What exactly is wrong with the Talmud...

I don't understand the innuendo.

google.com/search?q=depictions of hell

I was referring specifically to the fixation on excrement (and semen) as part of the punishment. It seems perverse in a unique way.

The quote here is talking about the Talmud, not the Torah. Also, keep in mind that formerly Jewish converts have claimed that certain parts of the Talmud were deliberately mistranslated from the original language.

But it doesn't mean the Talmud it's talking about the Torah in the actual text.

The Talmud is the codification of the Oral Torah, something that Christ himself condemned.

In addition to this the Talmud also contains numerous references to Christ as a false teacher, sorcerer, idolater etc.

As well, there is one passage in which it is taught that Christ is hell, boiling in shit

The Talmud is a compendium of lies, heresy, and slander. Any Christian should be repulsed by the mention of its very name.

Note that in the original text, Jesus ben Perahya is actually Y ehoshua ben Perahya. It seems the name got caught up in this board's winnie the poohery

You're not familiar with medieval christian artworks depicting tortured soul in hell, aren't you? They were terrible, there are many statues that depict men spreading their butt cheeks to show their anus or performing autofellatio. And these were made by christians. People were just more desensitized to brutality back then, and without the existence of porn natural born perverts felt like they had to express their evil desires somehow, even the pious ones subconsciously. These arts and preachings of hell became a medium for the sexually depraved to spread their subconsciously unchaste thoughts in a politically correct way, this was seen as something okay back then, even by christians.

Part of the reason why Andrei Rublev became such a prominent figure and even a saint in the Orthodox church was because he was an exclusively ascetic artist, unlike the other artists from his era who loved to paint gruesomeness. That's the whole point of Tarkovsky's film about him.

Attached: Andrei-Rublev-1108x0-c-default.jpg (1108x831, 114.77K)

Who the winnie the pooh cares about rabbis?

How can you take "Jesus burns in Hell in feces" out of context.
Here's another example "F&#* your mother".
Some things you just can't take out of context.

The most significant question for a Christian is "What does the Talmud say about Christ?" There are a number of passage which have been pointed to as potentially mentioning Christ, but this is a much debated topic.

One which is almost certainly a reference to Him, I think are the references to a certain Jesus who was the offspring of an adulterous union between Mary and a Roman soldier called Panthera. Given that this accusation is repeated by the pagan philosopher Celsus, I think this a reference to rumours about Jesus.
And, in denying the testimony of the Gospels, and impugning the BVM's character, it is to be rejected by any Christian.

So, I think there is clearly some objectionable material in the Talmud. Here, I would also add that it seems that some people draw too strong a conclusion from this: the Talmud is a 2,600 page long collection of a variety of differing kinds of literature from different periods and authors. To say that there is some "spirit of the Talmud" which somehow permeates every other statement in the Talmud, rendering it "Satanic" or worthless seems like a paranoid non-sequitur.

—
The ethical content of the Talmud
—

Often the ethical content is flat-out misrepresented. E.g. you'll often see denizens of far-right internet spaces post jpgs of "You Won't Believe These 10 Shocking Talmud Quotes!" with allegations that a particular passage of the Talmud permits for example, pedophilia or theft from Gentiles, but I really think the Jewish apologists show these claims to be pretty terrible.

On a traditionalist Catholic website, I found an allegedly "Sick and Insane Teaching of the Jewish Talmud" which is easily refuted just by looking up the passage in question. Real Jack-Chick level stuff.

E.g. "Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with. "

So what? This occurs in a passage discussing a Jewish belief that being guilty of certain sins means be that an early physical death will be part of penance. It explicitly names Eleazar's behaviour as sinful not as some kind of demonstration that "Rabbis are allowed to do anything!" Here is the passage in full:

