Even Jesus Is A Zionist

[MJB12741]

Eh Sherri, are you still here?

Just curious. What ever happened to the indigenous Persian Zoroastrians once the Muslims paid them a little visit?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Jesus does not command accepting Mohamed.

Where do you get such ideas from?

I keep telling you I believe in Jesus and The Bible.

And Bumberclyde would be better off if he took his mind off asses and turned his face to Jesus.

If that were true, they would be accepting Jesus as Messiah.

The promises of The Old Testament were fulfilled in Jesus.

Do you accept Mohamed as the one who comes after as JESUS COMMANDS, or do you reject him as another religions leader ?

Mohammed wiped his ass with an uneven number of rocks. True story. Which makes me wonder, what did Jesus wipe his ass with since he had no money?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

If that were true, they would be accepting Jesus as Messiah.

The promises of The Old Testament were fulfilled in Jesus.

Do you accept Mohamed as the one who comes after as JESUS COMMANDS, or do you reject him as another religions leader ?

Mohammed wiped his ass with an uneven number of rocks. True story. Which makes me wonder, what did Jesus wipe his ass with since he had no money?

He put rocks in Judas' hand, and used that.

Which pissed Judas off so much that he ratted Jesus out to the Romans.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Jesus does not command accepting Mohamed.

Where do you get such ideas from?

I keep telling you I believe in Jesus and The Bible.

And Bumberclyde would be better off if he took his mind off asses and turned his face to Jesus.

Do you accept Mohamed as the one who comes after as JESUS COMMANDS, or do you reject him as another religions leader ?

Mohammed wiped his ass with an uneven number of rocks. True story. Which makes me wonder, what did Jesus wipe his ass with since he had no money?

If Jesus was the son of god, did he ever have diarrhea?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Jesus does not command accepting Mohamed.

Where do you get such ideas from?

I keep telling you I believe in Jesus and The Bible.

And Bumberclyde would be better off if he took his mind off asses and turned his face to Jesus.

Mohammed wiped his ass with an uneven number of rocks. True story. Which makes me wonder, what did Jesus wipe his ass with since he had no money?

If Jesus was the son of god, did he ever have diarrhea?

Probably, but it's for sure that he never had to deal with the heartbreak of psoriasis.

 

[toastman]

Jesus does not command accepting Mohamed.

Where do you get such ideas from?

I keep telling you I believe in Jesus and The Bible.

And Bumberclyde would be better off if he took his mind off asses and turned his face to Jesus.

Mohammed wiped his ass with an uneven number of rocks. True story. Which makes me wonder, what did Jesus wipe his ass with since he had no money?

If Jesus was the son of god, did he ever have diarrhea?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t5ua5XhjoE]SETH MACFARLANES CAVALCADE OF CARTOON COMEDY 12. Fat Jesus - YouTube[/ame]

0:52 to be exact

 

[Rat in the Hat]

It's 10:42, and the "Sherri" account is off-line.

Must be a shift change at the office.

 

[MJB12741]

Oh no. No Sherri here for now, no fun here for now.

It's 10:42, and the "Sherri" account is off-line.

Must be a shift change at the office.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

It's 10:42, and the "Sherri" account is off-line.

Must be a shift change at the office.

Can't you just imagine the handover session. They are giving one of the Sherris hell because of her Scarlett thread. They will be in a foul mood now.

 

[MHunterB]

Just curious. What ever happened to the indigenous Persian Zoroastrians once the Muslims paid them a little visit?

There were NO Zoroastrians in Arabia.

Although older, Zoroastrianism only enters recorded history in the mid-5th century BCE. Herodotus' The Histories (completed c. 440 BCE) includes a description of Greater Iranian society with what may be recognizably Zoroastrian features, including exposure of the dead.

When the Sassanid dynasty came into power in 224 CE, they aggressively promoted the Zurvanite form of Zoroastrianism and, in some cases, persecuted Christians.[18] When the Sassanids captured territory, they often built fire temples there to promote their religion. After Constantine, the Sassanids were suspicious of Christians, not least because of their perceived ties to the Christian Roman Empire. As such the Persian Church (the Church of the East) officially broke with Roman Christianity, and was tolerated and even sometimes favored by the Sassanids. wiki

When did they move Persia into the Arabian peninsula????

