Something Bad Jesus Did

[Ben Masada]

Sorry, Ben, but are you saying that Maimonides did not refer to an individual when he referred to the expected Messiah? If you are saying that, I read him (Maimonides) differently. He gave specific criteria by which the "true," as he saw it, Messiah would be identified, and those criteria, it seems to me, clearly referred to a specific individual.

That's exactly what I said. Would you please quote to me where he believed in an individual Messiah?
Ben

 

[Servetus]

That's exactly what I said. Would you please quote to me where he believed in an individual Messiah?

I don’t have my copy of Jacob Minkin’s book at hand, but I did a Google search on the parts of it that I recall, more specifically the part where Maimonides says King Messiah will “fight the battles of the Lord,” which, to me, sounds like some sort of jihad, and found this, which is close to Minkin:

"King Messiah will arise in the future and will restore the kingship of David to its ancient condition, to its rule as it was at first. And he will rebuild the Temple and gather the exiled of Israel. And in his days all the laws will return as they were in the past. They will offer up sacrifices, and will observe the Sabbatical years and the jubilee years with regard to all the commandments stated in the Torah. And he who does not believe in him, or he who does not await his coming, denies not only the [other] prophets, but also the Torah and Moses our Master. For, behold, the Torah testifies about him [the Messiah] ...

I see him but not now ((Num. 24:17), this refers to David; I behold him but not nigh (ibid.) this refers to King Messiah; A star shall step forth out of Jacob (ibid.) this refers to King David; A star shall step forth out of Jacob (ibid.), this refers to David; and a scepter shall rise out of Israel (ibid.) this refers to King Messiah …

And think not that the Messiah must perform signs and portents and bring about new things in the world, or that he will resuscitate the dead, or the like. Not so …

And if there should arise from the House of David a king, who studies the Torah and occupies himself with the commandments as his father David had, according to the written and oral Torah; and if he forces all Israel to follow the Torah and observe its rules; and if he fights the wars of the Lord—then he must be presumed be the Messiah. And if he succeeds in his acts, and rebuilds the Temple in its place, and gathers the exiled of Israel—then he certainly is the Messiah. And he will repair the whole world to serve the Lord together, as it is written, For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language that they may call upon the name of the Lord to serve Him with one consent (Zeph. 3:9)"

I could continue with the quotation, but I think this is sufficient to show that the Messiah Maimonides has in mind is an individual, not a collective.

 

[Servetus]

Addendum:


I was bumped from the network yesterday, just as I posted the above, and was unable to cite a source. Here is another translation. Please note Chapter Eleven.

 

[Servetus]

Hi Ben,

… Paul was the one who wrote the Letter to the Galatians. In Galatians 4:21-31 he compares the Sinaitic Covenant to Hagar the servant of Sara and the Jews to Ismael. Then, he compares Christianity to Sara and Christians to Isaac. At the end, he advises to cast away Hagar with her son on the reason that they cannot share the inheritance with Christianity. That's Replacement Theology. The replacement of Judaism by Christianity.

Exactemente! Now if only we could schedule you, Sunday next, to be the guest speaker at AIPAC’s man in the pulpit, John Hagee’s synagogue, we might finally have done with the “two equally valid and simultaneous Covenants” theory which he and his battalion of like-minded Christian Zionistas are forever propounding.

If Jesus was trying to become a Talmudist, it is perfectly acceptable; it was all around, but a Christian? It did not exist yet.

On the contrary, Jesus was both preaching and teaching it. And, though we are now within the realm of pure speculation, I doubt that, had he been allowed to survive on the physical plane, the man who reportedly warned of the “leaven of the Pharisees” would grow up to become a Talmudist. It is probably because of my vestigial Protestant bias, but, had Jesus not instead become the world’s first Christian, I suspect that he would have aligned himself with the sola scriptura Karaites and, together with them, would have called the (by way of rough analogy) magisterial Rabbinic Talmudists, with their claims to and interpretations of an Oral Law, onto the carpet or wrestling mat. Oh, but wait: that he in any case did.


Best regards,

Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

Maimonides says King Messiah will “fight the battles of the Lord,” which, to me, sounds like some sort of jihad, and found this, which is close to Minkin:

Maimonides was referring to Israel as a nation of priests and kings; a holy nation, according to Exodus 19:6. Hence, Israel as the king Messiah. Jesus did not fight the battles of the Lord. Therefore, he was not the Messiah.

"King Messiah will arise in the future and will restore the kingship of David to its ancient condition, to its rule as it was at first. And he will rebuild the Temple and gather the exiled of Israel. And in his days all the laws will return as they were in the past. They will offer up sacrifices, and will observe the Sabbatical years and the jubilee years with regard to all the commandments stated in the Torah. And he who does not believe in him, or he who does not await his coming, denies not only the [other] prophets, but also the Torah and Moses our Master. For, behold, the Torah testifies about him [the Messiah] ..

When the Jews returned from exile in Babylon, Ezra restored the kingship of David to its ancient condition with a plus for its zealotry in the purification of the People; a People who did fight the battles of the Lord, which means that Maimonides had Israel in mind when talking about the king Messiah.

I see him but not now ((Num. 24:17), this refers to David; I behold him but not nigh (ibid.) this refers to King Messiah; A star shall step forth out of Jacob (ibid.) this refers to King David; A star shall step forth out of Jacob (ibid.), this refers to David; and a scepter shall rise out of Israel (ibid.) this refers to King Messiah …

I am glad you aknowledge that all references were to king David; although not the person of David per se but the new Israel from the stock of Judah, according to Isaiah 48:1.

And think not that the Messiah must perform signs and portents and bring about new things in the world, or that he will resuscitate the dead, or the like. Not so …

Good interpretation. So much so because Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection.

And if there should arise from the House of David a king, who studies the Torah and occupies himself with the commandments as his father David had, according to the written and oral Torah; and if he forces all Israel to follow the Torah and observe its rules; and if he fights the wars of the Lord—then he must be presumed be the Messiah. And if he succeeds in his acts, and rebuilds the Temple in its place, and gathers the exiled of Israel—then he certainly is the Messiah. And he will repair the whole world to serve the Lord together, as it is written, For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language that they may call upon the name of the Lord to serve Him with one consent (Zeph. 3:9)"

We have restored the kingship of David and do fight the battles of the Lord. Regarding restoration of Torah observance, we are in the process. It has been only 70 years that we are back. There are things that come with time. Regarding the rebuilding of the Temple, I hope you will live long enough to hear about rites of ancient Torah being performed.

