Paul, the Cuckoo Bird

[Ben Masada]

Ah, perhaps Paul was not all that bad. But he did ignite the firey hatred of Marcion and those who followed in his footsteps. One will find little if any anti-Semitism in the three earliest examples of Christianity I know of: Assyrian, Ethiopian, or Armenian.

Radarmark, I find no way to understand that there was any ealier branch of Christianity prior to Paul's. When Paul was invited by Barnabas, an old friend of his to help him out with the work in the synagogue of Antioch, he, Paul spent there a whole year, when the disciples were for the first time called Christians. That's in Acts 11:26. It is only obvious that there was no earlier branch of Christianity than the one originated with Paul. I mean, Christianity did not existed before Paul.
Ben

 

[Gatekeeper]

And do you believe in an honest politician? Just a rhetoric question.

I understand your position with regards to Paul. Whatever he did to raise his church, he meant no harm to you. Not the same in my case. Were not for what he did, we would not have lost so many of us throughout the history of Christianity.
Ben

It's a stretch to think Paul spoke for God. Sure, much of what he wrote in his letters is true, but I'm of the mind that he felt like he needed to play the role of a politician also. If he hadn't what we know as Christianity would have never taken root. Then again, if he didn't appeal to social norms, Christianity would probably be something far closer to the truth.

Was Paul an honest politician? I wouldn't know, but he did appeal to social norms, which makes much of what he wrote questionable. Even so, I derive a great deal of inspiration from Paul. I can't fault a fallible man for being fallible like me. Life is about growing in knowledge and understanding, and I can honestly say that Paul has helped me understand much.

 

[Servetus]

Oh! So, you find no hypocrisy in someone's confession that he serves God in his mind and sin in his flesh. (Rom. 7:25)

No, I don’t. If anything, and as I said, I find it a bit schizoid to posit a conflict, or struggle, between the spirit and flesh, but I don’t think that Saul (*** Paul) is the only Jew given to discussing, in however oblique terms, the relationship between the nephesh, ruach and neshama. A brief search on Google shows me that someone named Rabbi Simeon, for instance, had a go with the same subject, from a different angle.

At any rate, with that said, one ought perhaps (and I emphasize perhaps) always to remember Nietzsche’s advice and wear surgical gloves when reading the Gospels (and Epistles) because, after all, one is in the presence of ambiguating and ambiguous Jews, Paul chief among them, and this passage in Romans might be, to the apostle of anti-Christianity, Nietzsche, a classic case in point.

I find this extremely bias when I read Matthew 23:13-33 about the curses thrown at the Pharisees, supposetly by Jesus, which I don't believe because, being of the Pharisaic line himself Jesus had no reasons to apply those woes unto them.

Sorry. Since when is Jesus of the Pharisaic line? I thought, according to official Pharisaical sources, he was the bastard son of the Roman Panther.

Anyway, Christians are only too ready to take the Pharisees as hypocrites but not Paul with such a confession.

Not all Pharisees are hypocrites, just the ones Jesus is referring to in that and other portions of scripture wherein he reportedly lambastes them. Anyway, as I see it, Jews are only too ready to eat bagels and lox and generalize and this, your above comment, is an example.


Serv

 

[bananabrain]

Anyway, as I see it, Jews are only too ready to eat bagels and lox and generalize

the above generalisation is generally true of me.

*tucks into bagel*

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[radarmark]

Ben--

The oldest existing churches are the ones I named. And Marcion was the earliest determiner of scripture. You can say Paul headed or founded the Church. In the west, it is possible that the teachings of Marcion (who out-Pauls Paul) corrupted the faith. The earliest actual, historical, continuing Chrches are the Armenian, Ethiopian, and Assyrian. I do not believe they read Paul in the same hateful manner to Jews (or at least there is little evidence of it).

For example, Beta-Israel had no problem with the Tewahedo Church growing in Ethiopia (even at the expense of their membership). And the Tewahedo never practiced Anti-Semitism towards Beta-Israel.

 

[Servetus]

the above generalisation is generally true of me.

Inexplicably enough, it also rings true for me (provided that there are plenty of Nova Scotia lox involved).

... The earliest actual, historical, continuing Chrches are the Armenian, Ethiopian, and Assyrian. I do not believe they read Paul in the same hateful manner to Jews (or at least there is little evidence of it).

