[colliric]

.... Jesus Messianic claims as well as cover up the obvious fact just a few years down the track that God choose the Pagan Romans to smash up and desecrate Israel and the Jewish Temple forever and do it effectively(unlike the Babylonians). Doing such things as worshipping Army symbols on the Temple Mount and taking all the Gold(and rumours also the stone) back to Rome to build the Coliseum with.

As in they lost the divine protection of God.

These set of books were written over 300 years after Christ and after the destruction of Israel.

They do not represent first century Judaism at all, and seem to delibrately isolate out Jesus from messianic prophercy... For example the first century prophercy "He will be called King Of The Jews" seemed to become "he will be a physically ruling Military King Of The Jews, not just called it" in the Talmud.

At the same time the Jewish Canon(Tanakh) was codified against the common first century Jewish Canon which is significantly different (evidenced by Dead Sea Scrolls and Greek Septuagint... Both created by Jews before the Tanakh, and both of which have many more canon books).

[Paradigm]

To call them "heretical" would be to define them against some orthodoxy. The Jewish orthodoxy for most of the first century was that of the Second Temple. When that orthodoxy fell with the destruction of the temple, you basically had the form of Judaism that became Christianity and then you had the form of Judaism developed in the Talmud. Neither of them were a mere continuation of Second Temple Judaism, though both had their roots in it. As for the idea that they had "lost the protection of God" when they were conquered by an empire, that was nothing new for Judaism. It's a recurring theme throughout the Bible, and yet they always managed to find their way back to Him.

[SolarCross]

One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy

I guess from the perspective of someone who wants all the jews to convert to Christianity then the Talmud is heresy.

I guess from the perspective of someone who doesn't think converting to Christianity is what jews should be doing then it is the New Testament which is heresy.

I don't really care, so I am not taking a side, but it is an interesting question.

[colliric]

One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy

I guess from the perspective of someone who wants all the jews to convert to Christianity then the Talmud is heresy.

I guess from the perspective of someone who doesn't think converting to Christianity is what jews should be doing then it is the New Testament which is heresy.

I don't really care, so I am not taking a side, but it is an interesting question.

That's not how I view it, Gentile Christianity is not the only form of Christianity. Personally I believe the Messianic Jews are basically Christian Jews though for obvious political reasons do not take the label of "Christian"(despite believing in the basic tenants of Christianity). I do not think the Jews need to convert to the Gentile form of Christianity and profess "We love Jesus Christ" but to perhaps grow to accept the possibility Yeshua Hamashiach may be the only notable candidate for The Messiah they will ever get to have, and the only very very very good candidate that God will ever have provided for them.

The Talmud is not the holy scriptures even for Judaism, as that is the Tanakh(and within that The Torah). It is mainly simply a Jewish Rabbonical Catechism written by people with an agenda to downplay any and all prophecy interpretations concerning Yeshua. In fact they outwardly write evidentiary lies/gossip in the Telmud, such as calling Yeshua "Yeshu(removing the important "a")" and saying other non-Christian heresies like that crap Islam also repeats about the Virgin Mary.

I don't think the Telmud should have such a high level of importance in Judaism, and I'm glad it has appeared to lose some importance over the recent years. Certainly the Messianic Jews and the Jewish Rabbi's who think "Jesus/Yeshua may not have the Messiah, but he was kinda cool anyway" have seemed to have moved on from thinking of it as the be all and end all.

[Paradigm]

You're basically deciding as an outsider what is and isn't real Judaism. At the time of the split, Christianity was still a Jewish sect, but that ship has long since sailed, and although Messianic Judaism remains a minority strain of Judaism to this day, the majority of Jews today follow the Talmud. They don't tend to emphasize the more anti-Christian aspects of that text, just as Christians seeking to build bridges don't like to emphasize the anti-Jewish parts of the New Testament. If Messianic Jews want to make the case to their fellow Jews that they are mistaken in their views about the Messiah, that's their prerogative. But your opinion on the subject is, frankly, irrelevant.

[Oberon]

The Talmud was not 'scripture', it was just a scholarly debate on various points of Jewish theoglogy being discussed amiong scholars. It wasn't law, it wasn't the Torah, it was just a learning text, similiar to what Thomas of Aquina was attempting with the Summa Theologica, reconciliog logic with spritiuality. Judaism, and early Chrisitanity, were orally transmitted, and only in the 1st Century do we see texts becoming important, to Orthodox Jews for the first time, because of the competition from Christian Jews, and the diaspora after the fall of the Temple. There were other texts besides the Torahs and Talmuds, like the Mishnahs and several more. Othodox Jewry had stagnated by 300 B.C. or so, and the folowing 300 years set in motion severl 'reform' sects and movements as a response. New sects arose to carry on fulfilling the Covenant and become 'a light unto the World', mainly the Gentile Jews, as the Orthodox abandoned their promises and became self-absorbed with their geneaologies and racism and nariccsisism.