Which is only half true, as we all know.

So, Iakka, what do you think- do you think Jesus wore tzitzit on a four cornered garment, and if so, what was it called?

Since we're on this informal and familiar basis, Connie, I could care less if Jesus wore a clown suit. I don't attempt to create out of the Son of God a Jewish idol- or a Greek one. He transcends all of that, a fact which seems to offend many, particularly some who claim to not "need to be grafted in."
As if any of us are saved in any way apart from being adopted.
/rant

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Rome is not my mother.

So you mean the Jerome Vulgate...

Jeromes Vulgate was a translation. I am referring to the established, universal canon. Not the one redcated by th Chist-rejecting Masoretes, but the scriptures read by the Christian primitive communities.

One thing I must address, when I said "For Roman Catholics" and "For Calvinists" and the was completely ignored?

Perhaps somewhere in all of the swirling and nondescript terminology you used these expressions- I haven't the energy to go back and demonstrate your Western bias. Let's move on.

Or are you one that believes in order to be in Christ, one must be Eastern Orthodox?

Are you one who thinks that I will dance to your every deflection? Until you see me say such a thing, and quote it, don't insult my intelligence with your deflections.
Thanks.

That was a typo I meant judgment. And that of documents and how we can judge them as being correct.

Who is the "we" to whom you refer?

No I use Judaism as it is outlined in the Tanakh.

That's nice. And that has what to do with reading the Mishnah and the Talmud?

And I was not grafted, I am a Jew who knows that Yeshua is Messiah.

Begging your pardon- those who did not believe were broken off as branches- and grafted in again if they believe.
But, by all means, pull rank over this lowly Gentile. My ancestors have followed the Christ for couple dozen generations while yours followed the Rabbis, but who am I to judge?

That is your definition. How about asking a Jew about the definition.

Why would I ask a Jew for the definition of Christian? Why not ask a Muslim, for that matter?

"Yes, Judaism is what is outlined in the Tanakh. Taken from the name Judah."

Again, word games.
Rabbinic Judaism is not- from a Christian perspective-the Judaism of the Apostles. In fairness, Christianity is not, to a Rabbinic, Judaim in any sense. Two religions, two views, the twain shall not meet, any more than oil and water mix.

The first split of the Church was in 451, then the Great Schism in 1204, then Martin Luther...so on and so forth... So every Church can date itself back to the Apostles...

Actually, the Geat Schism occured over about 300 years or so, and was not truly lasting until after the council of Florence and the fall of Constantinople.

We have gotten hollared about Talmud, (in this and other threads) which we do not follow but some do read there is a great difference.

As I said, clearly, I find value in the writings of other faiths. Clearly, there are things of some value in the Talmud- what little I have read of it.

We go by what is written to do and what not to do in the bible. We strive to be like Yeshua...

Are you suggesting that we do not? Please, feel free to be candid.

How do you know how to be like Yeshua if you do not know the Law? Or how to go about living it?

Yeshua lived up to the Law perfectly. We are supposed to live as Yeshua, and strive to be like Yeshua.

How are we to do that if one does not know the law, and instead follows man made rules?

"yeshua"- or whatever transliteration you wish to employ- didn't follow the Law, He is the Law.

I have a set of scriptures that contains both the Law and the Gospel. I interpret the Law through the light of the Gospel, not vice versa. How do we know Jesus? We know Him through His Word, His Spirit, and His Church.

"Man made rules?" I don't know about all of that- sounds like typical polemics to me.
Pardon me if I don't bandwagon.

 

[HaNotsri]

This thread is useless and needs to die

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And I was not grafted, I am a Jew who knows that Yeshua is Messiah.

Shalom. The Muslims also try to tell the Jews that Yeshua was their Messiah. I don't know if they are any more convincing than we are though.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3006763-why-jews-cannot-accept-isa-pbuh-as-a-prophet.html&page=11

Why Jews Cannot Accept Isa (pbuh) as a Prophet


Having read some of the strongest criticism of the prophecies of Jesus in the OT (from Jews in this CF), I would like to know why Jews cannot accept Isa (pbuh) since the Quran says:

1. Isa (pbuh) never claimed to be God, or Son of God, but asked the Jews to pray to the One God that Jews are praying now

2. Isa (pbuh) asks the Jews to follow the Torah and the Injil, hence a continuation of the revelations from God

3. Isa (pbuh) was not crucified and hence was not accursed

4. Isa (pbuh) never claimed to the Messiah the Jews are waiting for.

5. Isa (pbuh) performed many miracles to show he was the prophet of God.

You would have noticed Prophet Isa (pbuh) was in some ways totally different from the biblical Jesus whom the gospel writers made to be crucified, accursed, made false prophecies of himself.