For example, Beta-Israel had no problem with the Tewahedo Church growing in Ethiopia (even at the expense of their membership). And the Tewahedo never practiced Anti-Semitism towards Beta-Israel.

It might also be worth noting that some of the earliest writings of the (Catholic) Church Fathers, such as, for instance, Origen (contra Celsus) and Justin (dialogue with Trypho), are not, despite their obviously polemical nature, generally characterized by animosity or hatred of Jews, at least to my admittedly at times insensitive ear. On the contrary, both seem rather civil, over all, and are interesting to read, despite the fact that the vagaries of history have determined that neither Celsus's nor Trypho's response is extant.

With that said, I might also mention that Origen (one of my all-time favorites), whose doctrines were not always considered orthodox or acceptable by and to the "conciliar" Church, that is to say, the Church of the Councils (including, notably, the Nicene Council), wrote what is, to me, one of the most insightful explications of how the Church is the new, "Spiritual Israel," thus and thereby (almost) convincing me and, once he's had a chance to click on it, definitely sending Ben Masada into paroxysms, fits and spasms of disagreement, lo these nineteen centuries later.


Serv

 

[showme]

Paul, the Cuckoo Bird

Have you ever heard about the cuckoo bird? It is a gray European bird that, instinctively, lays its eggs in other bird's nests, as if it is unable to build a nest of its own from scratch. Its fledglings are usually more developed and strong enough to push out of the nest any possible domestic competitor for the food the adopted parents would bring home.

The cuckoo bird constitutes a perfect simile to the kind of man Paul was as a missionizer. Paul was never able to raise a church from scratch out of the Gentile population. His mission, since its very first station in Damascus and until its last in Rome, was to invade the Jewish synagogues and overturn them into Christian churches. (Acts 9:30) In Rome, since he could not freely walk around, he would invite the Jewish leaders to visit him in his house arresting condition to listen
to his gospel. (Acts 28:16,17)

The first nest Paul invaded and succeeded was in Antioch. After a whole year that he had laid his eggs, the disciples of the Jews started being called Christians. (Acts 11:26) The synagogue had been overturned into a Christian church. From then on, the chain was unbreakable. He went to the synagogues of Corinth. (Acts 18:1,4) From there, he proceeded throughout the country of Galatian and Phrygian. (Acts 18:23)

It happened that, to Galatia, a delegation from Judea had been sent to try to salvage the Galatian synagogue, and Paul became extremely upset to see that indeed many of the members were returning to the "other gospel," as he would, pejoratively, refer to the gospel of the Apostles. In his rage he would exclaim that any other gospel different from his, even if an angel had brought it down from Heaven, he would curse it or the preachers of such a gospel. (Gal. 1:6-9)

One day, as if he seemed to have had enough of the Jewish hostile reaction to his work in the Jewish synagogues, he declared in haste that, finnaly, he was turning to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:46) He was then in a Jewish synagogue of Antioch. (Acts 13:14) As he left the place he went to the Jewish synagogue of Iconium. (Acts 14:1) As any one can see, the Cuckoo bird could not change its nature. And Paul never changed even until death in Rome, where he tried to lay his eggs in the minds of the Roman Jews, although bound in chains. (Acts 28:16,17) The Cuckoo Paul could change his feathers and be whatever he fanced to be according to any circumstance, but he could never change the collors of his feathers.

Ben

Did you ever consider that the "Living Word of God" the Law and the prophets actually commented on the "Cuckoo Bird", the coming man of Lawlessness, Paul? Per my understanding, Zechariah 11 refers to 3 shepherds, two of which were to pasture "the flock doomed to slaughter". The 3rd is referred to in Mt 26:15, as Judas Iscariot. The first, referred to as a staff, was called "Favor", as Paul would teach the gospel of Grace, which would be with respect to anyone being found in God's Grace. God would take the staff "Favor", and cut it in pieces, to "break my covenant" which I had made with all the peoples. The second staff being called "Union" to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel, would be Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Ze 11:17, who would not tend, care, or feed the sheep. Ze 11:16 & John 21:17

Not that the covenant with all the people is broken, since the earth hasn't passed away (Mt 5:18), put that the second staff would preach such a gospel. As for Peter, being incorrectly assumed as the "rock" the church is built on, this fits nicely in paralleling Isaiah 22:15-25, whereas the steward Shebna, who was in charge of the royal household, and made a place for himself in the rock (Is 22:16), was deposed for bringing shame on the royal house, and his successor, Eliakimm, who would assume the keys of the house of David, would "break off" (Is 22:25), and all hanging on him would be "cut off".