"And does not one die on renouncing sins other [than idolatry]? Surely it has been taught: It was said of R. Eleazar b. Dordaya that he did not leave out any harlot in the world without coming to her. Once, he heard that there was a certain prostitute in one of the towns by the sea who accepted a purse of coins for her hire. He took a purse of coins and crossed seven rivers for her sake. As he was with her, she blew forth breath and said: 'As this blown breath will not return to its place, so will Eleazar b. Dordaya never be received in repentance.' He thereupon went, sat between two hills and mountains and exclaimed: 'O, ye hills and mountains, plead for mercy for me!' They replied: 'How shall we pray for thee? We stand in need of it ourselves, for it is said, "For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed!" So he exclaimed: 'Heaven and earth, plead for mercy for me!' They, too, replied: How shall we pray for thee? We stand in need of it ourselves, for it is said, "For the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment." He then exclaimed: 'Sun and moon, plead for mercy for me!' But they also replied: 'How shall we pray for thee? We stand in need of it ourselves, for it is said, "Then the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed." He exclaimed: Ye stars and constellations plead ye for mercy for me!' Said they: 'How shall we pray for thee? We stand in need of it ourselves, for it is said, "And all the hosts of heaven shall moulder away." Said he: The matter then depends upon me alone! He placed his head between his knees, he wept aloud until his soul departed. Then a bat-kol was heard proclaiming: 'Rabbi Eleazar b. Dordaya is destined for the life of the world to come!'(2) Now, here was a case of a sin [other than idolatry] and yet he did die! - In that case, too, since he was so much addicted to immorality it is as [if he had been guilty of] idolatry. Rabbi [on hearing of it] wept and said: One may acquire eternal life after many years, another in one hour! Rabbi also said: Not only are penitents accepted, they are even called 'Rabbi'!"

—
The Talmud is attacked as facilitating a culture of verbal deceit
—

It is a common complaint that the overly elaborate discussions in the Talmud are indicative of a culture of verbal deception among Jewish people.

Here, I think it's a case of a plebeian attitude of being unwilling to make subtle conceptual distinctions: the same kind of rhetoric used by bottom-of-the-barrel low-church Protestants to attack the Fathers for their "speculative" exegesis concerning for example, typology of the BVM in the OT. For a fuller summary of some of the patterns of argument commonly found, see Norman Solomon's "On The Nature of Talmudic Reasoning":

normansolomon.info/Talmudic Reasoning Oxford.pdf

To be sure, people do exist who use rhetorical tricks and the reasoning of authors within the Talmud is not always sound (remember here also that it is a record of debates not simply a prescriptive list of good opinions), but I really don't think the Talmud is some great manual of "How To Argue Fallaciously To Deceive The Goyim", as it is popularly portrayed among these sources. This accusation can function as a Kafka trap: any attempt to make the necessary distinctions at length which might show it to be false can be dismissed with "Yeah, whatever. Nice try at confusing people with your tricks!!!!"

To summarise: rather than seeing the Talmud as "THE MOST SATANIC FILTH EVER WRITTEN!" or a similar summary, a more accurate view might be something along the lines of "The Talmud is a long collection of literature by many different authors which contains at least one statement about Christ which is blasphemous and false, along with much other material which is either irrelevant, helpful, or incorrect. It is important to beware of cheap, sensationalist presentations of material from it."

This is probably a more accurate assesment. The real problem I have with the Talmud is it's blasphemous material against Christ and it's insistence on a continuation of Judaism outside of Judea and without a Temple, something which St. John Chrysostom discusses at length. Those "shocking passages" you'll find on far right websites are easily refutable and lazy attacks on the Talmud instead of a genuine critique of it which is what Christians ought to be doing.

The Talmud's critical error is that it promotes the wrong mindset about the Mosaic Law: instead of following the spirit of the law, Jews believed the law itself saved them and began autistically overanalyzing it like bad anime Youtubers. Also like anime Youtubers, they completely missed the point and began filling in perceived gaps with retarded theories and restrictions of their own, and as the complexity piled up so did the loopholes.

Attached: found the art.gif (500x412, 1.18M)

It teaches the insane theology that by God giving the laws to the Israelites He was in fact transferring ownership of the law to them and no longer has a say in it. Also it blasphemes Christ.

you can read this book by a rogue jew:
goodreads.com/book/show/456305.Jewish_History_Jewish_Religion
where he discloses all kinds of hideous stuff about hte talmud. Also he mentions that while jews where living in diaspora they would take those supremacist passages out of the talmud since it didnt sit well with the established power, but as soon as they got their land, they put it all back in.

Okay? And those particular Christians who did that art were sick too I guess. At least they didn't write our scripture.

