Zone1 Explaining Jesus to a Jew

[hobelim]

Of course you never talk about him, Jews never talk about Jesus or anything New Testament, or Old Testament courses that are uncomfortable.

The way Christians present their faith in Jesus, that he was an edible mangod, is repulsive.

You might as well tattoo INSANE on your forehead.

What makes me uncomfortable is you dimwits trying to usurp places of authority in government to legislate your perverted views of the world, especially morality, on the population without having even an inking about the meaning of the words or subjects about which you are so dogmatic.

 

[irosie91]

Of course you never talk about him, Jews never talk about Jesus or anything New Testament, or Old Testament courses that are uncomfortable.

Jews are intentionally kept in the dark about their own Messiah. It’s shocking how many Jews have never even heard the words from their own Tanakh:

wrong again----Jews do not talk about Jesus because DOING so instigated pogroms and
genocidal actions in christian societies since SAINT CONSTANTINE took over.

 

[irosie91]

Mr Nutz DENIES 2000 years of history-----first, second and third Reichs

Ms buttercup also denies

 

[rosends]

And good luck with screwing around over whats for dinner.

you think that putting cream cheese on bread and making a cup of iced tea is screwing around? OK then...

I have made known to you something of great value.

yes, the value of an overactive imagination

Don't think that I didn't notice you slipping it into your pocket.

I'll need something to laugh at later.

 

[hobelim]

you think that putting cream cheese on bread and making a cup of iced tea is screwing around? OK then...

Well yes, if you think you are performing a religious duty by avoiding bacon.

yes, the value of an overactive imagination

At least that gives you something to strive for. An active imagination, restrained by reality, is essential to deciphering the deep mysterious and extremely complicated metaphors of ancient Hebrew nomads like talking snakes and talking donkeys. Take that and eat it. You're welcome!

I'll need something to laugh at later.

Right, like the king with no clothes was laughing when he realized that he was naked.

 

[rosends]

Well yes, if you think you are performing a religious duty by avoiding bacon.

I am. Your thinking I'm not is like a Russian telling an American he isn't obeying the speed limit by driving 55 because the speed limit is really about something else. Who cares what a Russian says about American law?

At least that gives you something to strive for. An active imagination, restrained by reality, is essential to deciphering the deep mysterious and extremely complicated metaphors of ancient Hebrew nomads like talking snakes and talking donkeys. Take that and eat it. You're welcome!

I do strive for an imagination like yours because I like to write fiction and want it to be as imaginative as yours.

Right, like the king with no clothes was laughing when he realized that he was naked.

More like the king with the clothes laughing at the naked person insisting that "getting dressed" isn't about clothes.

 

[buttercup]

Of course you never talk about him, Jews never talk about Jesus or anything New Testament, or Old Testament courses that are uncomfortable.

Jews are intentionally kept in the dark about their own Messiah. It’s shocking how many Jews have never even heard the words from their own Tanakh:

^ True, but I think the veil is starting to lift because more and more Jews are coming to faith in Yeshua Hamashiach. There are tons of truly amazing, beautiful testimonies on YouTube of Messianic Jews.

Here's one of the channels I like. I was subscribed to this guy's other channel before he became a Christian, because he's plantbased... so it was SO cool to see that he became a Christian, and his story is amazing. God was working on him, his wife, and his son - all at the same time but separately - and none of them knew what was going on with the others, until it all came out, and then they all gave their lives to Yeshua / Jesus.

Here's his testimony, it's kind of long so I set the video to start about half way through it, where he starts talking about how he and his family came to faith:

 

[hobelim]

I am. Your thinking I'm not is like a Russian telling an American he isn't obeying the speed limit by driving 55 because the speed limit is really about something else. Who cares what a Russian says about American law?

I would care if they presented an irrefutable and irresistible rational argument. But this isn't about American or Russian any more than it is about Jew or Gentile, its about the hidden meaning of the words and subjects in kosher law which anyone can read whatever their beliefs or religion and see for themselves that what I have made known to you is the only rational way to understand the will of God and see the benevolent wisdom in his law, given as a light to the nations. I am extremely astonished that you have been ignorant of these things for your entire life. Its just sad, really sad.

