brain sizes: Einstein's & women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Sun Sep 8 16:49:57 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message news:fifmnu0qfn4a8o4li9o2070kcvie2aejb0 at 4ax.com...
>> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> >From: "Jack Lancaster" <aiken at internetcds.com>
>> >> The Talmud came from Babylon.
>> 
>> No.  Parts of it are CALLED the Babylonian Talmud.
>
>There are two Talmuds.  The one most available for public consumption
> to "gentiles" is the Jerusalem Talmud.  The REAL Talmud is the
> Babylonian Talmud.

The Babylonian Talmud is available on-line in the original language
(part Hebrew, part Aramaic).

The most common modern translation of the Babylonian Talmud into
English is around 30 volumes long.  It is quite available for public
consumption if you happen to be into buying humongous book sets.  It
costs $299 on CD-ROM, or $850 in book form.

http://www.breslov.com/talmud/talmud.htm

is in the process of putting one translation on line, but has no text
up.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/index.htm

has 4 of the 10 volumes of the particular translation that they are
putting up, as well as several other Jewish texts.

>> >It is the traditions of men.
>> 
>> Yes.  So is all religion.  The Bible is part of the traditions of
>> Christians, who are men (and women).
>
>No, Christianity and the religion of the Israelites are God's Law.

According to the traditions of some men.

According to other traditions, the Qu'ran (Koran) is God's Law.

>> Jesus said no such thing.  He said that the practices of some
>> particular Jews (the Pharisees) were are perversion of the will of God
>> (just as Thomas Jefferson said that the teachings of Paul were a
>> Platonic perversion of the pure moral teachings of Christ).  The
>> Pharisees were hardly all of Judaism; they were merely the power
>> structure of the Jews in Judea.  At the time of Christ, most Jews
>> lived outside of Judea (Roman censuses record over a million in
>> Alexandria of Egypt alone) and had little to do with the Pharisees.
>
>It's impossible that jews were ever more than 0.25% of the population,
> just as they are today.   If there were a million jews in Rome 2,000
> years ago, there would now be tens of billions of jews today.  There
> are only 15 million.

There were more than a million Romans as well.  Are there tens of
billions today?  No.  People died.  LOTS of people died.  Populations
of various ethnic groups have grown and shrunk over the centuries.

>Most of the people in Judaea were Isrealites, not jews.

No.  Almost all were Jews, and there were no more Israelites apart
from the Jews.  Saying otherwise will not change history

>All jews in Judaea at the time were members of one of three sects--Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes.

Those were the three main sects.

>  Joh 18:22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? 
>
>  Joh 18:23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me? 
>
>  Joh 18:24 Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. 
>
>These were the jews striking Jesus

That was one "officer" of the temple, not "jews" that struck Jesus.
Presumably he did so in accordance with orders, as most police
officers would do if striking a prisoner, and that striking would have
nothing to do with ethnicity.

>> >It calls Jesus a bastard
>> 
>> In a sense he is.  After all, His Father was not married to Mary (who
>> of course to the world around not aware of the miracle would have been
>> seen as an adulteress).  Joseph was only his adoptive father if one
>> takes the virgin birth literally; none of his genes were in Jesus (of
>> course then the genealogy of Matthew 1 is irrelevant and a lie, since
>> Joseph could not have begat Jesus, but we have to ignore such Biblical
>> contradictions - Matthew and Luke knew nothing about DNA genetics).
>
>Jesus is the Son of God.

Biologically?
  
>It's clear as a bell from the Holy Bible that they didn't need DNA
> studies to know exactly what Christ's biological ancestry is, but you
> can look that up yourself.

It remains a matter of fact that Joseph's genealogy is given as the
genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1 and yet if God is the biological
father then that genealogy is irrelevant UNLESS adoptive parentage is
recognized (which it is).

>> the commitments described in the Old
>> Testament between God and the Jews are worthy of the loyalty that the
>> Jews hold towards their traditions.
>
>The only religious law that applies to jews is in the Talmud,

False.

>which is completely contrary to the Israelites' Old Testament.

False.

>> >> Read a close translation of it that has not been
>> >> doctored and you will see this is true or have someone who has a translation
>> >> send some of the translations to you. We have been deceived.
>> 
>> No one has "deceived" anyone, since the purpose of the Talmud is to
>> educate Jews, not to deceive Christians.
>
>  a.. Is this why the Talmud prescribes the death penalty for anyone who discusses the contents of the Talmud?:
>    a.. Sanhedrin (59a) -- `Prying into Jews' "Law" to get death penalty
>  b.. Is this why the Talmud instructs jews not to save a Christian's life:
>    a.. Hilkkoth Akum (X,1) -- Do not save Christians in danger of death.
>  c.. Is this why jews who are baptized are subject to the death penalty?:
>    a.. Hilkhoth Akum(X,2) -- Baptized Jews are to be put to death
>  d.. Is this why Carl Pearlston [read: Pearlstein] insists that:
>    a.. "Christians prefer sex with cows"? 

You don't know diddlesquat about the Talmud, and all of the above is
bullshit.

There is NO problem finding lots of discussion of Talmud on the net.

>Are you a jew?  Or were you deceived?

Have you stopped beating your ten wives yet?

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list