 

[Rat in the Hat]

11:12, and the account is back on-line.

That was a long break. The hand-off must have been interesting.

I wonder which "Sherri" we get now??

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

You are the one claiming that happened, back up your claim.

Just curious. What ever happened to the indigenous Persian Zoroastrians once the Muslims paid them a little visit?

There were NO Zoroastrians in Arabia.

Although older, Zoroastrianism only enters recorded history in the mid-5th century BCE. Herodotus' The Histories (completed c. 440 BCE) includes a description of Greater Iranian society with what may be recognizably Zoroastrian features, including exposure of the dead.

When the Sassanid dynasty came into power in 224 CE, they aggressively promoted the Zurvanite form of Zoroastrianism and, in some cases, persecuted Christians.[18] When the Sassanids captured territory, they often built fire temples there to promote their religion. After Constantine, the Sassanids were suspicious of Christians, not least because of their perceived ties to the Christian Roman Empire. As such the Persian Church (the Church of the East) officially broke with Roman Christianity, and was tolerated and even sometimes favored by the Sassanids. wiki

When did they move Persia into the Arabian peninsula????

 

[Roudy]

11:12, and the account is back on-line.

That was a long break. The hand-off must have been interesting.

I wonder which "Sherri" we get now??

Well you have to consider, there was a call to prayer, asses went up and down and heads started banging on the carpet, then a handover meeting, then a "Allahuakbar". And off to the computer we go.

 

[Kondor3]

Nobody is saying that Jesus called for a resurrection of the Homeland.

We are speculating on whether or not Jesus would have been a Zionist in the modern age, had he lived in recent times.

That implies utilizing what is known and recorded of Jesus' thoughts and teachings, in support-of or in opposition-to such speculation.

Most people who are not burdened with a hyper-reliance upon Literalism understand the usefulness of Metaphor.

Most folks here understand that we are speaking in metaphorical terms, about Jesus being a Zionist, not in literal terms...

This means examining his surroundings and the extent of his ministry and surviving fragments of thought and pronouncements on The Law and customs and tradition and prophecy and advocacy for and amongst his own people, in attempting to rationalize what his position might have been, in relation to Zionism, in the modern age...

Nobody is taking the Simple-Minded Position that Jesus actually WAS a Zionist...

Nobody is taking the Simple-Minded Position that Jesus called for a resurrection of the Homeland...

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together and even the sketchiest understanding of historical timelines understand that Jesus and Zionism are separated by 1800-1900 years...

The challenge is to speculate - rationally, and with a logical approach to examining his surviving teachings and commentaries - whether he would have been supportive of Zionism in the modern age, had he lived then, instead...

And, my own personal answer was - Yes, it seems likely that Jesus would have been a Zionist during Zionism's earliest formative period, when it did no more than call for a resurrection of the Homeland, and with the caveat that Jesus might very well have withdrawn his support for Zionism, once the arguments and shooting began...

I have made a cogent summary-caliber case for such speculation...

Your attempt to dismiss it with Simple-Minded Hyper-Literal chatter about Jesus never having called for a resurrection of the homeland is noted - and, in turn, dismissed, with prejudice.

Jesus does not call and did not call for a resurrection of the homeland.

He offers Salvation right now for those who believe in Him and membership today in the Kingdom of God which is eternal LIFE with Him, for those who believe in Him.

The Jews of Israel are dealing with the Zion of present-day reality...

Resurrecting the Jewish Homeland after being scattered to the winds for so many centuries...

Given Jesus' decision to limit his start-up ministry to his own people (the Jews of Ancient Israel [Israel-Judah-Judea])...

Given Jesus' admonitions, to respect and obey the Law of Moses, and that he fulfilled all such Law and Prophecy, as those had previously manifested within Ancient Israel...

It's a good bet that he was in favor of sustaining a Jewish Homeland, some decades in advance of the 70 AD Sack of Jerusalem and the Judeo-Roman Wars...