"Time was when many were aghast at you, my people, and so now many nations recoil at sight of him, and kings curl their lips in disgust; for they see what they had never been told and things unheard before fill their thoughts."

Have a nice day!

 

[rosends]

I would care if they presented an irrefutable and irresistible rational argument.

And I would care if a non-Jew presented something on that level about Judaism. I haven't seen it happen.

its about the hidden meaning of the words and subjects in kosher law which anyone can read whatever their beliefs or religion and see for themselves that what I have made known to you is the only rational way to understand the will of God and see the benevolent wisdom in his law, given as a light to the nations. I am extremely astonished that you have been ignorant of these things for your entire life. Its just sad, really sad.

That's a wonderful sense of self-importance that you have. You read something fanciful in and decide that it is the right way to see the text and is the only way to understand it. I'm not surprised at this level of arrogance; I'm amused by it.

 

[Meriweather]

ok----on faith and poetry----I believe that a bunch of jews were sorta stuck in Egypt and then left--
I am not so sure that Moses Heston waved his magic wand and the sea parted---but it is
nice on faith and poetry. I believe that a Jesus---or a few dozen people named "jesus"
were crucified by the Romans. A cult developed around one of the more charismatic of the
several "Jesuses" ----sorry--but I am an equal opportunity cynic. Based on my reading of
the NT (in english translation)---the Jesus in question was a typical Pharisee jew of his
time and got transformed to a symbol of the hatred "SAINT" constantine harbored for
Jews who rejected his autocratic empire - the FIRST REICH

I am familiar with your theory Jesus was a Pharisee, but am also aware of reasons why he was not. First of all, he was called a Nazarene, not a Pharisee. A lot of folklore emerged about the town of Nazareth after Jesus, but it has been nearly impossible to learn much about Nazareth beforehand--at least not from Jewish/Hebrew sources. A dot here, a dot there--and connecting them is pure speculation. Apparently, Nazareth comes from the same root as the Hebrew for "shoot" (as in "a shoot will spring from the stump of Jesse"). There is also mention of a priestly class of Nazareth.

Up until the time of Constantine it was inhabitant only by Jews, and apparently only had a population of 150-200 people.

Speculation is that some of King David's court were released from captivity, but did not return to Jerusalem, instead settling in the hills of Nazareth. Another speculation that Nazareth was the home of a Jewish sect, known as the Nazarenes. Mary was also thought to have served as a Temple virgin.

My best supposition is that some descendants of Jesse settled in Nazareth, and became a sect of Judaism known as the Nazarenes. Definitely Jews, but perhaps not in what may have been a stricter practice in Jerusalem and the Pharisees who resided there. The Gospels tell us that Jesus was close to some Pharisees of his time--but not all. Being told of Jesus, one of his apostles is noted to have said, Can anything good come out of Nazareth. This is possibly an indication that practitioners of the Jewish faith in Jerusalem, thought the sect in Nazareth wasn't quite up to the standard of those in Jerusalem. It could also be why some Pharisees thought they were of a higher class and butted heads with Jesus. (Other Pharisees were noticeably taken with him.)

Anyway...speculation based on theories of other studies....

 

[irosie91]

Ok, so call them a serpent, like you never called anyone a snake.

FYI the pharaoh wore a serpent on his headdress. but maybe that has nothing to do with the fairy tale designed to educate people and their children who just came out of bondage in Egypt. Right.


View attachment 808148

the snake is a very prevalent symbol for HUMANS----it shows up in dreams---sorta
universally-----see Freud "ON DREAMS"

so true-----Poor Jesus----a conscientious Pharisee Jew-----so misunderstood
over 2000 years

buttercup disagrees-----THEREFORE she is claiming familiarity with the
writings of Hillel. For the record--Hillel died in Jerusalem at about the time
Jesus is said to have been born. He was VERY MUCH QUOTED in that society
back then and still is-----by jews and even some christians.

I am familiar with your theory Jesus was a Pharisee, but am also aware of reasons why he was not. First of all, he was called a Nazarene, not a Pharisee. A lot of folklore emerged about the town of Nazareth after Jesus, but it has been nearly impossible to learn much about Nazareth beforehand--at least not from Jewish/Hebrew sources. A dot here, a dot there--and connecting them is pure speculation. Apparently, Nazareth comes from the same root as the Hebrew for "shoot" (as in "a shoot will spring from the stump of Jesse"). There is also mention of a priestly class of Nazareth.