I could continue with the quotation, but I think this is sufficient to show that the Messiah Maimonides has in mind is an individual, not a collective.

Well, now you know, I hope, that Maimonides was using figurative language.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Hi Ben,

Exactemente

! Now if only we could schedule you, Sunday next, to be the guest speaker at AIPAC’s man in the pulpit, John Hagee’s synagogue, we might finally have done with the “two equally valid and simultaneous Covenants” theory which he and his battalion of like-minded Christian Zionistas are forever propounding.

I do like to listen to Pastor John Hagee sometimes but, unfortunately, although he is so pro-Israel, there is nothing he can do on the pulpit to hide the message of Replacement Theology. It is not his fault. Only for being a Christian, one cannot get rid of that curse. I mean, Replacement Theology.

On the contrary, Jesus was both preaching and teaching it. And, though we are now within the realm of pure speculation, I doubt that, had he been allowed to survive on the physical plane, the man who reportedly warned of the “leaven of the Pharisees” would grow up to become a Talmudist.

I do not believe that Jesus ever spoke against the Pharisees; first because he was of the pharisaic line himself, and second, because he would not break the Golden Rule.

It is probably because of my vestigial Protestant bias, but, had Jesus not instead become the world’s first Christian, I suspect that he would have aligned himself with the sola scriptura Karaites and, together with them, would have called the (by way of rough analogy) magisterial Rabbinic Talmudists, with their claims to and interpretations of an Oral Law, onto the carpet or wrestling mat. Oh, but wait: that he in any case did.

Jesus could not have become the world's first Christian, because he would have ceased being a Jew. Then, Christianity started only about 35 years after Jesus had been gone. (Acts 11:26)

 

[Dream]

That was terrible, if we can imagine what that poor woman went through till she got what she wanted. The text is in Matthew 15:21-28.

Ben

I've read the thread, but I want to return to your opening post about your subject. The gospel of John says that the suffering of the people that Jesus healed existed in order to provide a way to glorify the son (John 11:4). Related to this the gospels in general put 'The Jews' in opposition to Jesus over most of his healings; the stated reason being that he does the healings somehow improperly. It borrows this from Isaiah 53 the 'Suffering Servant' chapter. If you take Jesus figuratively as a representation of the Son in story form, it can help make sense of what seems like an attack on Jews. The Jews are juxtaposed against Jesus, possibly because it is figuratively telling Jews that they have to stop doubting themselves (due to their sufferings, pogroms, etc) The gospels emphasize that Jesus is only able to heal people wherever it is that the people believe in him, the emphasis being to keep on believing in 'The Son'. The emphasis is not that suffering is good but that it doesn't always mean you've made a mistake. The big picture is that all the things Jews suffered did not indicate God's rejection but were for glorification, as in Isaiah 53.

The story you mention is only one of several in which Jesus heals someone that has been suffering long term before Jesus heals them. The given explanation (in one case) is that the suffering was inflicted in order to 'Glorify the son'. Often the healings take place on Sabbaths and 'the Jews' are counted as opposing Jesus on the healings. On another occasion they also opposed his claim that the Son of Man can forgive sins. (My opinion is that the sin mentioned in this case is not one of the seven deadly sins.) In hindsight the passage was misused as a method of attacking Jews. Everything depends upon if you view Jesus figuratively or literally which changes everything. Without that determination you don't know whether the gospels are criticizing Jews or cheering them on.

Overall the suffering of the healed individuals stresses that suffering happens for a purpose, and this answers the questions people will ask when they suffer. They wonder why bad things have happened to them and whether it indicates that they have offended God. It is a defense both against guilt over tragedy and against giving up in the face of extreme opposition. (I'm not convinced that the opposition of 'The Jews' was added to harm Jews and propose it may have been reinterpreted later by Jew haters in later centuries.)

 

[Ben Masada]

I've read the thread, but I want to return to your opening post about your subject. The gospel of John says that the suffering of the people that Jesus healed existed in order to provide a way to glorify the son (John 11:4). Related to this the gospels in general put 'The Jews' in opposition to Jesus over most of his healings; the stated reason being that he does the healings somehow improperly. It borrows this from Isaiah 53 the 'Suffering Servant' chapter. If you take Jesus figuratively as a representation of the Son in story form, it can help make sense of what seems like an attack on Jews. The Jews are juxtaposed against Jesus, possibly because it is figuratively telling Jews that they have to stop doubting themselves (due to their sufferings, pogroms, etc) The gospels emphasize that Jesus is only able to heal people wherever it is that the people believe in him, the emphasis being to keep on believing in 'The Son'. The emphasis is not that suffering is good but that it doesn't always mean you've made a mistake. The big picture is that all the things Jews suffered did not indicate God's rejection but were for glorification, as in Isaiah 53.

The story you mention is only one of several in which Jesus heals someone that has been suffering long term before Jesus heals them. The given explanation (in one case) is that the suffering was inflicted in order to 'Glorify the son'. Often the healings take place on Sabbaths and 'the Jews' are counted as opposing Jesus on the healings. On another occasion they also opposed his claim that the Son of Man can forgive sins. (My opinion is that the sin mentioned in this case is not one of the seven deadly sins.) In hindsight the passage was misused as a method of attacking Jews. Everything depends upon if you view Jesus figuratively or literally which changes everything. Without that determination you don't know whether the gospels are criticizing Jews or cheering them on.

Overall the suffering of the healed individuals stresses that suffering happens for a purpose, and this answers the questions people will ask when they suffer. They wonder why bad things have happened to them and whether it indicates that they have offended God. It is a defense both against guilt over tragedy and against giving up in the face of extreme opposition. (I'm not convinced that the opposition of 'The Jews' was added to harm Jews and propose it may have been reinterpreted later by Jew haters in later centuries.)

Sorry Dream, but the whole of your post above, albeit a good one under another circumstance, constitutes a non sequitur. Real verbal jugling that has nothing to do with the way Jesus related to that woman. His approach was totally unexcusable and you have no words to address the issue.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

Hi Ben,

I do like to listen to Pastor John Hagee sometimes but, unfortunately, although he is so pro-Israel, there is nothing he can do on the pulpit to hide the message of Replacement Theology. It is not his fault. Only for being a Christian, one cannot get rid of that curse. I mean, Replacement Theology.

