Post: #1

Samseu has for some time called the jewish religion for Talmudism and the (((kind))) of jew for Talmudists and while I realized the importance of the Talmud on judaism, I didn't fully understand it.





The above video is about the blasphemous teachings of the evangelical sects calling themselves christians.

A pastor Steven Anderson interviews rabbis to see the difference between christianity and judaism. What is revealed is basically that judaism really IS Talmudism, the Talmud - a commentary in 36 books by rabbis - takes precedent over the Thorah, the Talmud IS judaism.

The documentary proves it well, what we call 'jewish' today is quite literally the Pharisees of the bible, no joke, modern jews barely believe anything in the Old Testament, it is all about the Talmud.

I found this very interesting, but it is quite long. I also like the pastor, he makes christianity seem attractive and honestly does a good job showing the relevance of christianity, there is definitely more there than I have given it credit for.

Post: #2

They certainly do believe in the the Torah if observant. Talmud is studied more by more religious types, so orthodox and Hassidic are far more familiar with it. I was conservadox so no Talmud study unless you wanted too. Its a difficult text to read. Its studied in Yeshivas but not in standard prayer services. In regular services is more about how great Hashem is (lots of prayers involve that), a weekly Torah reading and Haftorah reading.

Post: #3

The Talmud is an intellectual discourse that takes into account moral dilemmas and such. Concepts such as the value of a human life vs the life of an animal. It's not a strict code of rules by any means.

Post: #4

Pharisees are Persians.. The Acheamenids subverted Judaism, or lets just say taught the Jews a few things.

Folk etymology relates Pharisee to Parsi or Farsi, another name for Persians. It is likely correct.

This may seem a bold.claim to those not in the know, but there is very little of significance in Judaism, Christianity or Islam that is not 'borrowed' from Zoroastrianism.

From
http://www.theapricity.com/earlson/raie/index.htm

"Paul distinguishes the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans from that of the Semites, when he asserts (I Corinthians, i. 22) that while the Hellenes strove for knowledge (sophia), the Jews desired revelations (semaia)"

Interesting how given the huge amount of 'revelation' available to the Abrahamic faiths, there is - as mentioned earlier - absolutey nothing new or original in their religions!

Post: #5

From the documentary

"But after 20 years the Jews return to Judah and rebuild the temple qnd continue to be ruled by kinvs descended from David"

Should be

The Acheamenid Empire overthrows Babylon ans becomes dominant in the region. A persian Cyrus or Darius (I forget) allows the Jews back to Judah and even PAYS for tbe rebulding of tbe temple. Ezrah and Nenemiah are working for the persian state and help to indroduce tbe Jews to Persian religious belief. From this belief system springs both Christianity and Islam.

Sadly you wont ever hear of this in the mainstream. They either lack this basic knowledge or wish to preserve Semitic or Middle East centric versions of events, completely writing out the Indo-European or Eurasian contribution, without which there certainly would not be any Christianity or Islam, and Judaism would be unrecognisable.

Post: #6

(04-18-2016 03:41 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  This may seem a bold.claim to those not in the know, but there is very little of significance in Judaism, Christianity
or Islam that is not 'borrowed' from Zoroastrianism.

Post: #7

(04-18-2016 03:41 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  Pharisees are Persians.. The Acheamenids subverted Judaism, or lets just say taught the Jews a few things.

Folk etymology relates Pharisee to Parsi or Farsi, another name for Persians. It is likely correct.

This may seem a bold.claim to those not in the know, but there is very little of significance in Judaism, Christianity or Islam that is not 'borrowed' from Zoroastrianism.

From
http://www.theapricity.com/earlson/raie/index.htm

"Paul distinguishes the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans from that of the Semites, when he asserts (I Corinthians, i. 22) that while the Hellenes strove for knowledge (sophia), the Jews desired revelations (semaia)"

Interesting how given the huge amount of 'revelation' available to the Abrahamic faiths, there is - as mentioned earlier - absolutey nothing new or original in their religions!

I will have to look into this, you make some compelling - but not necessarily correct - arguments.

Regarding linguistics, you are correct Farsi, Pharisee, Persia is basically the same word phonetically and the change from the aspirated f/ph and bp/p is a known one - although in Indo-European, not semittic languages.

The interesting part of this is that what is generally believed to be Judaism is only 2700 years old from the 700bc Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. The important parts of the Thorah are written then. Before that, archeological evidence only shows polytheism around Baal, Moloch, Azura (important deity with Assyrians).

Monotheism is born during Assyrian siege, like with Mohammed later, a militaristic response, birth of religious fanaticism to save their city, actually it was Samarians who brought their religion with them as they fled the invading assyrians.

Then the Babylonians overthow the Assyrians and take jews as hostage.

Then Cyrus liberates the jews. It would not be out of order for an invading force to do a soft takeover by putting in place their own priestly caste. In fact, this would be directly in line in what we know of the Aryan/Indo-European way of rule - that is, institute their own priestly caste at the top, Brahmin in India.