Up until the time of Constantine it was inhabitant only by Jews, and apparently only had a population of 150-200 people.

Speculation is that some of King David's court were released from captivity, but did not return to Jerusalem, instead settling in the hills of Nazareth. Another speculation that Nazareth was the home of a Jewish sect, known as the Nazarenes. Mary was also thought to have served as a Temple virgin.

My best supposition is that some descendants of Jesse settled in Nazareth, and became a sect of Judaism known as the Nazarenes. Definitely Jews, but perhaps not in what may have been a stricter practice in Jerusalem and the Pharisees who resided there. The Gospels tell us that Jesus was close to some Pharisees of his time--but not all. Being told of Jesus, one of his apostles is noted to have said, Can anything good come out of Nazareth. This is possibly an indication that practitioners of the Jewish faith in Jerusalem, thought the sect in Nazareth wasn't quite up to the standard of those in Jerusalem. It could also be why some Pharisees thought they were of a higher class and butted heads with Jesus. (Other Pharisees were noticeably taken with him.)

Anyway...speculation based on theories of other studies....

Nazareth was not unknown and the idea that NAZARETH was populated by or home to the
NAZIRITES is risible-----I grew up in JERSEY-----but I am not a milk cow. "NAZARENES" are not
a "sect of Judaism"----it is more like a self ascribed condition---like joining up with the essenes
or, for that matter, being a PHARISEE. Jesus did hang around with Pharisees as noted in the NT
and he acted very consistent with BEING a Pharisee----most emphatically in his attempt to kick
the money changers out of the Temple court yard----the fact that CAIAPHAS opposed him
and the fact that he quoted Hillel incessantly and even the fact that he was LITERATE. His
status as being a Pharisee is NAILED by the fact that he was crucified-----being a Pharisee
was just about the only reason for being crucified in Judea----cousin John was also an
OBVIOUS Pharisee. Pharisees were very into Mikvehs and the idea of being prepared
for the COMING "end" as per Isaiah

 

[Meriweather]

NAZARETH was populated by or home to the
NAZIRITES

Pay attention. I said nothing about Nazarites--an entirely different group and subject! They certainly weren't residents of Nazareth, not as far as anything I have read.

 

[hobelim]

And I would care if a non-Jew presented something on that level about Judaism. I haven't seen it happen.

Thats a shame.

That's a wonderful sense of self-importance that you have. You read something fanciful in and decide that it is the right way to see the text and is the only way to understand it. I'm not surprised at this level of arrogance; I'm amused by it.

Self importance? Arrogance? Pft.

By the time I first heard about Adam and Eve and the talkings serpent in the second grade I understood immediately that it was just like a fairy tale with a moral to the story or teaching that was not written down but only alluded to through the use of metaphors, analogies, homonyms, hyperbole, etc. well know teaching devices. I had already known this about children stories for half my life by then since my mother explained all of these things to me at 4 years old when I heard about the three pigs, goldilocks, little red riding hood, the boy who cried wolf, and the pied piper.

And not one nation ever built a religion based on the big bad wolf eating grandma. Imagine that!

Maybe you shouldn't limit yourself to Jewish fairy tales, Gentiles have learned a thing or two about how to teach their children hard learned lessons from the past just as effectively as Moses did.

Its a shame that the teaching intended to be understood by children remains above your grasp.

Be amused as much as you like. Its not even half as amused as I am by your obstinate stupidity.

 

[Meriweather]

being a Pharisee
was just about the only reason for being crucified in Judea----cousin John was also an
OBVIOUS Pharisee. Pharisees were very into Mikvehs and the idea of being prepared
for the COMING "end" as per Isaiah

Yes, I already understood your arguments. From years back. They haven't changed.

 

[Red Front]

But when you base your purported meaning on errors, you end up with a mistaken conclusion.

Take a look at those 2 sentences. The first says "we believe" and the second says "it isn't just a belief." You seem confused.

