Zone1 The Ephod, according to Jewish teaching.

[Woodznutz]

You have already "proven" it. Just for my entertainment----tell me
the Jellybean definition of a PHARISEE

What's a "jellybean"?

Pharisees: An ancient Jewish sect that appropriated the Law and added things to it that even God wouldn't recognize.

Methinks they might still be here.

 

[irosie91]

What's a "jellybean"?

Pharisees: An ancient Jewish sect that appropriated the Law and added things to it that even God wouldn't recognize.

Methinks they might still be here.

oh -----ok -----you are jellybean valedictorian-----entertain me further. Can you tell
how the Pharisees evaluated the JOY OF STONING people to death?

 

[Woodznutz]

oh -----ok -----you are jellybean valedictorian-----entertain me further. Can you tell
how the Pharisees evaluated the JOY OF STONING people to death?

Were there Pharisees in Old Testament times? I searched and couldn't find any reference.

 

[irosie91]

Were there Pharisees in Old Testament times? I searched and couldn't find any reference.

what is "OLD TESTAMENT TIMES"? ------garden of eden??? thru ---uhm...500 BCE??
IMHO_---a reasonable "time of pharisees" would be coincident with the
Roman invasion of the landmass called "PALESTINE"----something like starting
about 100 BCE

 

[Woodznutz]

what is "OLD TESTAMENT TIMES"? ------garden of eden??? thru ---uhm...500 BCE??

Garden of Eden through around 33 A.D.

IMHO_---a reasonable "time of pharisees" would be coincident with the
Roman invasion of the landmass called "PALESTINE"----something like starting
about 100 BCE

So, the sect of the Pharisees (and therefore the "Judaizing" of the Law) was rather recent considering the history of ancient Israel.

 

[irosie91]

Garden of Eden through around 33 A.D.

So, the sect of the Pharisees (and therefore the "Judaizing" of the Law) was rather recent considering the history of ancient Israel.

oh gee---yet another convoluted bit of Roman sophistry

 

[Woodznutz]

oh gee---yet another convoluted bit of Roman sophistry

The Romans were repulsed by the Jews and their religion.

 

[irosie91]

The Romans were repulsed by the Jews and their religion.

Yes they were which is why Jesus tried to cleanse the Temple of the
ROMAN SHILL money changers in the Temple courtyard and why
CAIAPHAS----the Roman shill shit, on Jesus and Herod, the Roman
Shill, killed the Pharisee cousin of Jesus, to wit, JOHN THE BAPTIST.
Try taking a realistic read of YOUR BOOK

 

[Woodznutz]

Yes they were which is why Jesus tried to cleanse the Temple of the
ROMAN SHILL money changers in the Temple courtyard and why
CAIAPHAS----the Roman shill shit, on Jesus and Herod, the Roman
Shill, killed the Pharisee cousin of Jesus, to wit, JOHN THE BAPTIST.
Try taking a realistic read of YOUR BOOK

John the Baptist was not a Pharisee.

 

[irosie91]

John the Baptist was not a Pharisee.

SURE WAS

 

[irosie91]

BTW ----was HIGH PRIEST CAIPHAS a Pharisee according to the jelly
bean textbook? ----of course, Pontius Pilate was a SAINT on the
exalted plane of Caiphas and Adolf

 

[Woodznutz]

SURE WAS

Not a hint of it in my Bible.

 

[Woodznutz]

what is "OLD TESTAMENT TIMES"? ------garden of eden??? thru ---uhm...500 BCE??
IMHO_---a reasonable "time of pharisees" would be coincident with the
Roman invasion of the landmass called "PALESTINE"----something like starting
about 100 BCE

Close.

 

[irosie91]

Not a hint of it in my Bible.

the unprepared mind requires more than just a "hint". Consider John's opinion of the
"herodian royal family"

 

[Woodznutz]

the unprepared mind requires more than just a "hint". Consider John's opinion of the
"herodian royal family"

Matthew 14:4 – Why was is “not lawful” for Herod to marry Herodias?​

Problem: "Originally, Herod was married to the daughter of an Arabian King (Aretus). They probably had a peace treaty, because Aretus’ land bordered on Israel. However, Herod wanted to divorce his wife to marry Herodias. John repeatedly said that this was not lawful. The imperfect elegen means “repeatedly.” Thus Matthew 14:4 should be rendered, “For John had been repeatedly saying to him.” But why?

Solution: Herodias was Herod’s sister-in-law and niece. Carson writes, “Herodias was not only Antipas’s sister-in-law but also his niece, the daughter of his half-brother Aristobulus; but for most Jews there was no bar to marrying a niece.”[1] This is why John was protesting their marriage so vigorously. To add to the disgusting nature of this love affair, Herodias’ daughter (his niece’s daughter!) was the one dancing seductively for Herod. This means that if Herod married Herodias, then Herod would have been getting turned on by his step-daughter. Moreover, Herodias was okay with her daughter seducing her uncle and prospective lover and husband, because verse 8 states that the dancer was “prompted by her mother…”).
This is the picture of a horrendously dysfunctional family!"

What is your takeaway from this regarding John the Baptist?

 

[Woodznutz]

Anyway, the topic is the meaning and symbolism of the ephod, not John the Baptist.

 

[irosie91]

Matthew 14:4 – Why was is “not lawful” for Herod to marry Herodias?​

Problem: "Originally, Herod was married to the daughter of an Arabian King (Aretus). They probably had a peace treaty, because Aretus’ land bordered on Israel. However, Herod wanted to divorce his wife to marry Herodias. John repeatedly said that this was not lawful. The imperfect elegen means “repeatedly.” Thus Matthew 14:4 should be rendered, “For John had been repeatedly saying to him.” But why?

Solution: Herodias was Herod’s sister-in-law and niece. Carson writes, “Herodias was not only Antipas’s sister-in-law but also his niece, the daughter of his half-brother Aristobulus; but for most Jews there was no bar to marrying a niece.”[1] This is why John was protesting their marriage so vigorously. To add to the disgusting nature of this love affair, Herodias’ daughter (his niece’s daughter!) was the one dancing seductively for Herod. This means that if Herod married Herodias, then Herod would have been getting turned on by his step-daughter. Moreover, Herodias was okay with her daughter seducing her uncle and prospective lover and husband, because verse 8 states that the dancer was “prompted by her mother…”).
This is the picture of a horrendously dysfunctional family!"

What is your takeaway from this regarding John the Baptist?

not a whole lot. All the Pharisees OBJECTED to the Roman shill Edomite appointement
as "KING"------it was not legal------it was ROMAN CONTROL

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

SURE WAS

There is strong indication that John the Baptist was involved with Essenes, separating from urban communities.

 

[irosie91]

There is strong indication that John the Baptist was involved with Essenes, separating from urban communities.

could be---but their attitude toward the Roman occupation was no different from the
Pharisee