I fail to see how the Pharisees have connection to Zoroastriasm? In another way, I do see how being the 'scribe' caste with monopoly about the law would be a smart way for an originally foreign caste to remain in power, that is pretty much how the Brahmin in India operated, but if India is a lesson, the Pharisee caste must have been quite 'jewish' by 0 AD, just like how Brahmin today are very 'indian'.

Post: #8

(04-18-2016 03:41 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  Pharisees are Persians.. The Acheamenids subverted Judaism, or lets just say taught the Jews a few things.

Folk etymology relates Pharisee to Parsi or Farsi, another name for Persians. It is likely correct.

This may seem a bold.claim to those not in the know, but there is very little of significance in Judaism, Christianity or Islam that is not 'borrowed' from Zoroastrianism.

From
http://www.theapricity.com/earlson/raie/index.htm

"Paul distinguishes the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans from that of the Semites, when he asserts (I Corinthians, i. 22) that while the Hellenes strove for knowledge (sophia), the Jews desired revelations (semaia)"

Interesting how given the huge amount of 'revelation' available to the Abrahamic faiths, there is - as mentioned earlier - absolutey nothing new or original in their religions!

Thanks for the link to the book too, very interesting.

Post: #9

The book is nothing less than excellent. Though I must warn you that he is a racist with very Nazi views about white supremacy which can sometimes tarnish his more useful insights. You should look past those views and concentrate on what he says about the nature of IE vs Semitic religious ideas. Given that there is much nothing else comparable out there, the book is fresh, unique and insightful.

The last couple of chapters seem to foretell many of the discussions here.

Post: #10

(04-18-2016 06:59 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  The book is nothing less than excellent. Though I must warn you that he is a racist with very Nazi views about white supremacy which can sometimes tarnish his more useful insights. You should look past those views and concentrate on what he says about the nature of IE vs Semitic religious ideas. Given that there is much nothing else comparable out there, the book is fresh, unique and insightful.

The last couple of chapters seem to foretell many of the discussions here.

Yes, I googled him and found nazi connections, which is unfortunate to say the least, particularly when he was also a nazi eugenicist (though eugenicism was practiced in almost all western countries until recently).

On the other hand, the Nordicism movement did invaluable antrophological and archeological research. Few people realize that famous men like Thor Heyerdahl were nordicist. Why did Heyerdahl sail from Egypt to Meso-America and then to the Easter Islands? Because he was a nordicist who wanted to prove that the race of Atlanteans colonized South America.

In any case, I found an interesting linguistic discussion of the origins of the word Pharisee http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/p....2620414/, as always with these things concerning Nordicism, there are compelling arguments in either direction, the nordicists claiming that the hebrew word p-r-s is actually a hebrewisation of the greek word Pharisee which in turn comes from Arameic which refers to Parsi, while the mainstream opinion claims a hebrew origin. Both have good arguments.

Post: #11

(04-18-2016 03:41 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  Pharisees are Persians.. The Acheamenids subverted Judaism, or lets just say taught the Jews a few things.

Folk etymology relates Pharisee to Parsi or Farsi, another name for Persians. It is likely correct.

This may seem a bold.claim to those not in the know, but there is very little of significance in Judaism, Christianity or Islam that is not 'borrowed' from Zoroastrianism.

From
http://www.theapricity.com/earlson/raie/index.htm

"Paul distinguishes the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans from that of the Semites, when he asserts (I Corinthians, i. 22) that while the Hellenes strove for knowledge (sophia), the Jews desired revelations (semaia)"

Interesting how given the huge amount of 'revelation' available to the Abrahamic faiths, there is - as mentioned earlier - absolutey nothing new or original in their religions!

I can read Hebrew and Greek, and work in Early Christianity. Most of the "parallels" to Zororastrianism are either a) later or b) spurious. The book you're referring to is not written by a scholar competent in either 2nd Temple Judaism or Early Christianity. Perhaps you could read something written by someone competent, like Lester Grabbe's An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism.

Post: #12

(04-18-2016 06:29 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  .
The interesting part of this is that what is generally believed to be Judaism is only 2700 years old from the 700bc Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. The important parts of the Thorah are written then. Before that, archeological evidence only shows polytheism around Baal, Moloch, Azura (important deity with Assyrians).

Monotheism is born during Assyrian siege, like with Mohammed later, a militaristic response, birth of religious fanaticism to save their city, actually it was Samarians who brought their religion with them as they fled the invading assyrians.

Then the Babylonians overthow the Assyrians and take jews as hostage.

Then Cyrus liberates the jews. It would not be out of order for an invading force to do a soft takeover by putting in place their own priestly caste. In fact, this would be directly in line in what we know of the Aryan/Indo-European way of rule - that is, institute their own priestly caste at the top, Brahmin in India.