If someone were to pick up a calculus book and try to understand it without knowing other math, one might come up with all sorts of misunderstandings. It is strange that you think that it is important for anyone, and especially anyone who has no background in either ther language or the ideas, to take an advanced and highly technical text and twist it so it goes along with your beliefs.

Only because you don't understand the Ramchal. I can get you material to help you out if you want.

He did say a lot more, but said it in a particular way which requires that you have studied earlier works, which you haven't. So your knee jerk reaction to a literal read of a section posted on a website is a bad idea.

Your ignorance of the text and the tradition into which it was written is sad and a poor attempt to convince people that a Jewish writer said something that supports your twisted theology. Clearly you didn't read Messilat Yesharim, or even learn the D"H in order from the beginning so you would understand any of it. Sad.


Because it is. Good point.

Only if you misunderstand what the Ramchal is saying. The more you try to prove your belief by latching on to your mistaken ideas about the Ramchal, the sadder you sound. You need the anchor in Jewish thought because without it your entire theology floats away. Strange that through all the years, Jewish thinkers and sages haven't read the Ramchal and then accepted what you are saying. But I guess you know better than any and every Jewish person who has ever studied the Ramchal because a website has a snippet in English and you think you understand it.

No, I refer to the exact thing the Ramchal wrote about starting a process, a sequence of events, and tie it to an entire corpus of Jewish writing which discusses this idea. You try to pull this one idea out and read it in a vacuum so you can support what you want it to mean. It doesn't work like that.

Typo? Misspelling in Hebrew and mis-transliteration in English? Not a type. You just don't know the word you are copying and pasting.

Reality dictates "fallen angels"? What color is the sky in your world?


According to your brand of Christianity I guess.

According to whom?

The Artscroll says "also"? So the artscroll says that it refers to saints first and the messiah "also"? Can you scan in that commentary?

That's great and I love to learn new things -- where is this interpretation from? You refer to 7:18 which names a different group to invoke the idea of the holy people, no reference to the messiah, and not the same word as the one used earlier to refer to the messiah. Verse 13 says "like a son of man" (k'var enosh) and 7:18 then talks about קַדִּישֵׁ֖י עֶלְיוֹנִ֑ין a plural and different group. Deciding that the two refer to the same thing is what I'm looking for a source for. Do you have one?

But when you base your purported meaning on errors, you end up with a mistaken conclusion.

How is it an "error"?

Take a look at those 2 sentences. The first says "we believe" and the second says "it isn't just a belief." You seem confused.

Yes, we believe and it's not just that, it's more. It's an experience, it's miracles in the Name of Jesus Christ, it's scripture..etc. It's more than just a conviction or belief.

If someone were to pick up a calculus book and try to understand it without knowing other math, one might come up with all sorts of misunderstandings. It is strange that you think that it is important for anyone, and especially anyone who has no background in either ther language or the ideas, to take an advanced and highly technical text and twist it so it goes along with your beliefs.

Only because you don't understand the Ramchal. I can get you material to help you out if you want.

He did say a lot more, but said it in a particular way which requires that you have studied earlier works, which you haven't. So your knee jerk reaction to a literal read of a section posted on a website is a bad idea.

Your ignorance of the text and the tradition into which it was written is sad and a poor attempt to convince people that a Jewish writer said something that supports your twisted theology. Clearly you didn't read Messilat Yesharim, or even learn the D"H in order from the beginning so you would understand any of it. Sad.

Only if you misunderstand what the Ramchal is saying. The more you try to prove your belief by latching on to your mistaken ideas about the Ramchal, the sadder you sound. You need the anchor in Jewish thought because without it your entire theology floats away. Strange that through all the years, Jewish thinkers and sages haven't read the Ramchal and then accepted what you are saying. But I guess you know better than any and every Jewish person who has ever studied the Ramchal because a website has a snippet in English and you think you understand it.

Anyone can read it and see for themselves that the RAMCHAL wasn't saying that people would just witness the righteous suffering and would repent, and that's it. That's according to you, the extent of the power and effect of the suffering of the righteous. You're asserting that the morally deficient or unrighteous will see the righteous suffering, causing them to feel ashamed or guilty, leading them to repentance. That's the extent of the effect of the suffering of the righteous, according to you. That's clearly not what the RAMCHAL is saying:

"Individuals such as these, however, are themselves perfect and are therefore worthy only of good. The only reason that they suffer is because of others, and the Attribute of Justice must therefore be as satisfied with a small amount of suffering on their part as with a large amount on the part of those who actually sinned.

