Early Instances of Christian Elements: Borrowings, Anticipations or Satanic Mockery?

You will have to remember, that the concept of SATAN was taken from the persians.. and the 'salvation' was actually retrofitted onto the old testament when it comes to translations from the hebrew, even though there are other terms that are just as good or not better.
There is no concept of 'salvation' as the christian knows it in the Jewish faith. The Latin terms for salvation and savior came directly from cult of Ceasar Augustus.As for Satan, the Jews took the concept from Persia. The concept that Satan was this demigod that was seperate from God came from Greek influnces. In the Jewish religion, Satan was just an angel of god, and (this is an important thing), angels did not have free will, therefore they could not revolt against god. The term 'satan' might have come from Judaism, but the nature of Satan came from the persians.And let us look at the concept of "Hell". There is no concept of "hell" as a place of eternal torture, but the Roman Catholic Church adopted the concept from Zoroastrianism, mixed in the concept of Sheol (the grave) from Judaism, and made 'hell' a place of eternal torment.Now, you might say that 'almah' means 'virgin' because it was translated to pathenos in the greek. I happen to disagree. If you look at rape of Dianah in Genesis 34, she was referenced as 'parthenos' even after she was raped by Shechem. There is also the use of 'almah'
in the song of solomon, which a young lady is refered in a very erotic and sexual manner (and most assurdly not a virgin).So, to claim that the concept of a virgin birth for the messiah is in the old testament is just plain incorrect. There are many other sources for that concept, but not from the passage you are pointing too. Besides, if you read Isaiah 7:14 in context, it is fairly obvious that Isaiah was refering to his own wife (the prophetess), and not someone who was born 600 years later.

The terms where known by their greek equivilants.. yes..But, no... when it comes to the Hebrew, the original hebrew often meant' helped'.There is no concept of 'salvation' for the afterlife in Judaism. There is no 'savior' except for soemone who helps for this life.. not the next.And, I am sorry, but the tanakh is quite clear. You are retrofiting Christina concepts that do not fit into the Jewish scriptures. You are going to have to do better that make the blanket claim that OT is quite clear. I gave examples in specific passagages in the Tanakh, with specific words. You will have to refute what I said using the terms used in the Greek and the Hebrew, or show how I am mistaken in context. Merely proclaiming the OT is clear, and I am wrong is a little like sticking your hands in your ears and yelling 'I can't hear you'

It is no more a false religion that Christianity. This shows a very deep misunderstanding about what the Talmud is. It is also showing a great deal of anti-semitism too.The Talmud is commentary about the laws given in the Torah. It looks at the laws that are given in the torah, and then talks about applying those laws in real life situations. It give opinions from a variety of different view points so the various positions about the law can be looked at. I beg your pardon, but the Jewish religion came first, and they are the ones to interpret what their scriptures say. The tanakh is not a
'prequel' to Jesus. The concept that the Jewish people have of the messiah is not the christian concept. And Jesus does not match the Jewish concept of the Jewish messiah. To say they 'Rejected' their messiah is just plain prejudice on your part. I certianly can't take you very seriously with your statements about Judaism, or the way the Jewish faith looks at their scriptures. I know that Christianity has used the New Testament to try to reinterpret the jewish scriptures, but it does so with out of context quotes, mistranslations, and with reading things INTO the scriptures that were never meant to be there.

NO, actually , he didn't.He said to follow the Laws.. Not ONE Wit of the law shall be changed until all is accomplished.Guess what.. all is not accomplished yet.Yes, the christians feel he came to fullfill the law.. but fullfill is not to change or abolish.

I notice you have not quoted chapter and verse of anything.I noticed you are unable to discuss the chapter and verse in context.Vague statements does not an arguement make.