I think, despite the fact that Imam John Hagee is safely restricted to the precincts of the Court of the Gentiles, he functions as a shameless temple prostitute for Israel. I think he should preach in a g-string; that way his gig would be so to speak exposed for what it is. And, yes, I agree with you, all of his doctrinal prevarications aside, his adulation (to the point of sycophancy) of Israel will ultimately -and I might add thankfully- neither obliterate nor undue the writings of his superior in every conceivable way, St. Paul.

I do not believe that Jesus ever spoke against the Pharisees; first because he was of the pharisaic line himself, and second, because he would not break the Golden Rule.

I thought, according to your sources, Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman Panther. Anyway, the Golden Rule never stopped the Karaites from both arguing against and combatting the Pharisees and their "traditions of men" so why should it have stopped Jesus?

Jesus could not have become the world's first Christian, because he would have ceased being a Jew.

That to me is odd logic. As I see it, Jesus became one of the first Jews on record to transcend the limitations of his national exclusivism and bias, thus becoming so universally minded and inclusive that, following a mistake or two (such as the incident with the Canaanite woman), a dangerous new movement -a universal religion- was soon thereafter named in his honor. By way of rough analogy, "Leon Trotsky, Alias Bronstein," as the witty Winston Churchill called him, centuries later did something similar, but inverted the principle. “I am not a Jew,” Trotsky is said to have said (though I quote from memory), “I am an Internationalist.” It was Trotsky, not Jesus, who abandoned his Jewishness (though Churchill wouldn’t allow that happen) in the process of becoming a cosmopolite.

Then, Christianity started only about 35 years after Jesus had been gone. (Acts 11:26)

I think you are quite possibly mistaking the date of its appellation, that is to say, the date on which it was named, or called Christianity, with its date of origination. Prior to Antioch, there were antecedents, after all. I have it on the authority of unnamed, (naturally) oral sources, moreover, that Judaism was not called Judaism until a bridge club took a break from playing cards in Alexandria in the year 125 Anno Domini and so named it. Prior to that, some are incorrectly inclined to conclude, neither the Jews nor their religion existed.

I am glad you aknowledge that all references were to king David; although not the person of David per se but the new Israel from the stock of Judah, according to Isaiah 48:1.

I wasn’t really acknowledging anything. I was quoting Maimonides himself.

Good interpretation. So much so because Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection.

Again, it wasn’t my interpretation, but, a question arises: if (all) Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection, why have so many of those who could afford it, over the years, purchased burial plots on the Mount of Olives?

We have restored the kingship of David and do fight the battles of the Lord.

I am curious: would you say that “fighting the battles of the Lord” includes dropping white phosphorus upon Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip and other acts of what Amnesty International and others call “collective punishment?”

Well, now you know, I hope, that Maimonides was using figurative language.

Your hopes are in this case premature. I think you are using fanciful interpretations in your reading of him. For instance, are you meaning to suggest that you, the child prodigy taking piano lessons down the block in Tel Aviv and organized crime boss Semion Yudkovich Mogilevich are all sitting on King David’s throne, being your Messianic selves, simply because, on your way to planet Earth, each of you passed through the womb of a Jewess?

As I recall, the one who really gave impetus to the idea that the Jews were going to be their own collective Messiah was not Maimonides but rather Leo Pinsker. And to him, many a predominantly secular-minded Jew said “amen” and thus began the colonization-***-repatriation of Palestine which we are witnessing to this day.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

Hi Ben, I think, despite the fact that Imam John Hagee is safely restricted to the precincts of the Court of the Gentiles, he functions as a shameless temple prostitute for Israel. I think he should preach in a g-string; that way his gig would be so to speak exposed for what it is. And, yes, I agree with you, all of his doctrinal prevarications aside, his adulation (to the point of sycophancy) of Israel will ultimately -and I might add thankfully- neither obliterate nor undue the writings of his superior in every conceivable way, St. Paul.

Hi Servetus, you are right that all preachers of Christianity answer to their superior, the man called Paul. That's the one, the builder of the policy of Replacement Theology. The man we have most of our troubles caused by.

I thought, according to your sources, Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman Panther. Anyway, the Golden Rule never stopped the Karaites from both arguing against and combatting the Pharisees and their "traditions of men" so why should it have stopped Jesus?

No, Servetus, not according to my sources but according to the Christian claim that Jesus was not the legitimate son of Joseph and Mary. Since he was a Jewish man, and in Judaism there is no such a thing as the Greek myth of a demigod, Christians should blame themselves for the fiasco.

That to me is odd logic. As I see it, Jesus became one of the first Jews on record to transcend the limitations of his national exclusivism and bias, thus becoming so universally minded and inclusive that, following a mistake or two (such as the incident with the Canaanite woman), a dangerous new movement -a universal religion- was soon thereafter named in his honor.

So, what Jesus did to that desperate Canaanite mother was a mistake right? Thomas Mann said that sin is to be taken as a mistake; a blunder in life. Therefore, Jesus was also a sinner, hence in need of a savior himself.

I think you are quite possibly mistaking the date of its appellation, that is to say, the date on which it was named, or called Christianity, with its date of origination. Prior to Antioch, there were antecedents, after all. I have it on the authority of unnamed, (naturally) oral sources, moreover, that Judaism was not called Judaism until a bridge club took a break from playing cards in Alexandria in the year 125 Anno Domini and so named it. Prior to that, some are incorrectly inclined to conclude, neither the Jews nor their religion existed.

From a playing cards bridge club you have got the wisdom that Judaism did not exist till 125 ACE. It sounds a joke to me. Although we like to claim that Abraham was the first Jew, Judaism per se came officially into being with Ezra by occasion of the establishment of the New Covenant after the return of the Jewish People from exile in Babylon. (Jer. 31:31)

Again, it wasn’t my interpretation, but, a question arises: if (all) Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection, why have so many of those who could afford it, over the years, purchased burial plots on the Mount of Olives?

All a matter of tradition. The joining of the sacred to the sacred. Of the Jew with the Land, which had been assigned to our eternal rest. And one does not have to be religious to aspire a share in that tradition.

I am curious: would you say that “fighting the battles of the Lord” includes dropping white phosphorus upon Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip and other acts of what Amnesty International and others call “collective punishment?”