I fail to see how the Pharisees have connection to Zoroastriasm? In another way, I do see how being the 'scribe' caste with monopoly about the law would be a smart way for an originally foreign caste to remain in power, that is pretty much how the Brahmin in India operated, but if India is a lesson, the Pharisee caste must have been quite 'jewish' by 0 AD, just like how Brahmin today are very 'indian'.

No, the earliest parts of the Hebrew Bible are written earlier. The J/E source is probably 8th century at latest. The D source (code of law, Deut. 12-26) stems from either Josiah or Hezekiah's reign. The Assyrians make the Judeans their client state and are then overthrown by the Babylonians, who begin deportations in 597, but finally destroy the city in 586 BC.

Cyrus grants the Jews autonomy in their land and some go back, led by Ezra. They rebuild the Temple (i.e. this is the Second Temple Period) and install a Jewish priestly class- the Greeks don't become involved until the Hellenistic Reforms (during the Seleucid Period).

The Pharisees are dubiously related to Zoroastrianism at best... and the Pharisees don't appear until the Hasmonean period, which starts around 165 BCE.

Post: #13

(04-17-2016 06:10 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  A pastor Steven Anderson interviews rabbis to see the difference between christianity and judaism. What is revealed is basically that judaism really IS Talmudism, the Talmud - a commentary in 36 books by rabbis - takes precedent over the Thorah, the Talmud IS judaism.

The documentary proves it well, what we call 'jewish' today is quite literally the Pharisees of the bible, no joke, modern jews barely believe anything in the Old Testament, it is all about the Talmud.

I found this very interesting, but it is quite long. I also like the pastor, he makes christianity seem attractive and honestly does a good job showing the relevance of christianity, there is definitely more there than I have given it credit for.

Most Christians don't believe the OT, arguing that Jesus' death suspends the necessity for ritual sacrifice. It's not actually possible to follow the Hebrew Bible, seeing as how there are sacrificial requirements. You can't sacrifice without a Temple, and there hasn't been a Temple since 70 CE. Rabbinic Judaism (not "Talmudic Judaism," regardless of what people here think the title is) is a reaction to a) no longer having the Temple and b) having to keep the religious tradition together.

Post: #14

When I was reading up on Zoroastrianism, I had noticed some obvious significant theological connections to Judaism. However, there are as many or more connections from the Egyptian religion (and myth / history) to Judaism. My overall impression was that Judaism (or more precisely the religion of the Hebrews) was and is a syncretic amalgamation of the preceding religions of the general region; to include others as well.

Many people hold Judaism (literally the religion of Judah [vs. Israel]), as the maturation of Pharisaic Talmudism (Rabbinism), to be a different religion than the original religion of the Hebrews. Though, Judaism would mostly disagree as they find justification for the Talmud in the OT and also appeal, as we see here, to necessity. Though, I would counter that, unless we are referring to keeping a race together, changing religious practice to preserve it is nonsensical. Either a religion is preserved, in essence, or it is not.

Returning to the original comparison between Judaism and Zoroastrianism, without knowing all that much about the specific theology of the latter, I can make the general observation that Zoroastrian dualism (dualism being perhaps the central identifying feature of later Gnosticism) is more or less the opposite of Jewish cosmology and other related theological concepts. Also, I would hold this difference to be more significant than the monotheistic (shaky) similarity.

This brings us to this comment:

Quote:"Paul distinguishes the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans from that of the Semites, when he asserts (I Corinthians, i. 22) that while the Hellenes strove for knowledge (sophia), the Jews desired revelations (semaia)"

It is now worth noting that "knowledge", purposefully or not, references the Gnostic theology. Also, more specifically, that gnostic "knowledge" is about origin, a return to that origin, and memory of that origin.

Revelation is concerned about future role and identity, and specifically a utopian future in this case.

Knowledge is concerned with the past and original identity.

Post: #15

Quote:Revelation — L. F. Clauss calls the Oriental race “revelation men” — the forming of religions through a prophet, the excitability and impulsiveness of the faithful for the revealed faith, are all phenomena which do not prosper in the realm of Indo-European religiosity. The elevation of faith in itself, and of credulity for the sake of credulity, the meritoriousness of faith as a particularly powerful magical means for justification before God — Luther’s sola fide — religious manifestations such as these appear to the Nordic-Indo-Europeans as a distortion of human nature, of that human nature which is willed by the deity itself. Faith in itself cannot be an Indo-European value, but it is certainly a value for men of Oriental (desert land) races. Goethe in his introductory poem to the Westöstlichen Divan — typified the overexcess and excitedness of Oriental faith and the lack of thought corresponding to such excess, being all “Broad belief and narrow thought”. Excitedness for a belief, excitedness over an urge to convert, the mission to “unbelievers” the assertion that one’s own belief alone could make one blessed, an excitedness, further, which expresses itself in hatred towards other Gods and persecution of their believers: such excited rage or fanaticism has repeatedly emanated from tribes of predominantly Oriental race and from the religious life of such tribes. Eduard Meyer, in his Geschichte des Alterums (1907, Part I, Book I, p. 385), has even spoken of the brutal cruelty, which has distinguished the religious spirit of peoples of Semitic language.

