It's not a piled-on dogma like Catholic canon stuff. It's a central, fundamental aspect of the entire theology and the whole basis of their Old Testament knowledge in the first place. The authority of their opinions (supposedly) comes straight from Moses, too, the entire point was that some parts of God's words weren't written down so you have to just take their word for it.. literally.
Getting rid of the Talmud would be more like getting rid of the Hadith from Islam.
I think that's one good think about the Protestant Reformation... it basically threw out all the non-Bible stuff, and with many they stick to what the word says...
I can get how that'd be hard to punch through the Talmud with a Jew, but still, they've got most of the Christian Bible as part of their scriptures, so it's worth a shot assuming it can be done gracefully.
As far as Islam goes... that one's basically converting a non-Christian to Christianity. I don't know the specifics, so I'd defer to pedes that do.
Not only are they missing the most important parts of the Christian bible (the ONLY important parts, arguably), they vehemently reject those parts. It's not just about scripture, the Talmud is part of God's word for Jews, and it's irreconcilable with the Gospel.
The same's true for Islam obviously, but if you take their absorption of Abrahamic theology as genuine, i.e. they really do regard Jesus as a prophet and whatnot, you could easily argue they're "closer" to Christianity than Judaism, which completely denies any divine role being played by Jesus at all.
Looking at history, both Islam and Christianity have tried converting Jews in a plethora of ways for centuries, to almost no avail. There doesn't seem to be a graceful way to do it.
Yeah, that's something that I'm going off of ignorance as I'm not terribly well versed in the Judaic scriptures... but looking at the big picture. I would be interested to know what in the Talmud conflicts with the Gospel, despite the Tanakh largely being the same scripture as the Old Testament (at least, as far as I understand it). So following from that, if the Talmud is conflicting with the Gospel, yet the Tanakh is not, then it stands to reason that the Talmud may be conflicting with the Tanakh. Again, not a Jew, so I don't really know that much about the book.
Islam's a bit different kettle of fish as they aren't using the same scripture that the Christian and Jews are... rather they question the validity of the Torah, but from what little I have looked into the Koran, it looks like a bit of a rewrite, rather than using the same books. That sets Islam apart from Judaism, Christianity (and Mormonism for that matter). Either way, disputing the divinity of Christ basically renders everyone to judgement for all they have done, and does not leave is in good standing because of the grace of Christ wiping away the balance of our sins.
Looking back in history, I have to wonder with many of these conversion attempts were done through force, and how many were done gracefully. Many of the early Christian church were, in fact, Jews - so it's not impossible to do. Probably the biggest problem is that people do not like admitting that they may be mistaken about something when it's pointed out to them, so you'll get a lot of cultural inertia that is hard to deal with... unless you have a totalitarian government.
Best recommendation I can give is to read/study it for yourself. Like I alluded before, the Tanakh/Old Testament aren't the operative parts of Judaism or Christianity. The Gospel (Christ in the New Testament) is what defines Christianity, and the Rabbinic teachings of the Tanakh (including the oral law on top of the written) in the Talmud is what defines Judaism today.
As far as conversions go, obviously Christian missionaries were constantly trying to convert people through dialogue, other times it came down to force. But even in those cases, like Spain, it was usually directed toward the Muslims. Reason I bring it up is because you can look at those cases, and others like the mass conversions of Norse and Slavic people whose religions were wildly different from Christianity and yet most converted of their own will (and fairly quickly), versus Jewish populations who'd been living in the middle of Christian societies, hearing Christian doctrine for literal centuries. It's just a good indication that there's a lot more to compatibility than having shared scripture.
It's not a piled-on dogma like Catholic canon stuff. It's a central, fundamental aspect of the entire theology and the whole basis of their Old Testament knowledge in the first place. The authority of their opinions (supposedly) comes straight from Moses, too, the entire point was that some parts of God's words weren't written down so you have to just take their word for it.. literally.
Getting rid of the Talmud would be more like getting rid of the Hadith from Islam.
I think that's one good think about the Protestant Reformation... it basically threw out all the non-Bible stuff, and with many they stick to what the word says...
I can get how that'd be hard to punch through the Talmud with a Jew, but still, they've got most of the Christian Bible as part of their scriptures, so it's worth a shot assuming it can be done gracefully.
As far as Islam goes... that one's basically converting a non-Christian to Christianity. I don't know the specifics, so I'd defer to pedes that do.
Not only are they missing the most important parts of the Christian bible (the ONLY important parts, arguably), they vehemently reject those parts. It's not just about scripture, the Talmud is part of God's word for Jews, and it's irreconcilable with the Gospel.
The same's true for Islam obviously, but if you take their absorption of Abrahamic theology as genuine, i.e. they really do regard Jesus as a prophet and whatnot, you could easily argue they're "closer" to Christianity than Judaism, which completely denies any divine role being played by Jesus at all.
Looking at history, both Islam and Christianity have tried converting Jews in a plethora of ways for centuries, to almost no avail. There doesn't seem to be a graceful way to do it.
Yeah, that's something that I'm going off of ignorance as I'm not terribly well versed in the Judaic scriptures... but looking at the big picture. I would be interested to know what in the Talmud conflicts with the Gospel, despite the Tanakh largely being the same scripture as the Old Testament (at least, as far as I understand it). So following from that, if the Talmud is conflicting with the Gospel, yet the Tanakh is not, then it stands to reason that the Talmud may be conflicting with the Tanakh. Again, not a Jew, so I don't really know that much about the book.
Islam's a bit different kettle of fish as they aren't using the same scripture that the Christian and Jews are... rather they question the validity of the Torah, but from what little I have looked into the Koran, it looks like a bit of a rewrite, rather than using the same books. That sets Islam apart from Judaism, Christianity (and Mormonism for that matter). Either way, disputing the divinity of Christ basically renders everyone to judgement for all they have done, and does not leave is in good standing because of the grace of Christ wiping away the balance of our sins.
Looking back in history, I have to wonder with many of these conversion attempts were done through force, and how many were done gracefully. Many of the early Christian church were, in fact, Jews - so it's not impossible to do. Probably the biggest problem is that people do not like admitting that they may be mistaken about something when it's pointed out to them, so you'll get a lot of cultural inertia that is hard to deal with... unless you have a totalitarian government.
Best recommendation I can give is to read/study it for yourself. Like I alluded before, the Tanakh/Old Testament aren't the operative parts of Judaism or Christianity. The Gospel (Christ in the New Testament) is what defines Christianity, and the Rabbinic teachings of the Tanakh (including the oral law on top of the written) in the Talmud is what defines Judaism today.
As far as conversions go, obviously Christian missionaries were constantly trying to convert people through dialogue, other times it came down to force. But even in those cases, like Spain, it was usually directed toward the Muslims. Reason I bring it up is because you can look at those cases, and others like the mass conversions of Norse and Slavic people whose religions were wildly different from Christianity and yet most converted of their own will (and fairly quickly), versus Jewish populations who'd been living in the middle of Christian societies, hearing Christian doctrine for literal centuries. It's just a good indication that there's a lot more to compatibility than having shared scripture.