You are mistaken and simply comparing the children of light with barbarians who value their children worse than dirt, as they commit their crimes against the Jewish People in their land, and ran to hide themselves behind their children in the hope this will either prevent the Jewish feedback or that they - the Palestinians - will explore the world opinion to their advantage. The partiality of the Amnesty International is staggering. The Jewish feedback to terrorist attacks, they call collective punishment, but when the Palestinians destroy entire buses crowded with Jewish lives, women and children, the Gentiles have nothing to say; as if the Jewish blood was put in our veins for only that purpose.

Your hopes are in this case premature. I think you are using fanciful interpretations in your reading of him. For instance, are you meaning to suggest that you, the child prodigy taking piano lessons down the block in Tel Aviv and organized crime boss Semion Yudkovich Mogilevich are all sitting on King David’s throne, being your Messianic selves, simply because, on your way to planet Earth, each of you passed through the womb of a Jewess?

Your comment above with the end question only depicts ignorance of the Scriptures. If you too claim that Christianity is right with the claim of roots in Judaism, read our Scriptures or quit that claim which, BTW, it is not true at all.

As I recall, the one who really gave impetus to the idea that the Jews were going to be their own collective Messiah was not Maimonides but rather Leo Pinsker. And to him, many a predominantly secular-minded Jew said “amen” and thus began the colonization-***-repatriation of Palestine which we are witnessing to this day.

Show me where does Maimonides speak of an individual Messiah. And about repatriation of Palestinians, we have never done so ourselves. Their own brothers, the neighboring Arab countries were the ones responsible for such a repatriation, when they proclaimed that the Palestinians should leave the Land of Israel and stay as refugees till they pushed the Jews into the sea. We even proclaimed in the streets that every thing would be all right if they did not listen to their stupid brothers. Then, the armies of several Arabic countries went for the slaughter. But since God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel, their mighty armies committed the greatest of their fiascos to be crushed by so-to-speak, "300 Gideon warriors." Since then, four more times, and the same has happened. That's why they make children for: To die stupidly.

Ben

 

[Dream]

Sorry Dream, but the whole of your post above, albeit a good one under another circumstance, constitutes a non sequitur. Real verbal jugling that has nothing to do with the way Jesus related to that woman. His approach was totally unexcusable and you have no words to address the issue.
Ben

Every country has employees, citizens and aliens, which in the past were called servants, masters and barbarians. Today we call our barbarians 'Aliens', but in the past we might have called them Dogs. An employer provides jobs today, just as a master did yesterday. I do not think you can presume that Jesus was insulting anyone by using the terminology of his day. If the term 'Dog' was significant he would have used the term more. You have to consider, too, that he elsewhere compared Jews and Gentiles (both together) to sheep. So now did he consider Gentiles to be Sheep or to be Dogs? He considered them to be neither, no more than I consider a Chicago Bulls fan to be a Bull, though I may call them that.

Certainly if I were to travel the internet forums calling people 'Dog' they might get upset, but I say that with full understanding of today's social norms. You haven't demonstrated that you know the social norms of Jesus time.

 

[Ben Masada]

Every country has employees, citizens and aliens, which in the past were called servants, masters and barbarians. Today we call our barbarians 'Aliens', but in the past we might have called them Dogs. An employer provides jobs today, just as a master did yesterday. I do not think you can presume that Jesus was insulting anyone by using the terminology of his day. If the term 'Dog' was significant he would have used the term more. You have to consider, too, that he elsewhere compared Jews and Gentiles (both together) to sheep. So now did he consider Gentiles to be Sheep or to be Dogs? He considered them to be neither, no more than I consider a Chicago Bulls fan to be a Bull, though I may call them that.

Certainly if I were to travel the internet forums calling people 'Dog' they might get upset, but I say that with full understanding of today's social norms. You haven't demonstrated that you know the social norms of Jesus time.

Dream, please! That's okay though, you have made me laugh and I felt good about it. What do you have as an evidence that, to refer to one as a dog was the terminology of Jesus' day? Besides the NT, we have the writings of Josephus, I have read them all, and I do not recollect to have read about any one ever referring to another as a dog. A sheep, is something else, a world of a difference BTW, but dog! I am sorry. Do you know something? That was not the only time Jesus referred to others as dogs. As he was delivering his sermon of the mount to a crowd of Jews, he warned them not to give what is holy to the dogs or throw their pearls before swine. Read Matthew 7:6. And that he was speaking to a crowd of Jews, you can read in Matthew 5:1 and 7:28.
Ben

 

[Dream]

Dream, please! That's okay though, you have made me laugh and I felt good about it. What do you have as an evidence that, to refer to one as a dog was the terminology of Jesus' day?

Its not a bluff. 'Dog' probably did not refer to all gentiles in general (true), although for a time it may have been aimed at Canaanites (see Deuteronomy 20) and also at Moabites. 'Dogs' are referred to in (Jeremiah 15:3 see below) as well as other places in the Tanach referring to groups which (2000 years prior to Jesus time) were 'Supposed' to have been destroyed by Israel but which instead married or treaty'd into Israel, all except for the Amorites. The reason Jesus calls this woman a dog isn't that she's a gentile, but because she's descended from one of the 5 (or six or so) groups. Nevertheless it still may not be an insult. One of the most famous dogs in the Bible is Caleb (Numbers 13:30) who was granted an inheritance in Israel just like one of the family. His father was a 'Kenezite'.

Although Jesus calls the Syro-Phoenician woman a dog, I think that the term dog stopped being entirely about lineage (millennia ago) and started to be about Moabite like behavior (think 'Missionary' or 'Drug lord' or 'Pimp') Its my guess that a dog pulls Jews away from their culture. Certain Romans would probably fit this category as well as the Babylonians and the Assyrians, because they tried to stamp out Judaism. The Egyptians who Moses dealt with probably fit this category.

In Deuteronomy 20:17 17 but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites,...that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices

Jeremiah 15:3 "I will send four kinds of destroyers against them,” declares the Lord, “the sword to kill and the dogs to drag away and the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth to devour and destroy.

Besides the NT, we have the writings of Josephus, I have read them all, and I do not recollect to have read about any one ever referring to another as a dog. A sheep, is something else, a world of a difference BTW, but dog! I am sorry.