The broken brotherhood refers to the remnant of Israel lost in the nations (Jer 16:15), who have not been fully recovered, because the nations have not come from the ends of the earth to confess they have inherited nothing but falsehoods. (Jer 16:19) Israel has not been fully hunted down (Jer 16:16) and returned, and is mixed with the Gentiles, being taught the false gospel of Grace in contrasts to the Law and the prophets.

Yeshua foretold of this in Rev 17, whereas the beast with two horns like a lamb, the horns, being Christlike beings, would deceive those who dwell on the earth (Rev 13:14). The beast being Constantine, the estabisher of the church of Rome, and the horns being the two staffs, Peter and Paul. This is the "flock doomed to slaughter". Ze 11:7

 

[Ben Masada]

It's a stretch to think Paul spoke for God. Sure, much of what he wrote in his letters is true, but I'm of the mind that he felt like he needed to play the role of a politician also. If he hadn't what we know as Christianity would have never taken root. Then again, if he didn't appeal to social norms, Christianity would probably be something far closer to the truth.

Was Paul an honest politician? I wouldn't know, but he did appeal to social norms, which makes much of what he wrote questionable. Even so, I derive a great deal of inspiration from Paul. I can't fault a fallible man for being fallible like me. Life is about growing in knowledge and understanding, and I can honestly say that Paul has helped me understand much.

As far as I am concerned, Paul has helped me understand Replacement Theology. (Gal. 4:21-31) Today, any Christian preacher can't open his or her mouth from the pulpit without promoting that policy of Paul's.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

No, I don’t. If anything, and as I said, I find it a bit schizoid to posit a conflict, or struggle, between the spirit and flesh, but I don’t think that Saul (*** Paul) is the only Jew given to discussing, in however oblique terms, the relationship between the nephesh, ruach and neshama. A brief search on Google shows me that someone named Rabbi Simeon, for instance, had a go with the same subject, from a different angle.

At any rate, with that said, one ought perhaps (and I emphasize perhaps) always to remember Nietzsche’s advice and wear surgical gloves when reading the Gospels (and Epistles) because, after all, one is in the presence of ambiguating and ambiguous Jews, Paul chief among them, and this passage in Romans might be, to the apostle of anti-Christianity, Nietzsche, a classic case in point.

Sorry. Since when is Jesus of the Pharisaic line? I thought, according to official Pharisaical sources, he was the bastard son of the Roman Panther.

Not all Pharisees are hypocrites, just the ones Jesus is referring to in that and other portions of scripture wherein he reportedly lambastes them. Anyway, as I see it, Jews are only too ready to eat bagels and lox and generalize and this, your above comment, is an example.

Serv

And do you think that those Pharisees whom Jesus, according to the gospel of Matthew, lashed them with those woes, liked to be referred to as frauds, wicked people, blind guides, blind fools, filth-full people, whitewashed tombs, prophet murders, broods of serpents, viper's nests, etc, etc? Do you think they liked to be treated as such? I doubt it. And I don't think either that Jesus would have liked to be addressed to in those terms. So, in that case, Jesus broke the Golden Rule of not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto us. This rule covers all the second part of the Decalogue. So, from now on, no more word that Jesus was perfect and sinless. And blame yourselves not I. I don't believe Jesus treated the Jewish authorities with those evil adjectives, but you do. I mean, if you are a Christian.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben--

The oldest existing churches are the ones I named. And Marcion was the earliest determiner of scripture. You can say Paul headed or founded the Church. In the west, it is possible that the teachings of Marcion (who out-Pauls Paul) corrupted the faith. The earliest actual, historical, continuing Chrches are the Armenian, Ethiopian, and Assyrian. I do not believe they read Paul in the same hateful manner to Jews (or at least there is little evidence of it).

For example, Beta-Israel had no problem with the Tewahedo Church growing in Ethiopia (even at the expense of their membership). And the Tewahedo never practiced Anti-Semitism towards Beta-Israel.