So again, why cant Jews accept Isa (pbuh)?

 

[IamGodslittlegirl]

Originally Posted by IamGodslittlegirl
The talmud places it's authority OVER God's Word. Everything that God said is SUBJECT TO rabbinical interpretation by their very words.



Contra:
Who told you that?

ATID Fellows
1999-2000
Encouraging Successful Gemara Learning
for Boys of Religious Zionist and Modern Orthodox Backgrounds
in Israeli State Religious High Schools ​

by Moshe Abelesz​

Therefore Jewish practice, which is the prime factor that has sustained Judaism throughout the ages, is not all dependent upon Scripture but upon the Talmud. It is hence, considered to be more authoritative than the Torah. The Talmud itself states:

"... בני הזהר בדברי סופרים יותר מדברי תורה שדברי תורה יש בהן עשה ולא תעשה ודברי סופרים כל העובר על דברי סופרים חייב מיתה..." [תלמוד בבלי מסכת עירובין דף כא/ב] ​

“... my son be wary with the words of the scribes more than the words of the Torah, for within the words of the Torah are positive and negative commandments and the words of the scribes, yet whoever transgresses the words of the scribes is liable for the death penalty...”​

[B.T. Eruvin 21b]​

www.atid.org/journal/journal00/abelesz.doc ​

Contra:​

Please tell me why you go to Christian bookstores to buy stuff that helps you gain insight into God's Word (and 90% of it is heterodox at best)??​

Now what would there be at a christian bookstore that would help me gain insight into the Word of God ​

[SIZE=+0]Contra:[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=+0]

The mistake you make is the same grannie is making- eg "what I read is good, what others read is bad" and of course the old "I only read the Bible.....now where's my Strong's Concordance and Smith's Bible Dictionary at?"​

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.​

Prov 2:2 So that you incline your ear to wisdom, and apply your heart to understanding;​

3 Yes, if you cry after knowledge, and lift up your voice for understanding;​

4 If you seek her as silver, and search for her as for hid treasures;​

5 Then shall you understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.​

6 For the LORD gives wisdom: out of his mouth comes knowledge and understanding.​

7 He lays up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.​

8 He keeps the paths of judgment, and preserves the way of his saints.​

9 Then shall you understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yes, every good path.​

10 When wisdom enters into your heart, and knowledge is pleasant to your soul;​

11 Discretion shall preserve you, understanding shall keep you:​

12 To deliver you from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaks fraudulent things;​

13 Who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness;​

14 Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked;​

15 Whose ways are crooked, and they fraudulent in their paths:​

[/SIZE]

 

[IamGodslittlegirl]

This thread is useless and needs to die

If you are bored - why stick around

I have found this thread to be most enlighting and instructive

Thanx for your opinion though

 

[torahgrandma]

In yet another attempt to make himself look like an expert in all things Jewish (just trust him), while attempting to cast questionability on the other persons credibility, Contra fired from the hip:

Do you know actually know anything about how religion works? You've never read the Talmud or even the history of its teachings, have you? Be honest.

First, you didn't know what a tallit looked like, now you don't know what the Talmud actually is, do you?

I can't you seriously. Sorry.

Feeble attempt Contra. Once again, ad hominem is not a substitution for a well constructed argument. Now try to present some facts with substantiation.

P.S.:

Still waiting for the proof of that first century tallit that Jesus wore, that looks like the modern one discussed in the OP.

 

[torahgrandma]

You already have, and you've already played the race card. That's a new record- under 15 seconds.

The Gentile Christians and Hellenized Jews- ie, the majority of the early Church- used the Septuagint. They did so for very practical reasons, reasons that had nothing to do with the later strife between Patristic writers and the Christ rejecting Rabbinics who cursed and put them out.

To refer to the ECFs as "antisemitic"- in the sense that we use the term today- is distortion and malice aforethought.

Just as a side note, there were some LXX fragments found at Qumran, so even though the majority of the texts there were Hebrew and Aramaic, the Qumran community were not allergic to Greek.

 

[ContraMundum]

Since we're on this informal and familiar basis, Connie, I could care less if Jesus wore a clown suit.

Then why have you chipped in to this thread, dragging in pet dogmas against Protestantism, cloaked comments about the glory of the EO church and preaching on the canon of scripture?

What are you here for if you don't care?

 

[torahgrandma]

This thread is useless and needs to die

It would have been erased after the first post if was on the other forum.



Anyhow, this is the Christian forum where for the most part, people can openly discuss things that go against the Gospel without someone pulling the plug at the starting gate becausse they don't like the content.

I understand that there is a edifying talmud discussion going on at the anti missionary forums.

As you were.