I don't know what it means for sure, only that it may not have been meant arrogantly or condescendingly. I think it was part of an argot, and the gospel went to members who already understood that argot. That's why it sounds rough to modern ears and outsiders.

Do you know something? That was not the only time Jesus referred to others as dogs. As he was delivering his sermon of the mount to a crowd of Jews, he warned them not to give what is holy to the dogs or throw their pearls before swine. Read Matthew 7:6. And that he was speaking to a crowd of Jews, you can read in Matthew 5:1 and 7:28.

Ok, but notice that he doesn't expressly say what swine and dogs mean; so its up to us to figure it out without. As I've pointed out, 'Dog' could refer to Hellenizers, Romanizers and Other-izers, rather than to gentiles in general. Yes he was speaking to a crowd of Jews in Matthew 5:1, but when he was speaking to the Syro-Phoenecian woman (Matthew 15) he wasn't in a crowd of Jews at all. He was preaching in an area called Gennesaret which used to belong to an Israeli tribe of Naphtali before the Assyrians forced the Jews there to intermarry. Furthermore he ultimately healed the woman's daughter.

 

[Ben Masada]

Its not a bluff. 'Dog' probably did not refer to all gentiles in general (true), although for a time it may have been aimed at Canaanites (see Deuteronomy 20) and also at Moabites. 'Dogs' are referred to in (Jeremiah 15:3 see below) as well as other places in the Tanach referring to groups which (2000 years prior to Jesus time) were 'Supposed' to have been destroyed by Israel but which instead married or treaty'd into Israel, all except for the Amorites. The reason Jesus calls this woman a dog isn't that she's a gentile, but because she's descended from one of the 5 (or six or so) groups. Nevertheless it still may not be an insult. One of the most famous dogs in the Bible is Caleb (Numbers 13:30) who was granted an inheritance in Israel just like one of the family. His father was a 'Kenezite'.

Although Jesus calls the Syro-Phoenician woman a dog, I think that the term dog stopped being entirely about lineage (millennia ago) and started to be about Moabite like behavior (think 'Missionary' or 'Drug lord' or 'Pimp') Its my guess that a dog pulls Jews away from their culture. Certain Romans would probably fit this category as well as the Babylonians and the Assyrians, because they tried to stamp out Judaism. The Egyptians who Moses dealt with probably fit this category.

I don't know what it means for sure, only that it may not have been meant arrogantly or condescendingly. I think it was part of an argot, and the gospel went to members who already understood that argot. That's why it sounds rough to modern ears and outsiders.

Ok, but notice that he doesn't expressly say what swine and dogs mean; so its up to us to figure it out without. As I've pointed out, 'Dog' could refer to Hellenizers, Romanizers and Other-izers, rather than to gentiles in general. Yes he was speaking to a crowd of Jews in Matthew 5:1, but when he was speaking to the Syro-Phoenecian woman (Matthew 15) he wasn't in a crowd of Jews at all. He was preaching in an area called Gennesaret which used to belong to an Israeli tribe of Naphtali before the Assyrians forced the Jews there to intermarry. Furthermore he ultimately healed the woman's daughter.

I don't know what kind of Bible you are using. I checked the quotations above you brought to my attention and none constitutes a reference to a style of the time to refer to others as dogs.
Ben

 

[Dream]

I don't know what kind of Bible you are using. I checked the quotations above you brought to my attention and none constitutes a reference to a style of the time to refer to others as dogs.

I use software, and lately I've been using bible.cc . Naturally its difficult for me to prove that the usage of dog extended into Jesus time, however I can create a reasonable doubt about whether what he said was bad by showing its usage in the Tanach. If Matthew and/or Jesus read any of the following passages, then they could have gotten the term from there. A 'Dog' seems it was something not defeated militarily but was somehow involved in evil and in spreading evil. In the passage you brought up where Jesus tells some Jewish people not to give pearls to swine or dogs, he has made a reasonable point. In what way has he said something wrong?

• Psalm 22:16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. (Prayer that the Lord will defeat the dogs.)

• 1 Samuel 17:43 He said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. (I will add that here Goliath is speaking rhetorically. He is a dog and is defeated by righteousness, not because of Israel's military prowess.)

• Exodus 11:7 But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal.' Then you will know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel. (At the time Egypt is trying to kill Israel, hence it is a dog. Again it was not defeated militarily.)

• Psalm 59:6 O Lord God Almighty, the God of Israel, rouse yourself to punish all the nations; show no mercy to wicked traitors. Selah They return at evening, snarling like dogs, and prowl about the city. (The psalmist prays to the Lord will defeat the dogs.)

 

[Servetus]

Hi Ben,

… all preachers of Christianity answer to their superior, the man called Paul. That's the one, the builder of the policy of Replacement Theology. The man we have most of our troubles caused by.

Well, he was, according to some (Acts 24:5) reports, the ringleader of a sect of the Nazarenes, or, perhaps more accurately, Nazarim, which sect grew up and were later called Christians at Antioch, by the way. As I see it, one ought to expect a great deal of trouble from that sect.

So, what Jesus did to that desperate Canaanite mother was a mistake right? Thomas Mann said that sin is to be taken as a mistake; a blunder in life. Therefore, Jesus was also a sinner, hence in need of a savior himself.

That was too transparent, Ben, please try again.

… a question arises: if (all) Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection, why have so many of those who could afford it, over the years, purchased burial plots on the Mount of Olives?

All a matter of tradition. The joining of the sacred to the sacred. Of the Jew with the Land, which had been assigned to our eternal rest. And one does not have to be religious to aspire a share in that tradition.

Evidently, the tradition is also based upon scripture, which involves resurrection of the dead at the time of the Messiah. This little Israeli brochure succinctly explains everything.

I am curious: would you say that “fighting the battles of the Lord” includes dropping white phosphorus upon Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip and other acts of what Amnesty International and others call “collective punishment?”

You are mistaken and simply comparing the children of light with barbarians who value their children worse than dirt, as they commit their crimes against the Jewish People in their land, and ran to hide themselves behind their children in the hope this will either prevent the Jewish feedback or that they - the Palestinians - will explore the world opinion to their advantage. The partiality of the Amnesty International is staggering. The Jewish feedback to terrorist attacks, they call collective punishment, but when the Palestinians destroy entire buses crowded with Jewish lives, women and children, the Gentiles have nothing to say; as if the Jewish blood was put in our veins for only that purpose.