Post: #16

Nice catch nomadbrah. I revisited that quote yesterday too. I actually tried to get Quintus to read that book but he wasnt interested. You will find more useful insight in the book

Post: #17

(04-18-2016 10:22 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  I can read Hebrew and Greek, and work in Early Christianity. Most of the "parallels" to Zororastrianism are either a) later or b) spurious. The book you're referring to is not written by a scholar competent in either 2nd Temple Judaism or Early Christianity. Perhaps you could read something written by someone competent, like Lester Grabbe's An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism.

They are not later or spurious. These are the main arguments made made history denialists who wish to maintain the Middle East or Semitic centric version of history. For instance, a few years the ago the BBC made a documentary (using tax payer money of course) about the history of Judaism. It was hosted by eminent Jew Simon Schama who, when talking about the change between pre-exilic and post-exhilic Judaism made the statement

""It was the Jews who had first given the idea of one God to a pagan world that believed in many"

This is such a basic error that it is amazing it should be made in such a large undertaking - a BBC documentary series spanning three episodes airing on British prime time. Even the most basic research would have unearthed the fact the Acheamenid Empire had Zoroastrianism - the original monotheistic religion - as it's state religion. And this was the extent of the Acheamenid Empire



Hardly something that can easily be missed by a serious researcher.



Now, to those denialists, I will say that the below pretty much define the Abrahamic faiths.

Duality is accepted with Yahweh being the source of all Good and Satan all Evil.
Eschatology and Apocalypticism forms an elaborate theology of the end of time, in which a deliverer would defeat once and for all the forces of evil and unrighteousness.
Messianism Expectation of the coming of a Messiah
Heaven and Hell will bring justice in the afterlife.
Universalism of God.

None of the above apply to pre-Exhilic Judaism. They all apply from after the exhile. They all exist in Zoroastrianism.

FROM ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA : "First, the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God, appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly, the figure of the Messiah, originally a future King of Israel who would save his people from oppression, evolved, in Deutero-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshyant. Other points of comparison between Iran and Israel include the doctrine of the millennia; the Last Judgment; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the Resurrection; the final transformation of the earth; paradise on earth or in heaven; and hell." by J. Duchesne-Guillemin, University of Liege, Belgium



Some other points:

Note the word Paradise, is simply the Iranian Para-Dzea meaning "Enclosed Garden". Also note the similiarity between Amen and the Iranian Ashem that starts and ends prayers.

Quote:The Persian emperor Cyrus is the only foreigner in the Bible to be identified as the messiah or anointed one of Yahweh, the Israelite God. Isaiah tells us that Yahweh spoke “to his messiah, to Cyrus, whom I [Yahweh] took by his right hand to subdue nations before him” (Isa 45:1). The other people called messiah or anointed one in the Bible aren’t designated Yahweh’s messiah, as Cyrus is.[/b]

What does it mean to be called Yahweh’s anointed, as Cyrus is called by Second Isaiah? We know that the title always refers to the ruler of Judah. To the biblical writers, however, the term Yahweh’s anointed is more than a title. It also connotes a theology. Yahweh’s anointed is the legitimate king appointed and protected by God. In the Psalms, he is idealized and mythologized.

Clearly Cyrus is held in high esteem by the Jews. It is not hard to imagine that Cyrus may have exercised huge influence amongst the Jews, given his standing amongst them, as "Yahweh's anointed".

How about the fact the three wise men who came to the birth of Christ are Magi, Zoroastrian priests. The story doesnt reinforce the position of the Magi as men of great knowledge and standing - that much is assumed - it reinforces Jesus' claim to prophethood. This shows the accepted legitimacy and standing of Zoroastrian priests in ancient times.

or this

Quote:EZRA, THE SUBVERTER OF JUDAISM
In 397 B.C. Ezra, a courtier of the Persian king, was sent from Babylon "to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances" (Ezra 7:10). Ezra had been born and educated as a divine reader in Babylon and was sent by Artaxerxes to see if the people of Judea "be agreeable to the law of God". There are explicit indications of widespread religious conversion in Ezra 6:19-21 and Nehemiah 10:28-29, but why would Jews have to convert to Judaism? Nehemiah, chapter 8, discusses an event where Ezra read from the book of law which neither Hebrew speakers nor Aramaic speakers could understand - the words had to be translated by priests. What strange language could Ezra have been reading, Avestan maybe? Ezra's major reform was the prohibition of foreign wives. Although marrying foreign wives had always been the most favored Jewish practice, such marriages violate Zoroastrian law (e.g. Denkard, Book 3, ch 80). The alien nature of other laws to the Jews shows itself in the distinction between clean and unclean animals in Leviticus and Ezekial which was derived from the Vendidad, a Zoroastrian holy book, where alone it is explained. The purification rituals are identical in the Pentateuch and the older Vendidad. Von Gall in Brasileia tou Theou, 1926, gives a detailed catalog of Jewish laws taken from the Persians. Ezra also introduced the new festival of booths in the seventh month, which is of course the Zoroastrian holiday of Ayathrem. Finally, in about 400 B.C. the Old Testament was put in written form when Jerusalem was still under the power of the Persians.