 

[ContraMundum]

ATID Fellows

1999-2000
Encouraging Successful Gemara Learning
for Boys of Religious Zionist and Modern Orthodox Backgrounds
in Israeli State Religious High Schools ​

by Moshe Abelesz​

Therefore Jewish practice, which is the prime factor that has sustained Judaism throughout the ages, is not all dependent upon Scripture but upon the Talmud. It is hence, considered to be more authoritative than the Torah. The Talmud itself states:

"... בני הזהר בדברי סופרים יותר מדברי תורה שדברי תורה יש בהן עשה ולא תעשה ודברי סופרים כל העובר על דברי סופרים חייב מיתה..." [תלמוד בבלי מסכת עירובין דף כא/ב] ​

“... my son be wary with the words of the scribes more than the words of the Torah, for within the words of the Torah are positive and negative commandments and the words of the scribes, yet whoever transgresses the words of the scribes is liable for the death penalty...”​

[B.T. Eruvin 21b]​

www.atid.org/journal/journal00/abelesz.doc ​

So, in other words, I was right. For a start, this is saying that Jewish minhag (customs) are more dependant on the Talmud than on the Torah.

This isn't saying that the scribes have more authority and that the Torah is subject to them! That's an entirely different proposition. I suppose you need to be familiar with this to grasp it.

You don't understand the context of that comment in the Talmud. It is saying that the Torah is more authoratative, but ironically the contradicting of the words of the scribes (at one time) incurred the death penalty. You need to read a lot more Talmud to understand how highly it elevates the Torah above human words. (and you need to know exactly what a Sofer is and what his work means and what his relationship is to Israel). But, I'm not here to teach you Judaism, so you have to go and do your own homework and research. See you in about 10 years.



​

Now what would there be at a christian bookstore that would help me gain insight into the Word of God

Ah yes.....funny isn't it? Now I understand.

So, do you not buy your translations of the Bible from Christian bookstores, or do you have some original papyrus manuscripts that you can fluently read kicking around in your house?
​

[SIZE=+0]
[/SIZE]

 

[ContraMundum]

Feeble attempt Contra. Once again, ad hominem is not a substitution for a well constructed argument. Now try to present some facts with substantiation.

P.S.:

Still waiting for the proof of that first century tallit that Jesus wore, that looks like the modern one discussed in the OP.

Ah, yes grannie. I ask for the fourth time: what would you accept as "proof" and now I will elaborate, what will you also accept as "facts"?

We have offered you plenty of argument, all of which you reject without elucidation as to why and which you appear to reject outright without further discussion.

This is why people have stopped offering you argument.

 

[PVS]

As a new reader of this thread, I looked back at the original question, and then at the last few posts and must ask why and how has the conversation moved so far away from what is being asked by the original question? I would like to see more current comments and possible answers to that question.

 

[ContraMundum]

As a new reader of this thread, I looked back at the original question, and then at the last few posts and must ask why and how has the conversation moved so far away from what is being asked by the original question? I would like to see more current comments and possible answers to that question.

All that is on the first few (dozen?) pages.

 

[torahgrandma]

Ah, yes grannie. I ask for the fourth time: what would you accept as "proof" and now I will elaborate, what will you also accept as "facts"?

We have offered you plenty of argument, all of which you reject without elucidation as to why and which you appear to reject outright without further discussion.

This is why people have stopped offering you argument.

Yes, but your arguments are based on rabbinic tradition, not on scripture, and not on historical proof.

 

[S Walch]

Just as a side note, there were some LXX fragments found at Qumran, so even though the majority of the texts there were Hebrew and Aramaic, the Qumran community were not allergic to Greek.

All of which differ quite a bit to the accepted Greek Septuagint.

Should I also mention that the Greek manuscripts found and Qumran also contain Hebrew many of the times?

Especially with regards to the name of God.

 

[ContraMundum]

Yes, but your arguments are based on rabbinic tradition, not on scripture, and not on historical proof.

Fifth time: what is "proof"?

Second time: what do you accept as "facts"?

First time: if we are all wrong, then please feel free to tell us what Jesus wore and more importantly what was it called?

 

[torahgrandma]

[/b][/color][/size][/font][/size]

So, in other words, I was right. For a start, this is saying that Jewish minhag (customs) are more dependant on the Talmud than on the Torah. [SIZE=-0]
[/SIZE]

Contra,

It's late, and the Hebrew font is really small, so could you please be a dear, and highlight in red the word minhag מנהג in the Hebrew text that she posted earlier for me. I probably need to get better glasses.





"... בני הזהר בדברי סופרים יותר מדברי תורה שדברי תורה יש בהן עשה ולא תעשהודברי סופרים כל העובר על דברי סופרים חייב מיתה..." [תלמוד בבלי מסכתעירובין דף כא/ב]