And if he was in favor of sustaining a Homeland, it stands to reason that he would be in favor of re-establishing a Homeland, if the need ever arose...

He might very well not approve of tactics and violence employed by the Jews OR the Muslims, and those would probably force him to abandon what early Zionism has evolved into in recent decades...

But within the realm of non-violent action to resurrect a Jewish Homeland, it seems likely that his natural love for his own people would have caused him to favor a nonviolent reestablishment of Israel...

At its core or its roots, Zionism is nothing more than the Concept of bringing Jews back to the Holy Land in order to recreate a Jewish Homeland...

Of course, Jesus lived some 1800 years or more before the advent of Zionism, as we understand the concept in modern times...

He was already 'home' and had no need to 'return'...

But it seems entirely logical and reasonable to speculate that if Jesus could time-travel into the 19th and 20th and 21st Centuries, he would probably have supported Zionism, in whole or in part, in its earliest and nonviolent forms...

In a narrow, literal sense, of course Jesus was not a Zionist - the timing was all wrong...

But... metaphorically speaking (which is the mode of thought which any sane person would construe in assessing the OP)... and focused upon Zionism in its earliest forms...

Yes... it seems reasonable to speculate that Jesus would have been an Early-Days Zionist, even if he might have abandoned the movement, once the arguments and shooting began...

Thus speaketh the Middle Ground Approach to the challenge posed by the OP...

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Now when all the people were baptized, and when*Jesus also had been baptized and was praying,*the heavens were opened,*and*the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and*a voice came from heaven,*“You are my beloved Son;[c]*with you I am well pleased.”[d]

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

Jesus,*when he began his ministry, was about*thirty years of age, being*the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,*the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,*the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,*the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,*the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,*the son of Zerubbabel, the son*of Shealtiel,[e]*the son of Neri,*the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,*the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,*the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,*the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of*Nathan, the son of David,*the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon,the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,*the son of Jacob,*the son of Isaac,*the son of Abraham,*the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,*the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,*the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,*the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,*the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3




Speculation is not needed about who Jesus is, He tells us who He is in The Bible.

Jesus is who He says He is, we accept Him and believe in Him for who He says He is and shows us He is, by what He did and did not do in His life.

Nobody is saying that Jesus called for a resurrection of the Homeland.

We are speculating on whether or not Jesus would have been a Zionist in the modern age, had he lived in recent times.

That implies utilizing what is known and recorded of Jesus' thoughts and teachings, in support-of or in opposition-to such speculation.

Most people who are not burdened with a hyper-reliance upon Literalism understand the usefulness of Metaphor.

Most folks here understand that we are speaking in metaphorical terms, about Jesus being a Zionist, not in literal terms...

This means examining his surroundings and the extent of his ministry and surviving fragments of thought and pronouncements on The Law and customs and tradition and prophecy and advocacy for and amongst his own people, in attempting to rationalize what his position might have been, in relation to Zionism, in the modern age...

Nobody is taking the Simple-Minded Position that Jesus actually WAS a Zionist...

Nobody is taking the Simple-Minded Position that Jesus called for a resurrection of the Homeland...

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together and even the sketchiest understanding of historical timelines understand that Jesus and Zionism are separated by 1800-1900 years...

The challenge is to speculate - rationally, and with a logical approach to examining his surviving teachings and commentaries - whether he would have been supportive of Zionism in the modern age, had he lived then, instead...

And, my own personal answer was - Yes, it seems likely that Jesus would have been a Zionist during Zionism's earliest formative period, when it did no more than call for a resurrection of the Homeland, and with the caveat that Jesus might very well have withdrawn his support for Zionism, once the arguments and shooting began...

I have made a cogent summary-caliber case for such speculation...

Your attempt to dismiss it with Simple-Minded Hyper-Literal chatter about Jesus never having called for a resurrection of the homeland is noted - and, in turn, dismissed, with prejudice.

Jesus does not call and did not call for a resurrection of the homeland.