Beyond that, the merit and power of these tzaddikim is also increased because of such suffering, and this gives them even greater ability to rectify the damage of others. They can therefore not only rectify their own generation, but can also correct all of the spiritual damage done from the beginning, from the time of the very first sinners."

The above is just a snippet of what I originally cited in a previous post.

Are the sinners of the past also witnessing the righteous of the present suffering and repenting? It's supposedly, according to you, really just the merits of the wicked who repent and are benefited by their own repentance and good works. That's clearly not what the RAMCHAL is saying, you're the one who is twisting his words. Anything other than those in need of repentance, repenting and doing good works, increasing their own personal merits before YHWH, is according to you, "magic". How convenient.

Your disingenuous reductionism and sophistry might work with others, but not with me and my brothers and sisters in Christ, who read the text for themselves. Your attempt to obfuscate the obvious by pretending that it doesn't say what it clearly says isn't convincing at all. Only Jews like you are convinced because to believe otherwise is to acknowledge ideas that are "too Christian". God forbid that the RAMCHAL is spewing Christian concepts of vicarious atonement from his book. Anyone can read what he clearly said and come to his own conclusions, without needing a degree from a Yeshiva or becoming a "kabbalah" scholar (a scholar of Jewish mystical gobbledygook).


No, I refer to the exact thing the Ramchal wrote about starting a process, a sequence of events.....

The so called "sequence of events" that you continually appeal to isn't just people repenting of their sins and earning their place in the world to come through their own good works and merits. You're imposing that
upon the text. The RAMCHAL writes:

"In addition, there is a special, higher type of suffering that comes to a tzaddik who is even greater and more perfected than the ones discussed above. This suffering comes to provide the help necessary to bring about the chain of events leading to the ultimate perfection of mankind as a whole. According to the original plan, the sequence of worldly events required that man undergo at least some suffering before both he and the world could attain perfection. This was required by the very fact that one of the basic concepts of man’s predicament was that Hashem should hold back His Light and hide His Presence. This became all the more necessary as a result of the corruption and spiritual damage caused by man’s many sins, which held the good back even more and caused Hashem’s presence to become all the more hidden. The world and everything in it are therefore in a degraded evil state, and require that Hashem’s unfathomable wisdom bring about numerous chains of events to achieve their rectification."

What are the numerous chains of events to rectify all of the corruption in creation caused by man's sin? Let's continue reading...

"Among the most important elements of this sequence is the requirement that man be punished for his wickedness until the Attribute of Justice is satisfied. Hashem arranged matters, however, so that select perfect individuals could rectify things for others, as discussed earlier. The Attribute of Justice therefore relates to them rather than to the rest of the world in general."

The justice of YHWH falls upon the perfect ones, who take upon themselves a measure of YHWH's wrath or condemnation. Let's continue reading....

"Individuals such as these, however, are themselves perfect, and are therefore worthy only of good. The only reason that they suffer is because of others, and the Attribute of Justice must therefore be as satisfied with a small amount of suffering on their part as with a large amount on the part of those who actually sinned.

Beyond that, the merit and power of these tzaddikim is also increased because of such suffering, and this gives them even greater ability to rectify the damage of others. They can therefore not only rectify their own generation, but can also correct all of the spiritual damage done from the beginning, from the time of the very first sinners."

Your copout argument that it's just the sinners feeling guilty for their sins when they witness the suffering of the righteous, and hence through the sinner's own repentance and good works, they rectify themselves, free of any vicarious elements or power of the suffering of the righteous, exposes your inability or unwillingness to properly interpret the text. The suffering of the perfect has a spiritual, cosmic effect on YHWH's creation and all of mankind, beyond just inspiring people to repent. In Christianity, we believe that the Messiah's suffering, indeed leads us to repentance, but it's more than just us repenting and performing good works.