If that is the rough-draft of your upcoming speech at John Hagee’s synagogue, you’ve got the tone, tempo and content almost perfect: his congregation watches Rupert Murdoch media and applauds Ziofascist (in contradistinction to Islamofascist) drivel like that. I might suggest, though, that you not use the “children of light and darkness” dichotomy in your sermon too heavily because, to scripturally literate Christians, it is somewhat and uncomfortably reminiscent of the “you are of your father the Devil” stuff found in the eighth chapter of St. John’s Gospel. Keep in mind, that, in Reverend Hagee’s synagogue, only Muslims (and his lot usually conveniently forgets that there are, or were, plenty of Christians in Palestine) may be demonized. Hating Palestinians is, in other words, the only permissible form of antisemitism.


But anyway, between you and me, let’s have another go at that question. Would you say that “fighting the battles of the Lord” includes dropping white phosphorus upon Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip and other acts of what Amnesty International and others call “collective punishment?

Your comment above with the end question only depicts ignorance of the Scriptures. If you too claim that Christianity is right with the claim of roots in Judaism, read our Scriptures or quit that claim which, BTW, it is not true at all.

I think you wrote that sentence too fast, Ben. It made no sense to me. At any rate, in light of R. Johanan’s injunction that those gentiles (or heathen) who pry into the law deserve the death penalty, do you consider it halachically correct to suggest that I read your scriptures? How am I supposed to know, when I look into the law, if the law in question is Jew-specific ? I am getting mixed messages on that one when I search the Internet.

Show me where does Maimonides speak of an individual Messiah ...

Please read the above quotations by Maimonides and note the pronoun “he.” It’s a dead giveaway that it is a reference to an individual, not a collective.

And about repatriation of Palestinians, we have never done so ourselves. Their own brothers, the neighboring Arab countries were the ones responsible for such a repatriation, when they proclaimed that the Palestinians should leave the Land of Israel and stay as refugees till they pushed the Jews into the sea. We even proclaimed in the streets that every thing would be all right if they did not listen to their stupid brothers. Then, the armies of several Arabic countries went for the slaughter. But since God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel, their mighty armies committed the greatest of their fiascos to be crushed by so-to-speak, "300 Gideon warriors." Since then, four more times, and the same has happened. That's why they make children for: To die stupidly.

That, too, should get standing ovations from John Hagee’s congregation. I, for my part, prefer history to hagiography.

 

[Saltmeister]

As you are well aware, Paul was the one who wrote the Letter to the Galatians. In Galatians 4:21-31 he compares the Sinaitic Covenant to Hagar the servant of Sara and the Jews to Ismael. Then, he compares Christianity to Sara and Christians to Isaac. At the end, he advises to cast away Hagar with her son on the reason that they cannot share the inheritance with Christianity. That's Replacement Theology. The replacement of Judaism by Christianity.
Ben

I think you should be careful what you call "Christianity." The word "Christianity" is a blanket term for a lot of things Christian-related. Before I proceed, let me say first that I do not necessarily agree with everything Paul says.

Now let me begin. For a start, I do not agree with what you say about Paul regarding Replacement Theology based on Galatians. When Paul wrote Galatians, "Christianity" was not separate from Judaism as it is today. Judaism was still big in people's minds. It doesn't make sense for Paul to have wanted to replace the Jewish people because again, in Romans 11:17-20 he says "do not be arrogant" because "you do not support the roots, but the roots support you." Paul is saying that Gentiles cannot replace the Jewish people, because they lack something that Jews have: the Torah.

"Christianity" was something new and it proposed that something had changed. This is a view that Paul was advocating. The Jewish people were under "bondage" (Hagar) to the 613 commandments, but God made his promises to a free woman (Sarah).

Has there ever been a time in the history of Judaism where a new movement suggested that "something had changed," that the Jewish people didn't have to live under "bondage" anymore but yet, the old traditions still had value, were not being replaced but the requirements were nonetheless no longer valid?

I believe so. It's called Reform Judaism. Reform Judaism still sees value in Jewish halakha, does not seek to replace the old traditions, but at the same time sees their requirements as no longer valid. I think this is a more accurate way of seeing Paul's ideology. He believed the Jewish people could be freed from bondage but at the same time warned the Gentiles not to got too ahead of themselves and think they could replace the Jewish people.

Now I have sorted out where I disagree with you. Now it's time to talk about where I might disagree with Paul. The Jewish people were not being replaced. It was about a change in requirements, just like in Reform Judaism. This is where I get to the point where I do not know whether to agree with Paul or not.

Ben Masada, as a Jew you have to decide whether to follow Orthodox or Reform Judaism. Until Jews can come to a consensus on whether Orthodox or Reform Judaism is the right path, I cannot be sure whether or not Paul was right in saying that the old requirements are no longer valid. This is one of those instances where adherents of one religion influence those of another.

 

[Ben Masada]

I use software, and lately I've been using bible.cc . Naturally its difficult for me to prove that the usage of dog extended into Jesus time, however I can create a reasonable doubt about whether what he said was bad by showing its usage in the Tanach. If Matthew and/or Jesus read any of the following passages, then they could have gotten the term from there. A 'Dog' seems it was something not defeated militarily but was somehow involved in evil and in spreading evil. In the passage you brought up where Jesus tells some Jewish people not to give pearls to swine or dogs, he has made a reasonable point. In what way has he said something wrong?

• Psalm 22:16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. (Prayer that the Lord will defeat the dogs.)

• 1 Samuel 17:43 He said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. (I will add that here Goliath is speaking rhetorically. He is a dog and is defeated by righteousness, not because of Israel's military prowess.)

• Exodus 11:7 But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal.' Then you will know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel. (At the time Egypt is trying to kill Israel, hence it is a dog. Again it was not defeated militarily.)

• Psalm 59:6 O Lord God Almighty, the God of Israel, rouse yourself to punish all the nations; show no mercy to wicked traitors. Selah They return at evening, snarling like dogs, and prowl about the city. (The psalmist prays to the Lord will defeat the dogs.)

