Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
^ 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:
Only if they are gentiles.Clearly, the caduceus is proof that doctors are unclean...
Yes, I understand you are cemented to the idea Jesus was a Pharisee. I have also read and done the research. Anyone could do similar research on me and assume I am anything from a non-denominational Christian to a Catholic priest. However, there are also a few boxes that can have anyone question either conclusion. I haven't a doubt that Jesus held many things in common with Pharisees. Shrug. Still doesn't make him one. But that theory is filed away.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
well hobie-------with all due respect to your mother, YOU ARE NOT HER FAULT.
Stop putting words in my mouth. Its dishonest. I never said the whole world is a parable. I said children stories use metaphors, analogies, parables etc to teach their children lessons just like educated Moses used figurative words to teach Hebrew children hard learned lessons of the past.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.
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
I doubt that someone who considered themselves a Pharisee would say this to the Pharisees;Yes, I understand you are cemented to the idea Jesus was a Pharisee.
You mean how you ignore grammar, and misunderstand who is speaking in Isaiah 52-53? Those are a couple of your errors.How is it an "error"?
No, it is experience seen through the lens of belief. Just own it already. It is your belief. There's no shame in that.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.
See, that's the problem. You see the Ramchal's text as a random book anyone can pick up and understand. But Jewish texts aren't built for that. When people who are untrained pick up the text, they think they understand without any foundation and they come to wrong conclusions. Anyone can pick up a calculus textbook and say all sorts of things are in it. But the problem is that the reader doesn't actually understand the book.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 actually a reference to a specific line from teh talmud but it doesn't actually reflect what RashBi said in the talmud. he used a technical word (p-t-r) to say that suffering can help exempt others from being held accountable for certain behaviors (nothing about "rectify"). In talmudic language, that word does not exonerate or pardon anyone, but it indicates that a person can avoid being judged in a heavenly court at a certain level. If you knew what RashBi was referring to (just check out the Gilyon Hashas on Masechet Sukkah 45b) you would see that this has to do with helping people not be stuck in Gehennom by balancing out evil with good (a power that sages have as explained at the end of tractate Chagigah). In Judaic texts there is an incredible amount of intextuality and references have to be traced. When you see the text in a vacuum, you misunderstand it. You want to encourage people to read superficially and think they understand. That is sad. Real learning requires investigation and study but that is beyond you.
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."
No, that's actually a consistent message in Judaic texts and in the theological construct into which the Ramchal writes.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.
That's a great belief. It isn't what the Ramchal writes about, but you can go with it if you want. The power a sage has to lead and to show others what suffering looks like and to help others avoid it is similar to many other things that can bring about repentance and which Judaic texts give power to. The standing temple, the clothes of the high priest and others. Each of these "effects atonement" but not vicariously -- only by inspiring others. Mix in the Ramchals invoking the talmudic idea that the good deeds of the sages can shield the popluace from Gehennom by balancing out good for evil and that one can give a part of his portion of the world to come to another, and you start to understand the complexity of the process. Or stay in your vacuum and let a translation of a section on a website do the thinking for you.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 Messiah's suffering, indeed leads us to repentance, but it's more than just us repenting and performing good works.
I invite Christians to read all the various texts that the Ramchal was referencing, and the other work of the Ramchal FIRST so that things actually make sense in a context. Otherwise, you will just look foolish, trying to quote page 100 before you know the references to the content of pages 1-99.I invite Christians to read what the RAMCHAL wrote and don't fall prey to Jewish counter-missionary arguments.
So you think that "koloom" and "qlum" sound the same? Wow.It was indeed a typo. Koloom or Qlum, means "nothing" in Hebrew,
So not a type, just sloppiness on your part. I can accept that.and I copy and pasted the wrong word from my AI because I failed to verify it.
You expose errors by making errors? Interesting technique.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.
I don't recall saying that. You are arguing with things that aren't said. I questioned "fallen angels." Judaism has an idea of demons (though it is a very esoteric idea). Demons are not related to angels though.Your religion doesn't recognize the existence of demons?
You really should read more carefully. First, your claim was that the term referred to "saints". No saints are mentioned here. Next, that same website says that the understanding that the term "son of man" refers to a messianic figure specifically excludes Jesus ("but not as a divine or semi-divine being. There is nothing in Daniel’s visionary experience to indicate that “one like a son of man’ is a divine being.") Finally, you seem to take the words of someone online as "gospel" but he also doesn't give any sourcwes so i would ask him the same thing I'm asking you. Just because he says, "We see" doesn't mean that his claim is any more supported than yours is. What is HIS source? Do you lack the intellectual curiosity and critical thinking skills to wonder about his source? Is a random page on the internet that persuasive to you? Just because a Jew wrote it online doesn't mean it represents Judaism. Lucky for you, I did some digging. The talmud (Sanhedrin 96 and 98) says that "son of man" is a reference to the messiah. The medrash says the same, as do the commentators. Only people who write websites seem to make the connection between the son of man phrase and any larger group, but when they do, they connect it to the entirety of the nation, not a subset of sages and saints as you did. Even the site you just quoted has "the people of Israel" and no smaller subset of that.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 manjewsforjudaism.org
They recognize that the human being in the vision is both Mashiach and the saints. Both.