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/...luence.htm

Post: #18

What are we denialists of? That's strong language to be used in a casual discussion. If you want to go down that road of irrational phrasing, the discussion has the potential to get off track here quickly. How about we say, rather, that we've yet to come to a consensus.

Your categorical definitions are a little over-simplistic. Autocratically defining and then pairing opposite concepts isn't proof, for example your dualism claim in Judaism.

Let's see what Jews have to say about (the concept of) Satan:

Quote:http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13219-satan

Satan has no power of independent action, but requires the permission of God, which he may not transgress.He can not be regarded, therefore, as an opponent of the Deity;

Quote:http://www.beingjewish.com/basics/satan.html

The Hebrew word "Satan" means "Hinderer." To hinder someone means to hold him back, to try to prevent him from doing something. G-d created the Hinderer to give us work to do in this world (see my article Why did G-d Create the World?). Satan is here to make things difficult for us, so we can overcome our evil temptations, and PASS the test (my note: exactly the same as Mormonism). That is the purpose of Satan. Satan is an angel whose purpose has been determined by G-d.
...
So, in order for us to work for the good that Hashem wants to give us, the good of the World to Come, we need something to deter us. That is the ability to do evil. Satan is our Evil Inclination (Yetzer Hara). The Evil Inclination tries to prevent us from doing good, because Hashem has commanded the Evil Inclination to do that. Why? To give us free will.

The fact is that Judaism is wholly Kabbalistc. Like other Kabbalist religions, such as Mormonism, they do not believe in the dual concept of both a spiritual and material realm. There is only a material realm. This is the core cosmological difference between Judaic belief and Gnostic / dualist belief.

Merely identifying something that you define to be evil, in opposition to good, does not tell the story. In Judaism there is no great difference between matter and spirit and, like the Mormons, Jews likely believe that any "soul" or "spirit" is material in nature when they profess believe in it at all as an entity apart from the body.

Kabbalists do not believe in a literal Hell (see Mormonism as a useful window into advanced Kabbalistic belief that is more hidden within the insular communities in Haredi Judaism) or the irreconcilable dualism of good and evil. Note that in Judaism Satan is not independent of God. In essence, the concept is that this "hinderer" is a part of the non-dual goodness of God.

In the end, Kabbalists believe in the reunification of opposites into an alchemical union (see the obvious symbolism in the 'Star of David'.). This is the opposite of dualist belief that holds opposites to essentially be at war, and why merely identifying superficially opposite concepts within the religion does not work to describe Judaism. The core of Judaism is the eradication of dualism.

Note the proliferation of "non-dual" new age propaganda. Note the complete change of the Indian religion from that of its original Indo-Aryan dualism (Samkhaya) to that of Hindu (mostly) non-dualism. This religious battle is an old war.

I agree with you that there is sociopolitically and geopolitically driven, tax-payer funded, and misleading propaganda on television.

Though, I'm not sure what the purpose is of attempting to tie Judaism strictly to Zoroastrian roots. I'm not claiming that Judaism is a unique religion, but at the same time any forensic description of its origins would be better the more accurate that it is. That likely will require also looking at other religions in the region and not making mistakes when it comes to absolute attributions of its origins and framework.

Post: #19

By denialism i am referring those views held by the likes of Schama as mentioned in my post. Also referring to Truth Tellers assertion that Zoroastrian influence is "spurious" and "later". Not referring to anything in your post.

They deny the influence of Zoroastrianism in their beliefs, because accepting the premise seriously undermines their beliefs, and the integrity of their religion.

I get the same response from Muslims ("Oh there is no influence, it is later, no evidence, Achemeanids were not Zoroastrian, Zoroastrianism is not Monotheistic" etc)

Accepting a Zoroastrian origin for these ideas completely undermines the dominant Judeo-Christian-Islamic narrative.

Post: #20

(04-19-2016 12:00 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  However, there are as many or more connections from the Egyptian religion (and myth / history) to Judaism.

What what what ? How ? They are almost polar opposites

Egyptian solar principle - The Sung King (which is also a deity) versus Judaic priestly class, and Torah and Talmud scholars - the rabbis. Egyptian direct spiritual transfer top-down, from King to his subjects, versus Judaic bottom-top-bottom, which is prayer and sacrifice, answer of prayers, and receiving of blessings. Egyptian Gnosticism versus Judaic mysticism. Egyptian non-dualism - Universe, gods, kings, and his realm are embodiment of one same spirit, versus Judaic dualism - This world is temporary, people were banished to it, and are awaiting arrival of Messiah to guide worthy to his heavenly realm.