IMHO, Antisemitism started with the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. (Gal. 4:21-31)
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Did you ever consider that the "Living Word of God" the Law and the prophets actually commented on the "Cuckoo Bird", the coming man of Lawlessness, Paul? Per my understanding, Zechariah 11 refers to 3 shepherds, two of which were to pasture "the flock doomed to slaughter". The 3rd is referred to in Mt 26:15, as Judas Iscariot. The first, referred to as a staff, was called "Favor", as Paul would teach the gospel of Grace, which would be with respect to anyone being found in God's Grace. God would take the staff "Favor", and cut it in pieces, to "break my covenant" which I had made with all the peoples. The second staff being called "Union" to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel, would be Peter, the "worthless shepherd" of Ze 11:17, who would not tend, care, or feed the sheep. Ze 11:16 & John 21:17

Not that the covenant with all the people is broken, since the earth hasn't passed away (Mt 5:18), put that the second staff would preach such a gospel. As for Peter, being incorrectly assumed as the "rock" the church is built on, this fits nicely in paralleling Isaiah 22:15-25, whereas the steward Shebna, who was in charge of the royal household, and made a place for himself in the rock (Is 22:16), was deposed for bringing shame on the royal house, and his successor, Eliakimm, who would assume the keys of the house of David, would "break off" (Is 22:25), and all hanging on him would be "cut off".

The broken brotherhood refers to the remnant of Israel lost in the nations (Jer 16:15), who have not been fully recovered, because the nations have not come from the ends of the earth to confess they have inherited nothing but falsehoods. (Jer 16:19) Israel has not been fully hunted down (Jer 16:16) and returned, and is mixed with the Gentiles, being taught the false gospel of Grace in contrasts to the Law and the prophets.

Yeshua foretold of this in Rev 17, whereas the beast with two horns like a lamb, the horns, being Christlike beings, would deceive those who dwell on the earth (Rev 13:14). The beast being Constantine, the estabisher of the church of Rome, and the horns being the two staffs, Peter and Paul. This is the "flock doomed to slaughter". Ze 11:7

Hi Showme, welcome to this forum. As I can see, this is your first post. And, as far as I am concerned, you haven't started it too well, I am sorry.

The impression you have left is the one of a prophet, or the one with the authority to determine what this prophecy or that points to and what in the NT.

Then, I read a second time looking for the line "according to my opinion" or IMHO. I didn't find any. Since I love to have a mind of my own, I can't take your word for it.

According to your preconceived notions, you seem to believe that the Tanach finds fulfillment in the NT. I don't. Especially, because, with the return of the Jewish People from exile in Babylon, vision and prophecy were sealed up as the prophetical system was over, and there was no longer any need of prophets. (Dan. 9:24)

That's when the New Covenant was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah as one People called by the name of Israel but from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1)

Ben

 

[Gatekeeper]

As far as I am concerned, Paul has helped me understand Replacement Theology. (Gal. 4:21-31) Today, any Christian preacher can't open his or her mouth from the pulpit without promoting that policy of Paul's.
Ben

... and what law is being replaced? Are you speaking of the 10 commandments, or the 613 laws as given in the Torah? Aren't the 613 laws for the Jewish people and not so much for the Gentiles? You may feel that the Jewish community are required to keep them, but as Gentiles we are only required to love, as our law is fulfilled through this Spirit.

May I ask how you feel about Jesus being preferred above John the baptist, who in effect represents the law of the old covenant (rituals, traditions, etc.) ? Jesus represents the new covenant, which is the covenant of grace (love). It is through the Spirit (love) that we are graced with God's blessings, which are love, joy, peace, gentleness, patience, kindness, and self control.

There is no law against such things. I believe the law was established because of the hardness of mankind's hearts. It condemns man because of the wickedness of man, but the Spirit takes the wickedness out of our hearts. The Spirit of God fulfills the law, as when we live through this Spirit, we also submit to God's will for us, which is to simply love God, and our neighbor as ones self.

We in effect become born again as children of God, as opposed to being children of disobedience/destruction. We honor Jesus by honoring God in Spirit (love) and truth (reality). We submit to God who is life and love in other words.

 

[Ben Masada]

... and what law is being replaced? Are you speaking of the 10 commandments, or the 613 laws as given in the Torah? Aren't the 613 laws for the Jewish people and not so much for the Gentiles? You may feel that the Jewish community are required to keep them, but as Gentiles we are only required to love, as our law is fulfilled through this Spirit.