He offers Salvation right now for those who believe in Him and membership today in the Kingdom of God which is eternal LIFE with Him, for those who believe in Him.

The Jews of Israel are dealing with the Zion of present-day reality...

Resurrecting the Jewish Homeland after being scattered to the winds for so many centuries...

Given Jesus' decision to limit his start-up ministry to his own people (the Jews of Ancient Israel [Israel-Judah-Judea])...

Given Jesus' admonitions, to respect and obey the Law of Moses, and that he fulfilled all such Law and Prophecy, as those had previously manifested within Ancient Israel...

It's a good bet that he was in favor of sustaining a Jewish Homeland, some decades in advance of the 70 AD Sack of Jerusalem and the Judeo-Roman Wars...

And if he was in favor of sustaining a Homeland, it stands to reason that he would be in favor of re-establishing a Homeland, if the need ever arose...

He might very well not approve of tactics and violence employed by the Jews OR the Muslims, and those would probably force him to abandon what early Zionism has evolved into in recent decades...

But within the realm of non-violent action to resurrect a Jewish Homeland, it seems likely that his natural love for his own people would have caused him to favor a nonviolent reestablishment of Israel...

At its core or its roots, Zionism is nothing more than the Concept of bringing Jews back to the Holy Land in order to recreate a Jewish Homeland...

Of course, Jesus lived some 1800 years or more before the advent of Zionism, as we understand the concept in modern times...

He was already 'home' and had no need to 'return'...

But it seems entirely logical and reasonable to speculate that if Jesus could time-travel into the 19th and 20th and 21st Centuries, he would probably have supported Zionism, in whole or in part, in its earliest and nonviolent forms...

In a narrow, literal sense, of course Jesus was not a Zionist - the timing was all wrong...

But... metaphorically speaking (which is the mode of thought which any sane person would construe in assessing the OP)... and focused upon Zionism in its earliest forms...

Yes... it seems reasonable to speculate that Jesus would have been an Early-Days Zionist, even if he might have abandoned the movement, once the arguments and shooting began...

Thus speaketh the Middle Ground Approach to the challenge posed by the OP...

 

[MJB12741]

But but Sherri, have you forgotten that you didn't even know that John the Baptist was a Jew? Youa re so funny. Heh Heh!

Now when all the people were baptized, and when*Jesus also had been baptized and was praying,*the heavens were opened,*and*the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and*a voice came from heaven,*“You are my beloved Son;[c]*with you I am well pleased.”[d]

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

Jesus,*when he began his ministry, was about*thirty years of age, being*the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,*the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,*the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,*the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,*the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,*the son of Zerubbabel, the son*of Shealtiel,[e]*the son of Neri,*the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,*the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,*the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,*the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of*Nathan, the son of David,*the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon,the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,*the son of Jacob,*the son of Isaac,*the son of Abraham,*the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,*the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,*the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,*the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,*the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Luke 3 - John the Baptist Prepares the Way - In - Bible Gateway




Speculation is not needed about who Jesus is, He tells us who He is in The Bible.

Jesus is who He says He is, we accept Him and believe in Him for who He says He is and shows us He is, by what He did and did not do in His life.

Nobody is saying that Jesus called for a resurrection of the Homeland.

We are speculating on whether or not Jesus would have been a Zionist in the modern age, had he lived in recent times.

That implies utilizing what is known and recorded of Jesus' thoughts and teachings, in support-of or in opposition-to such speculation.

Most people who are not burdened with a hyper-reliance upon Literalism understand the usefulness of Metaphor.

Most folks here understand that we are speaking in metaphorical terms, about Jesus being a Zionist, not in literal terms...

This means examining his surroundings and the extent of his ministry and surviving fragments of thought and pronouncements on The Law and customs and tradition and prophecy and advocacy for and amongst his own people, in attempting to rationalize what his position might have been, in relation to Zionism, in the modern age...

Nobody is taking the Simple-Minded Position that Jesus actually WAS a Zionist...

Nobody is taking the Simple-Minded Position that Jesus called for a resurrection of the Homeland...