Quote:My overall impression was that Judaism (or more precisely the religion of the Hebrews) was and is a syncretic amalgamation of the preceding religions of the general region; to include others as well.

That could be said of any of middle-eastern religion. I believe you miss the point here. How did today's Judaism become what it is. Well i believe it is what it is thanks to Jewish statelessness for thousands of years, starting from their first exiles. Jews lost all lineage to warrior classes, to state power and to Kingship. Being in exile, they lost all positivism and started turning towards subversion, passive-aggressiveness, seclusion and sectarianism.

Christ was in many ways a reaction to this Judaic spirit.

Quote:Many people hold Judaism (literally the religion of Judah [vs. Israel]), as the maturation of Pharisaic Talmudism (Rabbinism), to be a different religion than the original religion of the Hebrews.

That's a point made long time ago. However, original religion of Israelites was not different so much in name or content, as much as in practice.

You see, you can have one same religion and same text, but people who practice it in much different ways. Christians know that.

Original Judaism, many believe, was actually monolatric, rather than monotheist, theory Torah could support in many ways, by mentioning other Gods other than Yahweh.

And hence, it was practiced in not so much different way than other religions of Levant. There was national deity, King, his subordinated priests, and people. Israelites were back then a quite militant, warrior nation, which waged many wars and conquered some of their neighbors.

With complete and long term destruction of Israelite state, and Jewish dispersion, started a long but sure path of change of Jewish faith. Israelites no longer thought they should acquire their homeland and rebuild temple, but to suffer and wait.

And here is irony. Today, when Israel exists again, Orthodox Jews are subverting even their own homeland. And some Orthodox Jews completely oppose state of Israel. They are true to their historical spirit, which is spirit of statelessness and living in shadows. They refuse to serve in military, and problem is - they are demographically strongest part of Israeli society, which threatens military long term.

Quote:Though, I would counter that, unless we are referring to keeping a race together, changing religious practice to preserve it is nonsensical.

Yes, but that would imply that as far as Jews are concerned, that religion isn't race. But it is. And i strongly believe that spiritual concept of race is far stronger than biologic one.

Quote:Returning to the original comparison between Judaism and Zoroastrianism, without knowing all that much about the specific theology of the latter, I can make the general observation that Zoroastrian dualism (dualism being perhaps the central identifying feature of later Gnosticism) is more or less the opposite of Jewish cosmology and other related theological concepts. Also, I would hold this difference to be more significant than the monotheistic (shaky) similarity.

Isn't Gnosticism non-dualist ? And isn't Judaism dualist ?

This brings us to this comment:

Quote:"Paul distinguishes the religiosity of the Indo-Europeans from that of the Semites, when he asserts (I Corinthians, i. 22) that while the Hellenes strove for knowledge (sophia), the Jews desired revelations (semaia)"

It is now worth noting that "knowledge", purposefully or not, references the Gnostic theology. Also, more specifically, that gnostic "knowledge" is about origin, a return to that origin, and memory of that origin.

Yes, this is a very good quote. It points out correctly, that Hellenes believe answers lie in one same cosmos, the present one, and that search for knowledge brings answer to spiritual questions. One only needs to dig deeper. Definition of non-dualism.

Jews believe this world and people who inhabit it are deprived as long as the Messiah doesn't return to lead them to the other world, the one where people can fulfill themselves.

Quote:Kabbalists do not believe in a literal Hell (see Mormonism as a useful window into advanced Kabbalistic belief that is more hidden within the insular communities in Haredi Judaism) or the irreconcilable dualism of good and evil. Note that in Judaism Satan is not independent of God. In essence, the concept is that this "hinderer" is a part of the non-dual goodness of God.

Yes, but Jews do believe in hell, and God's punishment. Gnosticists believe only in errors.

Quote:The core of Judaism is the eradication of dualism.

This is a very bold claim.

Quote:Note the proliferation of "non-dual" new age propaganda. Note the complete change of the Indian religion from that of its original Indo-Aryan dualism (Samkhaya) to that of Hindu (mostly) non-dualism.

Hmmm, point is, there is no original and non-original Hinduism.

While Hindu's have many important spiritual texts, Hindu religion is not prophetic or messianic in nature.

Reason why westerners cannot grasp that well Indian or eastern religions in general, is because they cannot understand these religions have long, long long continuity. They never had any earth-quaking events that shook their spiritual world from it's foundations (such as appearance of Jesus Christ in Levant), or brought about any sudden breaks or departures.

There was Buddha, but Buddha's school is one of hundreds. There were many Buddha like figures in Indian subcontinent, and new schools are emerging to this day.

Quote:This religious battle is an old war.

But you mentioned Indo-Aryan people. Isn't all of Indo-Aryan metaphysics strictly non-dualist ? Starting from Greece, Italy, Egypt, India, Northern Europe, Steppes.

Post: #21

(04-19-2016 02:07 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 12:00 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  However, there are as many or more connections from the Egyptian religion (and myth / history) to Judaism.