May I ask how you feel about Jesus being preferred above John the baptist, who in effect represents the law of the old covenant (rituals, traditions, etc.) ? Jesus represents the new covenant, which is the covenant of grace (love). It is through the Spirit (love) that we are graced with God's blessings, which are love, joy, peace, gentleness, patience, kindness, and self control.

There is no law against such things. I believe the law was established because of the hardness of mankind's hearts. It condemns man because of the wickedness of man, but the Spirit takes the wickedness out of our hearts. The Spirit of God fulfills the law, as when we live through this Spirit, we also submit to God's will for us, which is to simply love God, and our neighbor as ones self.

We in effect become born again as children of God, as opposed to being children of disobedience/destruction. We honor Jesus by honoring God in Spirit (love) and truth (reality). We submit to God who is life and love in other words.

Everything about Judaism was in Paul's agenda to be replaced with Christianity. If you read Galatians 4:21-31, the Sinaitic Covenant with Israel was compared to Hagar and the Jewish People with her son Ishmael, while Sara was compared to Christianity, and Christians to Isaac. At the end, he warns Christians to cast out Hagar with her son together, on the pretext that the Jewish People are not supposed to take part in the inheritance with the one born free, which are the Christians. Please, read the text and feedback me with any question.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

And do you think that those Pharisees whom Jesus, according to the gospel of Matthew, lashed them with those woes, liked to be referred to as frauds, wicked people, blind guides, blind fools, filth-full people, whitewashed tombs, prophet murders, broods of serpents, viper's nests, etc, etc?

No. I don't think they liked it. That is probably one reason why it is said that they colluded with the Roman authorities to have Jesus offed.

Do you think they liked to be treated as such? I doubt it.

I’ve never known a hypocrite to like his or her game called. At any rate, quite apart from (and before) Christianity, there was a clearly established tradition within Judaism of the prophets prophesying -often in shockingly impolitic terms- against the kings and priests, that is to say, the Jewish authorities. I would bring a citation or two, but the books of the Prophets are full of examples –it’s practically stating the obvious.

And I don't think either that Jesus would have liked to be addressed to in those terms.

He reportedly was addressed in those and worse terms. The Pharisees called (and in their Talmud call) him bastard, or what is the same thing (in the New Testament), Samaritan, and, of course, resorting to the stock-in-trade of religious partisans from day one, accused him of being in league with Satan. There evidently was not much mutual love flowing between the two parties, the disciples of Jesus the Christ and the Pharisees, and that lack of love is continued, respectively, in the Christian (post-Jesus) and Talmudic literatures.

So, in that case, Jesus broke the Golden Rule of not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto us.

No, he did not. He might have assumed, because the Pharisees were mistreating him, that they wanted to be (arguably) mistreated in turn. Sometimes, it's a bloody mess, this Golden Rule business. And, furthermore (though it is only tangentially related), I notice that God is sometimes said to break (or have others break) his own rules. Such as, for instance, and the debt is in this case owed to Origen for pointing it out, when Joshua was told to march for seven days and nights around Jericho, not taking a break for Sabbath. To say nothing, in this case, of the at times dodgy manner in which the rights of the first-born are switched to the second-born, thus leading to the difficult problem raised in this thread: replacement and how irksome it can be to be considered replaced. For proof of that, ask Ishmael.

So, from now on, no more word that Jesus was perfect and sinless.

Stop being so bossy. It is unbecoming. Jesus, by the way, was perfect and sinless.

And blame yourselves not I.

Again, I refuse your choices. I shall blame nobody.

I don't believe Jesus treated the Jewish authorities with those evil adjectives, but you do. I mean, if you are a Christian.

Stop telling me what I believe. It is unbecoming. I am an unusually, inordinately, highly independent Christian who probably cannot even rightly be called one, in proper company, but I don’t know any other label which better applies so I sometimes wear it.

But, after that digression, in this case, you are correct: I do believe Jesus treated the Jewish authorities in such a manner and, furthermore, that he was largely if not invariably in the prophetic tradition by doing so. For instance, I don’t think the Jewish authority, King Ahab, appreciated Prophet Elijah’s invective very much either. Oh, wait!, King Ahab wasn’t a Jew, he was an Israelite. But that is another matter, for another day.