Here are a few:

If someone ties up his neighbor and the neighbor dies of starvation, or if he incapacitates a man in the presence of a lion and the lions kills the incapacitated man, the man who was the perpetrator is not guilty of murder. (BT Sanhedrin 77a).
A man is not guilty of murder if he causes a poisonous snake to kill a man; the snake should be executed for murder, while the man goes free (ET Sanhedrin 76b, 78a).
Killing a terminally ill person is not murder. (BT Sanhedrin 78a).
A Jew need not pay a gentile the proper wages owed him for work (BT Sanhedrin 57a).
Hagigah 27a declares that no rabbi can ever go to hell.
If a Jew is tempted to do evil, he should put on dirty clothes and go to a city where he is not known, and do the evil there. (BT Moed Kattan 17a).
It is permissible to cheat a gentile in court. (BT Haba Kamma U3a).
If a gentile robs a Jew, he must pay him back. But whatever a Jew robs from a gentile, the Jew may keep. Some robbery of gentiles is disguised as "confiscation of an unpaid debt" (Bava Kama 113b; also Bava Metzia I11b). The permission to steal from gentiles is conditional (see footnote). When Talmudists are less powerful in gentile society, they adopt a more honest attitude in order to deceive the gentiles, until they feel strong enough to dispense with the pretense. "According to Tosafos in Bava Metzia 87b (s.v. Ela), even those who propose that gezel of a Cuthian (theft from a gentile) is permitted admit that it is prohibited by the Torah if the act might lead to the desecration of God's name" (loss of prestige and power in gentile society).
Footnote:
Dr. Shahak and his co-author, Prof. Mezvinsky, qualify this injunction thus: "The Halacha permits Jews to rob non-Jews in those locales wherein Jews are stronger than non-Jews. The Halacha prohibits Jews from robbing non-Jews in those locales wherein the non-Jews are stronger." (Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, p. 71). Many rabbinic injunctions are thus qualified by the spirit of the times and the position and power of the followers of Judaism within gentile society.
If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile it does not have to be returned. (BT Baba Mezia 24a. confirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).
Property of gentiles is like the desert; whoever among the Jews gets there first, owns it. (BT Baba Bathra 54b).
If the majority of people in an area are gentiles, a Jew may just keep the lost article. If the majority are Jews, an effort must be made to find the owner. (BT Baba Mezia 24a).

Sixteen million Israelite children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans at Bethar. (BT Gittin 58a).
Four billion Israelites were killed by the Romans in one city, the city of Bethar. (Some rabbis say "only" forty million were killed there). (BT Gittin 57b).
Elijah and Moses blamed God for causing the Israelites to sin. God admitted that they were right. (BT Berakoth 31b-32a).
Blasphemy against God is only punished if the blasphemer utters the Divine Name. (BT Sanhedrin 55b-56a).
BT Sanhedrin 52B: "A non-Jew is not considered a neighbor." "Rashi wrote on the beraitha which appears in Sanhedrin 57a, s.v.
yisrael b'goy mutar: "For 'your neighbor' is written, and it is not written 'a gentile'
Bava Metzia 111b: "And since the first Tanna learned the law from the phrase 'his brother,' what does he do with the phrase 'his neighbor'? That phrase comes to teach something in his view also, as stated in the beraitha: 'his neighbor' - and not a gentile. But isn't it appropriate to learn that a gentile is excluded from the phrase 'his brother'? One (phrase) comes to permit exploiting him (a gentile) and the other comes to permit robbing him, as he holds that robbery of a gentile is permitted." And thus it is determined in the commentary attributed to the Ran on Tractate Sanhedrin 57a. The Rama also ruled this way in Even Ha'ezer, paragraph 28, section 1, and also the Maharsha in "Yam shel Shlomo" on Bava Kama, paragraph 20 (emphasis supplied). The wording for this ruling on the permissibility of stealing from a gentile and how gentiles do not
qualify as a brother or neighbor is corroborated in Dikdukei Sofrim, see sections 40 and 50; and in the quotations in the novellae of Nachmanides, the Ran, and Tosaphot HaRosh.
Footnote:
As a precaution in case snooping gentiles should discover this teaching and raise a storm of protest, the rabbis inserted an escape clause: "But there is a rabbinic prohibition, according to the one who says that robbery of a gentile is forbidden because of desecration of G-d's name in the last chapter 'HaGozel' (chapter 10 of Bava Batra)." This deceitful clause has not in any way ameliorated treatment of gentiles by robber rabbis and other Talmudists. Robbery of a gentile is forbidden in case: where such robbery will result in harm to Judaism ("desecration of G-d's name"), This is an example of the rabbinic predilection for inserting misleading decoy texts within their writings.