You're devaluing the merits and hence spiritual power of the suffering of the righteous, reducing it to simply inspiring people to repent and earn their place in the world to come, through their own good works and personal merits. That's not what the RAMCHAL is saying. You're the one who is twisting his words, not me.


, and tie it to an entire corpus of Jewish writing which discusses this idea. You try to pull this one idea out and read it in a vacuum so you can support what you want it to mean. It doesn't work like that.

I invite Christians to read what the RAMCHAL wrote and don't fall prey to Jewish counter-missionary arguments. my brothers and sisters. These un-believing Jews are anti-Christ/anti-Messiah, don't fall for their dishonest, split-tongue arguments (these people are spiritually dead without Jesus Christ). Their carnal sophistry will lead you to a dry spiritual desert devoid of God's presence and salvation. All they have is a dead-religion, without Messiah or YHWH's Holy Spirit.

Typo? Misspelling in Hebrew and mis-transliteration in English? Not a type. You just don't know the word you are copying and pasting.

It was indeed a typo. Koloom or Qlum, means "nothing" in Hebrew, and yes I copied and pasted the wrong word from my AI because I failed to verify it. That doesn't render my point wrong. A person doesn't need to be a Hebrew scholar to expose the errors of rabbinic Judaism or understand the Bible.

Reality dictates "fallen angels"? What color is the sky in your world?

Yes, reality itself confirms the existence of fallen angels/evil spirits/demons. Your religion doesn't recognize the existence of demons? You have your head in the sand, like an ostrich, if you deny the existence of demonic forces.

​

According to your brand of Christianity I guess.
According to whom? The Artscroll says "also"? So the artscroll says that it refers to saints first and the messiah "also"? Can you scan in that commentary? That's great and I love to learn new things -- where is this interpretation from? You refer to 7:18 which names a different group to invoke the idea of the holy people, no reference to the messiah, and not the same word as the one used earlier to refer to the messiah. Verse 13 says "like a son of man" (k'var enosh) and 7:18 then talks about קַדִּישֵׁ֖י עֶלְיוֹנִ֑ין a plural and different group. Deciding that the two refer to the same thing is what I'm looking for a source for. Do you have one?

Your own Jewish anti-missionary buddies wrote this:

​

"We see that in both Daniel 7:13-14 and 7:27 the terms “one like a son of man” and “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” refer collectively to the people of Israel who will receive worldwide authority and obedience. Rabbinical exegesis applied the term “one like a son of man” to the Messiah...."
Source:

Chapter 44 - ONE LIKE THE SON OF MAN

(Daniel 7:13-14, 27) Christians often cite Daniel 7:13-14 as proof that the Messiah is to be a divine being. - One like the son of man

jewsforjudaism.org

They recognize that the human being in the vision is both Mashiach and the saints. Both. The whole world will "obey" the Jews and the Mashiach. The Jews will be the lords of the world, over the "goyim". That's "salvation" from the rabbinic Jewish perspective. The Jewish political leader will convince the world to see him as the King and the Jews as the aristocracy of humanity, which will consign the Gentiles to eternal servitude, to the Jews.

​

 

[rosends]

Maybe you shouldn't limit yourself to Jewish fairy tales, Gentiles have learned a thing or two about how to teach their children hard learned lessons from the past just as effectively as Moses did.

I guess I don't see certain things as fairy tales. The question of whether one should take them (only) literally or not is discussed in many Jewish contexts. But no one in those circles sees them as fairy tales. I guess when your religious books are predicated on "parables" you start to see everything as a parable. Sadly, your understanding of the world was clearly stunted by your second grade experiences and your discussions with your mother. When you are ready to continue growing up, let me know.

 

[irosie91]

the snake is a very prevalent symbol for HUMANS----it shows up in dreams---sorta
universally-----see Freud "ON DREAMS"

buttercup disagrees-----THEREFORE she is claiming familiarity with the
writings of Hillel. For the record--Hillel died in Jerusalem at about the time
Jesus is said to have been born. He was VERY MUCH QUOTED in that society
back then and still is-----by jews and even some christians.