Everyone with two brain cells to rub together and even the sketchiest understanding of historical timelines understand that Jesus and Zionism are separated by 1800-1900 years...

The challenge is to speculate - rationally, and with a logical approach to examining his surviving teachings and commentaries - whether he would have been supportive of Zionism in the modern age, had he lived then, instead...

And, my own personal answer was - Yes, it seems likely that Jesus would have been a Zionist during Zionism's earliest formative period, when it did no more than call for a resurrection of the Homeland, and with the caveat that Jesus might very well have withdrawn his support for Zionism, once the arguments and shooting began...

I have made a cogent summary-caliber case for such speculation...

Your attempt to dismiss it with Simple-Minded Hyper-Literal chatter about Jesus never having called for a resurrection of the homeland is noted - and, in turn, dismissed, with prejudice.

Jesus does not call and did not call for a resurrection of the homeland.

He offers Salvation right now for those who believe in Him and membership today in the Kingdom of God which is eternal LIFE with Him, for those who believe in Him.

 

[Roudy]

John the Baptist was a Zionist Jew practicing the ancient Jewish "Mikveh" immersion ritual which is supposed to make one pure.

Mikveh

Mikveh (sometimes spelled mikvah, mikve, or mikva) (Hebrew: מִקְוֶה / מקווה, Modern Mikve Tiberian Miqwā; plural: mikva'ot or mikves (Yiddish) Hebrew: מִקְוֶוֹת / מִקְוָאו&#1514 is a bath used for the purpose of ritual immersion in Judaism. The word "mikveh", as used in the Hebrew Bible, literally means a "collection" – generally, a collection of water.
Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred. A person was required to be ritually pure in order to enter the Temple. In addition, a convert to Judaism is required to immerse in a mikveh as part of the his/her conversion, and a woman is required to immerse in a mikveh after her menstrual period or childbirth before she and her husband can resume marital relations. In this context, "purity" and "impurity" are imperfect translations of the Hebrew "tahara" and "tumah", respectively, in that the negative connotation of the word impurity is not intended; rather being "impure" is indicative of being in a state in which certain things are prohibited (as relevant) until one has become "pure" again by immersion in a mikveh.

Most forms of impurity can be nullified through immersion in any natural collection of water. However, some impurities, such as a zav, require "living water," such as springs or groundwater wells. Living water has the further advantage of being able to purify even while flowing, as opposed to rainwater which must be stationary in order to purify. The mikveh is designed to simplify this requirement, by providing a bathing facility that remains in ritual contact with a natural source of water.

Ancient mikvehs dating from before the late first century can be found throughout the land of Israel as well as in historic communities of the Jewish diaspora. Traditionally, the mikveh was used by both men and women to regain ritual purity after various events, according to regulations laid down in the Torah and in classical rabbinical literature.
The Torah requires full immersion

-after Keri — normal emissions of semen, whether from sexual activity, or from nocturnal emission bathing in a mikveh due to -Keri is known as tevilath Ezra ("the immersion of Ezra")
-after Zav/Zavah — abnormal discharges of body fluids
-after Tzaraath — certain skin condition(s). These are termed lepra in the Septuagint, and therefore traditionally translated into English as leprosy; this is probably a translation error, as the Greek term lepra mostly refers to psoriasis, and the Greek term for leprosy was elephas/elephantiasis.
-by anyone who came into contact with someone suffering from Zav/Zavah, or into contact with someone still in Niddah (normal menstruation), or who comes into contact with articles that have been used or sat upon by such persons
-by Jewish priests when they are being consecrated
-by the Jewish high priest on Yom Kippur, after sending away the goat to Azazel, and by the man who leads away the goat
-by the Jewish priest who performed the Red Heifer ritual
-after contact with a corpse or grave, in addition to having the ashes of the Red heifer ritual sprinkled upon them
-after eating meat from an animal that died naturally

The word mikveh makes use of the same root letters in Hebrew as the word for "hope" and this has served as the basis for homiletical comparison of the two concepts in both biblical and rabbinic literature. For instance, in the Book of Jeremiah, the word mikveh is used in the sense of "hope," but at the same time also associated with "living water":
O Hashem, the Hope [mikveh] of Israel, all who forsake you will be ashamed ... because they have forsaken Hashem, the fountain of living water
Are there any of the worthless idols of the nations, that can cause rain? or can the heavens give showers? Is it not you, Hashem our God, and do we not hope [nekaveh] in you? For you have made all these things.