All the quotes above in this post of yours are references to the enemies of Israel; especially those who were trying to kill David. The poor Canaanite woman was not an enemy of Jesus'. Anyway, you haven't succeeded yet to defend Jesus, when his defense is so simple. Just adopt the fact that the episode never happened. It was an embelishment of the text akin to pious forgery. That's all. And the case is closed. If you choose to believe that the case did happen, Jesus broke the Golden Rule, which requires of you to defend him further.
Ben

 

[Saltmeister]

I am an Israeli and have largely contributed for the grandeur of our IDF.

I see. Have you ever stepped outside Israel to see what Christianity and Islam were really like outside of Israel? You may find that the boundaries of religion are not that solid.

You are a Christian, aren't you? A Christian, by definition, is the one who believes that Jesus was Christ. Christ means Messiah in Greek. If you are a Christian, you are contradicting yourself. Sorry to remind you of this.

That's not my definition and as far as I am concerned there was never an official, divinely sanctioned definition of "Christianity." The only organisation that had any such authority to define Christianity was the Jerusalem Church, which was destroyed along with Jerusalem before any official definition of Christianity was ever made known to the world. The only official act I am aware of that they passed was the Apostolic Decree, equivalent to the Seven Noahide Laws. After that, nothing!!

The Jerusalem Church was to Christianity what the Sanhedrin was to Judaism -- an organisation that had the authority to define Christianity just like the Sanhedrin passed rulings binding on all Jews. Without their official seal, I don't have to accept anyone else's definition of Christianity.

Just because the Gospels and Epistles proclaim it, doesn't mean it's important or relevant today. It may have been important for people to proclaim Jesus as messiah 2,000 years ago when the movement was fresh and young, but to do so now when we don't even understand why is ridiculous. Today's Christians have no authority to decide whether Jesus was messiah or not because they are not taught the Torah. The Jerusalem Church knew the Torah. We do not. This is why. Only people who know the Torah can choose their messiah.

Well, I am all ears to discuss my collective view of the Messiah. What's the question?

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if the messiah was individual or collective. I still see the same problem with foreign meddling in Israel's politics which will ultimately lead to the much-anticipated great apocalyptical war during which the "false messiah" is likely to appear.

How can the dead establish a messianic kingdom? Read Eccles. 9:5:6.

Why do you keep bringing Jesus back into this?

That is not why I responded to radarmark's post about Israeli politics. You may or may not have heard of the so-called "Illuminati Conspiracy." If not, let me describe it briefly to you. The Illuminati Conspiracy is a network of people who conspire to manipulate world events. Many of them are obsessed with Israel (most likely for religious reasons) and meddle in its politics. Those who do probably believe that the modern state of Israel is fulfilling many biblical prophecies and this encourages them to meddle. They want to be part of the messianic transition.

You might find this video interesting:

The temple of Solomon, the secret is out. Must watch !!!!! - YouTube

It's about how Jewish mystical/kabbalistic symbols are being stolen by the Illuminatis. These "Illuminatis" are expecting a messiah too. They are expecting a messiah to come out of Israel. By the time their messiah emerges, he may be barely indistinguishable from your own. A lot of what these Illuminatis do involves concepts borrowed from Jewish mysticism.

There are two things Illuminatis prey on: violent urges and fear. Zionism involves violence and the more involved you become with this culture of violence, the harder it will be to tell the false messiah from the real one. That's going to be particularly important if the messiah is supposed to ensure eternal peace for all Jews. That's one of the requirements of a messiah isn't it? Watch out if he/they fail(s) that one. Israel will keep fighting one war after another and there may never be peace.

That's the major problem. None of those religions: Christianity and Islam has any roots in Judaism. They rose as a religion of their own. And both have adopted the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Really? Don't Christians have the Tanakh as part of their written tradition? Does that not mean Christians have been spreading knowledge about the Jewish people for 2,000 years? Doesn't Islam contain concepts similar to Judaism? Shariah, which means "pathway to be followed" is similar to halakha which means "way of walking." Halal (meaning "lawful") is similar to kosher (meaning "fit" or "suitable"). Salaam is the same as shalom -- meaning peace. Dhimmi (non-Muslim) is similar to Gentile/Noahide (non-Jew). There are differences between how Judaism and Islam work, but at first glance Islam seems like Judaism translated from Hebrew into Arabic.

Would it satisfy you if I said that Christianity and Islam both each have half of Judaism? Christianity propagates the written tradition (Tanakh). Islam propagates aspects of the Jewish law system. They just lack your Oral Torah/rabbinical tradition.

Plagiarism implies forgery or vandalism of Judaism by Christianity or Islam.

I acknowledge the plagiarism, forgery and vandalism, but what are you going to do about it? Don't you have a suggestion on how Christians and Muslims can properly respect Judaism? If you don't offer suggestions, it's just going to keep happening.

My position is this. Christianity and Islam are both based on a faulty premise. The NT and Quran both contain polemic against the earlier traditions. For much of the last 2,000 and 1,400 years, Christianity and Islam claimed to be independent of the earlier traditions. The faulty premise is in the argument used to justify replacement of earlier traditions. The argument is inconsistent with the history of the earlier tradition.

Christianity fails to fully appreciate Jewish rabbinical tradition and how many of Jesus' teachings came from that tradition. The idea that the Gospel had replaced the Law is a misunderstanding of the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. Islam fails to understand that Christianity was about breaking down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile and that this is why Hellenism is such a big influence in Christianity.

The NT and Quran therefore, cannot be properly understood without rabbinical tradition (just like the Tanakh). When this is understood, Christianity and Islam can no longer claim independence. When the faulty premises are acknowledged and claims of independence are dropped, replacement theology is refuted.

Rabbinical tradition then becomes the unifying tradition. Jews will have the Tanakh as written tradition, Christians the NT and Muslims the Quran, but they all need the Oral Torah/rabbinical tradition. I think this is the best way of resolving the conflict between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

You mention three religious factions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Where is the Messiah supposed to come from to perform that link? Judaism has lost too many lives for trusting Christianity and Islam. A compromise among these three traditions is highly impossible.

Judaism of course. Christians would not accept a messiah from Islam and Muslims would not accept a messiah from Christianity because Christians and Muslims are rivals. If Judaism is the bridge between Christianity and Islam and brings peace between Christians and Muslims, then peace will naturally come to the Jewish people as well. When Christians and Muslims accept and get behind rabbinical tradition, it will all fall in place. There are billions of Christians and Muslims in the world. If you can secure the co-operation of enough of them, they will give you the peace you always wanted. No more wars, no more conversions, no more missionaries. The Jewish people can live in peace and study the Torah all they like.