IMHO, Antisemitism started with the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. (Gal. 4:21-31)

How would that explain the presence of anti-Semitism in non-Christian societies?


Serv

 

[showme]

Hi Showme, welcome to this forum. As I can see, this is your first post. And, as far as I am concerned, you haven't started it too well, I am sorry.

The impression you have left is the one of a prophet, or the one with the authority to determine what this prophecy or that points to and what in the NT.

Then, I read a second time looking for the line "according to my opinion" or IMHO. I didn't find any. Since I love to have a mind of my own, I can't take your word for it.

According to your preconceived notions, you seem to believe that the Tanach finds fulfillment in the NT. I don't. Especially, because, with the return of the Jewish People from exile in Babylon, vision and prophecy were sealed up as the prophetical system was over, and there was no longer any need of prophets. (Dan. 9:24)

That's when the New Covenant was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah as one People called by the name of Israel but from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1)

Ben

Ben, I looked, but I did not see the statement of IMHO in your discourse. Or possibly you are a prophet and are telling me what Isaiah and Dan meant? As for your interpretation of my simple discourse, you didn't seem to do too well. It seems you see what you want to see. In IMHO, the NT doesn't fulfill the Law and the Prophets. The NT was originally compiled in its present form by a Roman bishop Athanasius, for whom I have little respect. This stemming from his personal conduct with respect to Arius, and with regards to him being a bishop in the Roman church. The Roman church would be associated with the beast of Daniel 7:7-. As for Isa 48:1, you have to be joking, for all from Jacob were called Israel. It wasn't until the judgement of King David, for his sin, that the northern tribes were separated from the southern tribes of Judah, which included Benjamin and Levi. And as far as Judah, it was never lost, it was only sent into exile, it was Israel that was lost into "a land which you have not known" (Jer 16:13). Israel is lost among the nations. Per Zechariah 11:14, the brotherhood between the northern tribes of Israel and Judah has been broken. And until Israel has been doubly repaid for their iniquity, and the nations come to the Lord, saying "Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood", then Isreal hasn't been fully repatriated, and things are not finished (Jer 16:18-21).

As for Dan 9:24, you must be a prophet if you understand that verse without adding IMHO. Maybe I will just add the comment for you, "in your humble opinion", this is what it means. But then again, I never said I was a prophet, and didn't seem to know my every word has to have a IMHO, for which it is inspired by the Spirit of God (Mt 10:27), just like everyone else who has been baptised in the Spirit, except in your case, whereas everyone apparently knows that your opinion is indeed considered humbling. If not in your eyes, but in the eyes of the poor unwashed masses, who must bow at your feet. What did Solomon say about the proud? Since you are the only one capable of discerning what Scripture means, maybe you can help me out with Daniel 9:24-27? Your explanation of Daniel 9 must be a heart breaker, but feel free to let us know what the the whole verse means. I haven't had a good laugh since this morning. Check out today's cartoon on wnd.com (bottom of page)

 

[Ben Masada]

He reportedly was addressed in those and worse terms. The Pharisees called (and in their Talmud call) him bastard, or what is the same thing (in the New Testament), Samaritan, and, of course, resorting to the stock-in-trade of religious partisans from day one, accused him of being in league with Satan. There evidently was not much mutual love flowing between the two parties, the disciples of Jesus the Christ and the Pharisees, and that lack of love is continued, respectively, in the Christian (post-Jesus) and Talmudic literatures.

Serv

I would like to have you quote in your own gospels where Jesus is referred to as a bastard. What I have is that the Pharisees would refer to Jesus as Rabbi, which is a term of respect to the authority he represented. Read John 3:1,2.

That he is called a bastard in the Talmud, I have heard of but, think! A foreign religion picks up a Jew and fabricates the doctrine that the Greek myth of a demigod is possible in Judaism. Since such a thing is unheard of, what do you think would be the Jewish reaction but the one that rather Christianity has made of Jesus a bastard? Therefore, the fault does not lay with Judaism but with Christianity.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

As for Dan 9:24, you must be a prophet if you understand that verse without adding IMHO. Maybe I will just add the comment for you, "in your humble opinion", this is what it means.

Nu! I was anxious for the comment you gave me the impression you would add about Daniel 9:24. Would you like to tell me what it means? I am all ears.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

I would like to have you quote in your own gospels where Jesus is referred to as a bastard.