******

Ring a Bell? That's EXACTLY what Zionist Jew John the Baptist was doing!

 

[Hossfly]

John the Baptist was a Zionist Jew practicing the ancient Jewish "Mikveh" immersion ritual which is supposed to make one pure.

Mikveh

Mikveh (sometimes spelled mikvah, mikve, or mikva) (Hebrew: מִקְוֶה / מקווה, Modern Mikve Tiberian Miqwā; plural: mikva'ot or mikves (Yiddish) Hebrew: מִקְוֶוֹת / מִקְוָאו&#1514 is a bath used for the purpose of ritual immersion in Judaism. The word "mikveh", as used in the Hebrew Bible, literally means a "collection" – generally, a collection of water.
Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred. A person was required to be ritually pure in order to enter the Temple. In addition, a convert to Judaism is required to immerse in a mikveh as part of the his/her conversion, and a woman is required to immerse in a mikveh after her menstrual period or childbirth before she and her husband can resume marital relations. In this context, "purity" and "impurity" are imperfect translations of the Hebrew "tahara" and "tumah", respectively, in that the negative connotation of the word impurity is not intended; rather being "impure" is indicative of being in a state in which certain things are prohibited (as relevant) until one has become "pure" again by immersion in a mikveh.

Most forms of impurity can be nullified through immersion in any natural collection of water. However, some impurities, such as a zav, require "living water," such as springs or groundwater wells. Living water has the further advantage of being able to purify even while flowing, as opposed to rainwater which must be stationary in order to purify. The mikveh is designed to simplify this requirement, by providing a bathing facility that remains in ritual contact with a natural source of water.

Ancient mikvehs dating from before the late first century can be found throughout the land of Israel as well as in historic communities of the Jewish diaspora.

Traditionally, the mikveh was used by both men and women to regain ritual purity after various events, according to regulations laid down in the Torah and in classical rabbinical literature.
The Torah requires full immersion
after Keri — normal emissions of semen, whether from sexual activity, or from nocturnal emission bathing in a mikveh due to Keri is known as tevilath Ezra ("the immersion of Ezra")
after Zav/Zavah — abnormal discharges of body fluids
after Tzaraath — certain skin condition(s). These are termed lepra in the Septuagint, and therefore traditionally translated into English as leprosy; this is probably a translation error, as the Greek term lepra mostly refers to psoriasis, and the Greek term for leprosy was elephas/elephantiasis.
by anyone who came into contact with someone suffering from Zav/Zavah, or into contact with someone still in Niddah (normal menstruation), or who comes into contact with articles that have been used or sat upon by such persons
by Jewish priests when they are being consecrated
by the Jewish high priest on Yom Kippur, after sending away the goat to Azazel, and by the man who leads away the goat
by the Jewish priest who performed the Red Heifer ritual
after contact with a corpse or grave, in addition to having the ashes of the Red heifer ritual sprinkled upon them
after eating meat from an animal that died naturally

******

Ring a Bell? That's EXACTLY what Zionist Jew John the Baptist was doing!

So Jesus was baptized as a Zionist Jew by a Zionist Jew. This should put and end to the question of Jesus' Zionism.

 

[Roudy]

John the Baptist was a Zionist Jew practicing the ancient Jewish "Mikveh" immersion ritual which is supposed to make one pure.