What what what ? How ? They are almost polar opposites

Are you kidding me Orion? You're going to follow me into this thread to turn it into the other thread that you destroyed?

As per usual, you're clueless on much of this subject matter. And now you're clearly stalking me in different threads. I won't destroy another thread necessarily rebutting post after post of what you make up. In fact, I'm starting to think that you are purposefully destroying these threads by introducing bad information that needs to be discussed in long explanations to rebut.

Considering our prior interaction, for the sake of the quality of the forum, at worst you should participate in this thread and not address me. At best, you shouldn't follow me into any threads. After our last interaction, there is simply no excuse for addressing me in these threads.

Do you think that Roosh appreciates our interaction? Do you think that the mods appreciate our interaction? Do you think that the members appreciate our interaction? I don't appreciate it. What are you getting out of it?

Discuss your points with anyone else. I simply don't have the inclination to take the time to explain to you why you don't even have the elementary basics of Gnosticism and Judaism correct, for starters, let alone the complicated Egyptian religion; just to have you come back with more nonsense and destroy the thread. Please go waste someone else's time.

Post: #22

(04-18-2016 10:38 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(04-17-2016 06:10 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  A pastor Steven Anderson interviews rabbis to see the difference between christianity and judaism. What is revealed is basically that judaism really IS Talmudism, the Talmud - a commentary in 36 books by rabbis - takes precedent over the Thorah, the Talmud IS judaism.

The documentary proves it well, what we call 'jewish' today is quite literally the Pharisees of the bible, no joke, modern jews barely believe anything in the Old Testament, it is all about the Talmud.

I found this very interesting, but it is quite long. I also like the pastor, he makes christianity seem attractive and honestly does a good job showing the relevance of christianity, there is definitely more there than I have given it credit for.

Most Christians don't believe the OT, arguing that Jesus' death suspends the necessity for ritual sacrifice. It's not actually possible to follow the Hebrew Bible, seeing as how there are sacrificial requirements. You can't sacrifice without a Temple, and there hasn't been a Temple since 70 CE. Rabbinic Judaism (not "Talmudic Judaism," regardless of what people here think the title is) is a reaction to a) no longer having the Temple and b) having to keep the religious tradition together.

Truth Teller is right on, but I think he would agree that his first line isn't totally accurate, it's more that they believe that the workings of man (in cooperation or rebellion) with(out) God revealed the obvious fact that "Judaism" could not be continued and what was then called "Christianity" was a convincing reason why. People often forget that the people of that time clearly realized this and that's why they ... almost all became Christians. The modern "jews" are only a remnant. And no, I'm not trying to be controversial or disparaging; it is a fact.

Post: #23

(04-19-2016 02:33 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  Are you kidding me Orion? You're going to follow me into this thread to turn it into the other thread that you destroyed?



As per usual, you're clueless on much of this subject matter. And now you're clearly stalking me in different threads. I won't destroy another thread necessarily rebutting post after post of what you make up. In fact, I'm starting to think that you are purposefully destroying these threads by introducing bad information that needs to be discussed in long explanations to rebut.

In other words, you are seeking to get granted exclusive right to spread knowledge here while lamenting about every counter-argument.

Quote:Considering our prior interaction, for the sake of the quality of the forum, at worst you should participate in this thread and not address me. At best, you shouldn't follow me into any threads. After our last interaction, there is simply no excuse for addressing me in these threads.

Do you think that Roosh appreciates our interaction? Do you think that the mods appreciate our interaction? Do you think that the members appreciate our interaction? I don't appreciate it. What are you getting out of it?

Please don't speak into plural. Every man for himself and his actions and posts.

Quote:Discuss your points with anyone else. I simply don't have the inclination to take the time to explain to you why you don't even have the elementary basics of Gnosticism and Judaism correct, for starters, let alone the complicated Egyptian religion; just to have you come back with more nonsense and destroy the thread.

Yes i don't have a clue, you on the other side nailed it with your innovative theory that Judaism is non-dualism, lol, and that it is closely related to Egyptian religion. You championed it.

Quote:Please go waste someone else's time.

Please read the name of the thread "What Judaism really is - video"

I have as much right as you to write here and reply to what people post. This is not your private space.

If you don't like replies, don't post. It's simple.

Post: #24

(04-17-2016 06:10 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  A pastor Steven Anderson interviews rabbis to see the difference between christianity and judaism. What is revealed is basically that judaism really IS Talmudism, the Talmud - a commentary in 36 books by rabbis - takes precedent over the Thorah, the Talmud IS judaism.

The documentary proves it well, what we call 'jewish' today is quite literally the Pharisees of the bible, no joke, modern jews barely believe anything in the Old Testament, it is all about the Talmud.

I didn’t watch a whole video, but what surprise me is that he picked for interview some kind of reform rabbis, head uncovered, etc… They probably know about Talmud from Wikipedia. Why wouldn’t he picked an orthodox rabbi who actually learn Talmud his entire life!