Nazareth was not unknown and the idea that NAZARETH was populated by or home to the
NAZIRITES is risible-----I grew up in JERSEY-----but I am not a milk cow. "NAZARENES" are not
a "sect of Judaism"----it is more like a self ascribed condition---like joining up with the essenes
or, for that matter, being a PHARISEE. Jesus did hang around with Pharisees as noted in the NT
and he acted very consistent with BEING a Pharisee----most emphatically in his attempt to kick
the money changers out of the Temple court yard----the fact that CAIAPHAS opposed him
and the fact that he quoted Hillel incessantly and even the fact that he was LITERATE. His
status as being a Pharisee is NAILED by the fact that he was crucified-----being a Pharisee
was just about the only reason for being crucified in Judea----cousin John was also an
OBVIOUS Pharisee. Pharisees were very into Mikvehs and the idea of being prepared
for the COMING "end" as per Isaiah

Pay attention. I said nothing about Nazarites--an entirely different group and subject! They certainly weren't residents of Nazareth, not as far as anything I have read.

oh---so you differ from other "anti-pharisee" Persons-----you have theorized a sect
called NAZARENES. Do you have anything at all on this arcane sect that even
Josephus managed to miss? I should add that I did not pick up the idea that
Jesus was a Pharisee from some sort of Pro-jesus was a pharisee--propaganda.
I just read the NT and OT and lots of writings of the time----most of it---christian.
I had information------that made it clear to me that Jesus was a PHARISEE and heard
it much later from scholars of that period-----ie they confirmed a conclusion that
reached myself. I also got familiar with the VERY ANTI PHARISEE ideation of the
Protestant and Catholic churches because I grew up in a Protestant/Catholic town..
In english literature "PHARISEE" is a dirty word (I got that from reading what I read
THE MOST----english literature) IMHO---it is virtually impossible for a person reared
with the idea of Jesus as terrific and reared in our society of PHARISEE THE DIRTY WORD,
to accept ((((the fact)))) that he was a Pharisee---the ROMANS HATED THE PHARISEES
and happily went about MURDERING THEM WHOLESALE----so Jesus cannot be a Pharisee

 

[hobelim]

I guess I don't see certain things as fairy tales. The question of whether one should take them (only) literally or not is discussed in many Jewish contexts. But no one in those circles sees them as fairy tales. I guess when your religious books are predicated on "parables" you start to see everything as a parable. Sadly, your understanding of the world was clearly stunted by your second grade experiences and your discussions with your mother. When you are ready to continue growing up, let me know.

The problem I had in the second grade was that adults were trying to convince me that these were historical documents, to no avail, because I was armed by my mother, and father for that matter, how to understand metaphors, parables if you must, and to beware of con artists, liars, and fraud.

BTW. Stunted by discussions with my mother about fairy tales? What a low life! FUCK YOU.

 

[irosie91]

The problem I had in the second grade was that adults were trying to convince me that these were historical documents, to no avail, because I was armed by my mother, and father for that matter, how to understand metaphors, parables if you must, and to beware of con artists, liars, and fraud.

And BTW. stunted by my mother? What a low life! FUCK YOU

well hobie-------with all due respect to your mother, YOU ARE NOT HER FAULT. The
fact is that the WHOLE WORLD IS NOT A PARABLE-----you skate around the idea ---
all the world is a parable so much that you justify every conspiracy theory that was
ever thrust down the throats of highly SENSITIVE pubescents. Read a bit in the subject
of anthropology----dietary laws, agricultural laws, DEVELOPE in various cultures for
very practical survival and economic and ecological reasons----not as PARABLES

 

[Meriweather]

oh---so you differ from other "anti-pharisee" Persons-----you have theorized a sect
called NAZARENES. Do you have anything at all on this arcane sect that even
Josephus managed to miss?

I, myself, theorize nothing. I read and do research and present the theories of others. I already know Josephus didn't mention them, just as he did not mention many other Jewish sects. Note the scant population of Nazareth and how little was recorded at that time by any Jew at all. Rumors that they were offshoots of Jesse. Rumors that they had been released from captivity but chose not to return to Jerusalem. Rumors that they (or some) were of a priestly class. Jesus was called a Nazarene. And, the comment whether anything good come from there.

Keep in mind Josephus did not name every other town and village in Israel.

It is a theory I file away...just like the theory of Jesus being a Pharisee. I don't marry theories or possibilities--merely make note of as many that cross my path.