Mikveh

Mikveh (sometimes spelled mikvah, mikve, or mikva) (Hebrew: מִקְוֶה / מקווה, Modern Mikve Tiberian Miqwā; plural: mikva'ot or mikves (Yiddish) Hebrew: מִקְוֶוֹת / מִקְוָאו&#1514 is a bath used for the purpose of ritual immersion in Judaism. The word "mikveh", as used in the Hebrew Bible, literally means a "collection" – generally, a collection of water.
Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred. A person was required to be ritually pure in order to enter the Temple. In addition, a convert to Judaism is required to immerse in a mikveh as part of the his/her conversion, and a woman is required to immerse in a mikveh after her menstrual period or childbirth before she and her husband can resume marital relations. In this context, "purity" and "impurity" are imperfect translations of the Hebrew "tahara" and "tumah", respectively, in that the negative connotation of the word impurity is not intended; rather being "impure" is indicative of being in a state in which certain things are prohibited (as relevant) until one has become "pure" again by immersion in a mikveh.

Most forms of impurity can be nullified through immersion in any natural collection of water. However, some impurities, such as a zav, require "living water," such as springs or groundwater wells. Living water has the further advantage of being able to purify even while flowing, as opposed to rainwater which must be stationary in order to purify. The mikveh is designed to simplify this requirement, by providing a bathing facility that remains in ritual contact with a natural source of water.

Ancient mikvehs dating from before the late first century can be found throughout the land of Israel as well as in historic communities of the Jewish diaspora.

Traditionally, the mikveh was used by both men and women to regain ritual purity after various events, according to regulations laid down in the Torah and in classical rabbinical literature.
The Torah requires full immersion
after Keri — normal emissions of semen, whether from sexual activity, or from nocturnal emission bathing in a mikveh due to Keri is known as tevilath Ezra ("the immersion of Ezra")
after Zav/Zavah — abnormal discharges of body fluids
after Tzaraath — certain skin condition(s). These are termed lepra in the Septuagint, and therefore traditionally translated into English as leprosy; this is probably a translation error, as the Greek term lepra mostly refers to psoriasis, and the Greek term for leprosy was elephas/elephantiasis.
by anyone who came into contact with someone suffering from Zav/Zavah, or into contact with someone still in Niddah (normal menstruation), or who comes into contact with articles that have been used or sat upon by such persons
by Jewish priests when they are being consecrated
by the Jewish high priest on Yom Kippur, after sending away the goat to Azazel, and by the man who leads away the goat
by the Jewish priest who performed the Red Heifer ritual
after contact with a corpse or grave, in addition to having the ashes of the Red heifer ritual sprinkled upon them
after eating meat from an animal that died naturally

******

Ring a Bell? That's EXACTLY what Zionist Jew John the Baptist was doing!

So Jesus was baptized as a Zionist Jew by a Zionist Jew. This should put and end to the question of Jesus' Zionism.

Of course! It was John the Baptist's job to make people think that one day, he will "Mikveh" the Messiah. And considering the turbulent times Jews were living under at the time, everybody was praying for the prophecized Messiah to come and save Israel from the Roman occupation. I assume John the Baptist's prayer went something like this: " dear lord oh God of Israel, let this be the Messiah" and then he would immerse the person in the water. I don't think it was any different whe it was done on Jesus.

Even today, when a Jewish male is born, orthodox and tradition Jews sing hymns about the possibility of the child being the Messiah during the circumcision. I've seen it in every circumcision I was invited to. I assume they chanted the same songs during my circumcision. How wrong they were! Ha ha ha.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Speculation is not needed about who Jesus is, He tells us who He is in The Bible. Jesus is who He says He is, we accept Him and believe in Him for who He says He is and shows us He is, by what He did and did not do in His life..."

Reminder to self:

Under no circumstances, never, ever again, attempt to conduct a rational exchange with this creature. She is not sane.

-------------------

Response to Crazy Sherriah:

You have one interpretation of the teachings and pronouncements and nature of Jesus.

Your interpretation is not the only interpretation, nor is it even a certainty that your interpretation is a correct one, or one of several correct ones.

The Lord God, King of the Universe, is bound to be far more flexible in outlook than the narrow straight jacket into which your interpretation attempts to limit him to.

You have no credentials for making authoritative pronouncements on such subject matter.

You presume to know the Mind of God in such matters; implicit in your certitude; you do not have to declare it.

Your presumption demonstrates arrogant self-certainty in the face of the Vast Unknown that the Ineffable One has presented to us.

For shame.