Is a compromise impossible? Is trust impossible? I think not. If Christianity and Islam are based on faulty premises, honest Christians and Muslims would compromise and the door is opened for rabbinical tradition to take its rightful place. You have to put your trust in rabbinical tradition.

I got you! There is no need to fight for survival! I am sure you are aware of where we would be today if we had not fought to remain where we are.

I think you misunderstood me there. I am not at all saying that a secular state should not fight for its own survival, that you should not fight for your country. But do you see it as a secular or religious matter? Are you fighting as a Jew or an Israeli? I see the two as different things. If you're going to have an affiliation with the IDF, it's probably better for you to leave your religion behind. Can you really do both?

To believe in the IDF is to believe in survival. Were not for the IDF we would be all drawn in the Mediterranean Sea today. To survive as the Jewish People, is what Adonai has allowed us to raise a strong IDF.

Has the exile ended yet, or is it still going? To quote one of the points raised in the web site I mentioned, the Jewish people are forbidden to "arise out of exile."

Why Orthodox Jews are Opposed to the Zionist State

SECOND -- Because of all of this and other reasons the Torah forbids us to end the exile and establish a state and army until the Holy One, blessed He, in His Glory and Essence will redeem us. This is forbidden even if the state is conducted according to the law of the Torah because arising from the exile itself is forbidden, and we are required to remain under the rule of the nations of the world, as is explained in the book VAYOEL MOSHE. If we transgress this injunction, He will bring upon us (may we be spared) terrible punishment.

Forming the secular state of Israel was forbidden because the Jewish people are still under the yoke of the Gentiles. Where was the divine authority to establish the modern state of Israel? Did some prophet or the heavenly voice proclaim it, or was it all because people felt like it was the right thing to do? Obviously Zionists (whether it was Christian, secular or atheist) believed it was the right thing to do because it seemed to fulfill certain biblical prophecies -- and then a whole lot of Jews got dragged into it for some reason.

I don't believe the exile has ended yet because of what it says in Christian Tradition -- which is similar to what the above web page said:

They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Luke 21:24

The "Times of the Gentiles" have not ended. Gentiles still rule the world. The Europeans, Americans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Christians and Muslims rule the world. Christians and Muslims have not all acknowledged the faulty premises in Christianity and Islam and accepted rabbinical tradition. The Jewish people therefore cannot peacefully take back their land. Therefore the exile continues.

The IDF may continue to win many wars and battles, but is the Lord really part of Israel's wars, or is it just an illusion? How do you know if the leaders of the IDF aren't geniuses? How do you know if it isn't due to their enemies' incompetence? Let's also not neglect the external factor: the interference of the "Illuminatis" in the region and their efforts in weakening Israel's enemies. Beware of the jingoism.

Yes, I did; but for two reasons I am not too fun of links. The first in this case is the ignorance of Othodox Jews who oppose themselves to the Zionist State. And the second is that, IMHO, links are only the personal opinion of another man. I don't like to subscribe myself to authority in any kind of issue just because he or she has achieved a title on the subject.

I thought the arguments would speak for themselves.

 

[Ben Masada]

Hi Ben,

Well, he was, according to some (Acts 24:5)

reports, the ringleader of a sect of the Nazarenes, or, perhaps more accurately, Nazarim, which sect grew up and were later called Christians at Antioch, by the way. As I see it, one ought to expect a great deal of trouble from that sect.

That was Tertulus, the Athorney at Law contracted by the High Priest Ananias to represent Judaism against Paul in Court. That's the proof many here need that the disciples of Jesus were not Christians but members of the Sect of the Nazarenes. (Acts 24:5) And I congratulate you for acknowledging that the disciples in Antioch were Nazarenes who became Christians after Paul spent a whole year there preaching about Jesus as Christ. Since the word Christ is the Greek for Messiah, Paul was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus was the Messiah. (Acts 11:26)

Evidently, the tradition is also based upon scripture, which involves resurrection of the dead at the time of the Messiah. T

his little Israeli brochure succinctly explains everything.

Great! Now, go right ahead and quote in the Hebrew Scriptures where bodily resurrection is involved. If you can't, spare yourself the embarrassment.

I might suggest, though, that you not use the “children of light and darkness” dichotomy in your sermon too heavily because, to scripturally literate Christians,

The dichotomy is not mine, but of the Scriptures'. And parallel to it, the Essenes were famous with their version of the endless struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness.

it is somewhat and uncomfortably reminiscent of the “you are of your father the Devil” stuff found in the eighth chapter of St. John’s Gospel.

John 8 was a forgery. If it is too hard on you, you must admit contradiction in the NT. Read verse 31. It says in there that Jesus was speaking to the Jews who had believed in him. Then, in verse 44 he calls them children of the devil. How could Jesus call the Jews who had believed in him children of the devil? Was he drugged?

Keep in mind, that, in Reverend Hagee’s synagogue, only Muslims (and his lot usually conveniently forgets that there are, or were, plenty of Christians in Palestine) may be demonized. Hating Palestinians is, in other words, the only permissible form of antisemitism.

I wonder if you would still love them if they killed your child. Put yourself in the shoes of a father who has lost his child to them. And Reverend Hagee has no synagogue but church. He is a Christian and not a Jew.

I think you wrote that sentence too fast, Ben. It made no sense to me. At any rate, in light of R. Johanan’s injunction that those gentiles (or heathen) who pry into the law deserve the death penalty, do you consider it halachically correct to suggest that I read your scriptures? How am I supposed to know, when I look into the law, if the law in question is Jew-specific ? I am getting mixed messages on that one when I search the Internet.

You don't have to get mixed messages about the Jewish laws. They are not for you. You have the Noahide laws to observe.

Please read the above quotations by Maimonides and note the pronoun “he.” It’s a dead giveaway that it is a reference to an individual, not a collective.

Read Exodus 4:22,23. Israel is referred to as "he." Nevertheless Israel is collective. "Let My People go so that HE may serve Me." Is the text talking about an individual or the collective? It means that Maimonides did not refer to an individual but the collective in Israel.

That, too, should get standing ovations from John Hagee’s congregation. I, for my part, prefer history to hagiography.

You are not too sharp in History either. Unless it is anti-Jewish History.

Ben