Ah, cursing. The refuge of the inadequate. Did your mother teach you that method of discussion in second grade also? Stay classy!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.
there is actual evidence that Jesus was a Pharisee in the NT---clearly not PUT THEREI, 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.
gosh----and suradie agrees with that BS. The ROMAN AUTHORITIES were ROMANSThe Roman authorities
The Roman authorities weren't Christians until the 4th century AD. It wasn't the Christians who were slaughtering Jews, if anything it was the Jewish authorities who were persecuting Jewish Christians.
what makes a person a Pharisee?Yes, I understand you are cemented to the idea Jesus was a Pharisee. I have also read and done the research. Anyone could do similar research on me and assume I am anything from a non-denominational Christian to a Catholic priest. However, there are also a few boxes that can have anyone question either conclusion. I haven't a doubt that Jesus held many things in common with Pharisees. Shrug. Still doesn't make him one. But that theory is filed away.
The Roman authorities weren't Christians until the 4th century AD.
Yea, we know….the messiah is irrelevant to your faith because you aren’t a real Jew.No. It's because it's irrelevant to us and to our faith.
You mean how you ignore grammar, and misunderstand who is speaking in Isaiah 52-53? Those are a couple of your errors.
No, it is experience seen through the lens of belief. Just own it already. It is your belief. There's no shame in that.
See, that's the problem. You see the Ramchal's text as a random book anyone can pick up and understand. But Jewish texts aren't built for that. When people who are untrained pick up the text, they think they understand without any foundation and they come to wrong conclusions. Anyone can pick up a calculus textbook and say all sorts of things are in it. But the problem is that the reader doesn't actually understand the book.
That's actually a reference to a specific line from teh talmud but it doesn't actually reflect what RashBi said in the talmud. he used a technical word (p-t-r) to say that suffering can help exempt others from being held accountable for certain behaviors (nothing about "rectify"). In talmudic language, that word does not exonerate or pardon anyone, but it indicates that a person can avoid being judged in a heavenly court at a certain level. If you knew what RashBi was referring to (just check out the Gilyon Hashas on Masechet Sukkah 45b) you would see that this has to do with helping people not be stuck in Gehennom by balancing out evil with good (a power that sages have as explained at the end of tractate Chagigah). In Judaic texts there is an incredible amount of intextuality and references have to be traced. When you see the text in a vacuum, you misunderstand it. You want to encourage people to read superficially and think they understand. That is sad. Real learning requires investigation and study but that is beyond you.
No, that's actually a consistent message in Judaic texts and in the theological construct into which the Ramchal writes.
That's a great belief. It isn't what the Ramchal writes about, but you can go with it if you want. The power a sage has to lead and to show others what suffering looks like and to help others avoid it is similar to many other things that can bring about repentance and which Judaic texts give power to. The standing temple, the clothes of the high priest and others. Each of these "effects atonement" but not vicariously -- only by inspiring others. Mix in the Ramchals invoking the talmudic idea that the good deeds of the sages can shield the popluace from Gehennom by balancing out good for evil and that one can give a part of his portion of the world to come to another, and you start to understand the complexity of the process. Or stay in your vacuum and let a translation of a section on a website do the thinking for you.
I invite Christians to read all the various texts that the Ramchal was referencing, and the other work of the Ramchal FIRST so that things actually make sense in a context. Otherwise, you will just look foolish, trying to quote page 100 before you know the references to the content of pages 1-99.
So you think that "koloom" and "qlum" sound the same? Wow.
So not a type, just sloppiness on your part. I can accept that.
You expose errors by making errors? Interesting technique.
I don't recall saying that. You are arguing with things that aren't said. I questioned "fallen angels." Judaism has an idea of demons (though it is a very esoteric idea). Demons are not related to angels though.
You really should read more carefully. First, your claim was that the term referred to "saints". No saints are mentioned here. Next, that same website says that the understanding that the term "son of man" refers to a messianic figure specifically excludes Jesus ("but not as a divine or semi-divine being. There is nothing in Daniel’s visionary experience to indicate that “one like a son of man’ is a divine being.") Finally, you seem to take the words of someone online as "gospel" but he also doesn't give any sourcwes so i would ask him the same thing I'm asking you. Just because he says, "We see" doesn't mean that his claim is any more supported than yours is. What is HIS source? Do you lack the intellectual curiosity and critical thinking skills to wonder about his source? Is a random page on the internet that persuasive to you? Just because a Jew wrote it online doesn't mean it represents Judaism. Lucky for you, I did some digging. The talmud (Sanhedrin 96 and 98) says that "son of man" is a reference to the messiah. The medrash says the same, as do the commentators. Only people who write websites seem to make the connection between the son of man phrase and any larger group, but when they do, they connect it to the entirety of the nation, not a subset of sages and saints as you did. Even the site you just quoted has "the people of Israel" and no smaller subset of that.
You aren't using your sources very well.
and end to death?Yea, we know….the messiah is irrelevant to your faith because you aren’t a real Jew.
Judaism 2.0 believes the messiah that will bring and end to death and sin and renew the world will be a political leader only.
Yea, we know….the messiah is irrelevant to your faith because you aren’t a real Jew.
Judaism 2.0 believes the messiah that will bring and end to death and sin and renew the world will be a political leader only.
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
Ah, cursing. The refuge of the inadequate. Did your mother teach you that method of discussion in second grade also? Stay classy!
and end to death?
Where is your proof of this?Before 325c.e. Jesus was not a trinity or a god, the communal meal was talking about the teachings of Jesus not eating him in the form of bread and wine and the law was not abolished or obsolete, only the wrong way to follow the law became obsolete after the revelation of Jesus