Talmud is an oral tradition. There are a lot of references on that tradition in Torah itself like “do it as I showed you”, like phylacteries, form of menorah, etc… Moses received on mount Sinai way more than it was written. Circumcision for example. It doesn’t say what part of body to cut. In Hebrew it says “remove orla” and Talmud explain it as foreskin because “orla” has to be removed also from fruit trees (crop of the first or forth (?) year).
“Don’t boil kid in a milk of his mother”. “h-l-b” letters could be read both as milk and fat. Talmud explains.

Besides, only relatively small group of Jews returned in a Land Of Israel after Babylonian exile, the rest moved somewhere else. Talmud was completed centuries later (in Babylon and Land Of Israel) and Jews in Europe for example wouldn’t recognize it if it would contradicted to what they were practicing.

Post: #25

@Orion

Your lack of awareness of the total failure of our last interaction, in terms of it being valuable to the forum, seems to be lost on you.

That's a shame.

Let me say it again: don't interact with me.

I state this for the good of the quality of the threads on this forum. I don't care what you do in any other respect.

We can see what Roosh, who moderated our last interaction, has to say about it if you wish; especially in light of this continued effort on your part to follow me to and interact with me in other threads. If he thinks that our last interaction was valuable, then I'll be unhappy to respond, in detail, to your post in this thread. Otherwise, for the good of the forum, I'm leaving your posts to me be.

Quote:

(04-19-2016 06:01 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 02:33 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  Are you kidding me Orion? You're going to follow me into this thread to turn it into the other thread that you destroyed?

As per usual, you're clueless on much of this subject matter. And now you're clearly stalking me in different threads. I won't destroy another thread necessarily rebutting post after post of what you make up. In fact, I'm starting to think that you are purposefully destroying these threads by introducing bad information that needs to be discussed in long explanations to rebut.

In other words, you are seeking to get granted exclusive right to spread knowledge here while lamenting about every counter-argument.

First, "every" counter argument is now your argument? I simply lament your arguments to me. I don't want to expend any more time on you. I expended too much already. I know where it goes and what it entails. No thank you.

I'm seeking not to interact with you and have you follow me around to other threads, because I don't personally find your contributions on these issues generally valuable if for nothing else but the underlying pattern. It's almost as if you make statements just to say the opposite of what I do. "Gnosticism is non-dual" is a great example of this.

It's a statement that no one who knows even the Wikipedia account of Gnosticism would state, let alone anyone who knows enough about Gnosticism (an intensely deep subject) to comment about it on a thread. Even reading the Wikipedia article on Gnosticism would have disabused you of this statement. Instead, you have a randomly generated notion of what you think Gnosticism is, or should be, and then post it as a counter-argument for me to reply to. This process is then repeated ad nauseum. No thank you. This pattern also occurred in the other thread, and I commented on it, and now it's occurring here. I'm not going to play the game. Thanks but no thanks.

Quote:

Quote:Considering our prior interaction, for the sake of the quality of the forum, at worst you should participate in this thread and not address me. At best, you shouldn't follow me into any threads. After our last interaction, there is simply no excuse for addressing me in these threads.

Do you think that Roosh appreciates our interaction? Do you think that the mods appreciate our interaction? Do you think that the members appreciate our interaction? I don't appreciate it. What are you getting out of it?

Please don't speak into plural. Every man for himself and his actions and posts.

I know a clusterfuck when I see one, and our last interaction was a clusterfuck. I don't wish it for the forum. If Roosh or the mods want to chime in and inform me that our last interaction was valuable, then I'll be unhappy to respond, in detail, to your post in this thread. Otherwise, for the good of the forum, I'm leaving your posts to me be.

Quote:

Quote:Discuss your points with anyone else. I simply don't have the inclination to take the time to explain to you why you don't even have the elementary basics of Gnosticism and Judaism correct, for starters, let alone the complicated Egyptian religion; just to have you come back with more nonsense and destroy the thread.

Yes i don't have a clue, you on the other side nailed it with your innovative theory that Judaism is non-dualism, lol, and that it is closely related to Egyptian religion. You championed it.

Good stuff. Can we be done now?

Quote:

Quote:Please go waste someone else's time.

Please read the name of the thread "What Judaism really is - video"

I have as much right as you to write here and reply to what people post. This is not your private space.

If you don't like replies, don't post. It's simple.

It's not quite as simple as that. I see this forum as something that everyone needs to take care of. That being said, we can all go off of the reservation occasionally. It is good to self-monitor whenever possible. In that vein, I'm flagging our last interaction as "not valuable" in my estimation. I hold that the essay length arguments, from both of us, on mostly thread derailing topics were not valuable to the forum, or to me, until forum members of significance tell me otherwise. I don't wish to repeat it. Me avoiding you does not obligate me to stop posting. It merely means that I am aware of a bad pattern and am avoiding it, while you have not and are not. I suggest that you do the same. It requires nothing more of you than to ignore my posts. I will ignore yours. It's nothing personal.