First, I don’t have my own gospels. The gospels belong to everybody and I had nothing to do with their production. Secondly, the gospels are not official Pharisaical sources. The Talmud is. Jesus is called a bastard in the Talmud. Although I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a Talmudist, General Ludendorff, it might be worth repeating, agreed with the Talmud. So, too, did Wilhelm Marr, the so called patriarch of German anti-Semitism, if I correctly recall.

What I have is that the Pharisees would refer to Jesus as Rabbi, which is a term of respect to the authority he represented. Read John 3:1,2.

Is Jesus called Rabbi in any official Pharisaical sources? I doubt it. Anyway, some Pharisees probably did respect Jesus. That is hardly in dispute. To repeat, the Pharisees were (and are) not all hypocrites. However, in the main, the religious elites of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, Pharisees included, must have been particularly onerous because the Essenes, for instance, known for their piety, saw fit to withdraw to the Dead Sea region and prepare for the arrival of their Teacher of Righteousness. The way I figure, and coincidentally enough, they were doing that at just about the time the virgin, that’s right, virgin Mary went into labor, brought forth her firstborn son, wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger (and all that).

That he is called a bastard in the Talmud, I have heard of but, think! A foreign religion picks up a Jew and fabricates the doctrine that the Greek myth of a demigod is possible in Judaism.

To my view, Christianity is not a foreign religion. If anything, it is what happens when Judaism -or, again, whatever it was called at the time of Jesus- encounters the Hellenic world and mutates. It may, however, be foreign to you. In that case, perhaps you should learn to speak Greek. The language was so commonly spoken by your coreligionists prior to and at the time of Jesus’ emergence that your scriptures were translated into the Septuagint. We Christians (and here I include myself among them) did not demand that -we were just among the beneficiaries, though Nietzsche and others would for the same reason consider us decidedly, in fact perilously ill-fated.

Since such a thing is unheard of, what do you think would be the Jewish reaction but the one that rather Christianity has made of Jesus a bastard?

Sorry, Ben, but, to me, that switch was only slightly more ineffective than it was transparent. Again, as I see it, Christianity was a Jewish reaction. And thus, due in large part to that “gay, epileptic and Jewish” Paul’s evangelizing efforts, Christians are become, in Nietzsche’s words, “little ultra-Jews” (whether you like it or not) .

Furthermore, Christianity did not make Jesus a bastard. It (together with Islam on this part of the story) had him miraculously born of the righteous Jewess, Mary.

Therefore, the fault does not lay with Judaism but with Christianity.

You seem, in more ways than one, quite the dualist. Is it possible for you to think in other terms than fault and blame and either or? If we are going to shoot spit-wads, let’s aim at the piano player. That bloke is irritating me.


Serv

 

[koranist]

According to whom, the Hellenistic writers of the gospels? Think! The enemy was not Jesus but the Romans. Jesus had come to confirm the most important thing in the life of a Jew: God's Law. (Mat. 5:17-19) How could his fellow Jews grab him and force the enemy occupiers of our land crucify him? If this makes any sense to you, we are back to square one. I wish the Catholic church had not destroyed the books that did not make into the Canon of the NT. The truth could have ben quite different.
Ben

Jesus rejected the Talmud which put him at odds with the Pharisees who believed in the Talmud and its binding authority. Like Jesus, the Koran confirmed the Torah but attacked many aspects of the Talmud.

 

[Ben Masada]

First, I don’t have my own gospels. The gospels belong to everybody and I had nothing to do with their production. Secondly, the gospels are not official Pharisaical sources. The Talmud is. Jesus is called a bastard in the Talmud. Although I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a Talmudist, General Ludendorff, it might be worth repeating, agreed with the Talmud. So, too, did Wilhelm Marr, the so called patriarch of German anti-Semitism, if I correctly recall.

Is Jesus called Rabbi in any official Pharisaical sources? I doubt it. Anyway, some Pharisees probably did respect Jesus. That is hardly in dispute. To repeat, the Pharisees were (and are) not all hypocrites. However, in the main, the religious elites of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, Pharisees included, must have been particularly onerous because the Essenes, for instance, known for their piety, saw fit to withdraw to the Dead Sea region and prepare for the arrival of their Teacher of Righteousness. The way I figure, and coincidentally enough, they were doing that at just about the time the virgin, that’s right, virgin Mary went into labor, brought forth her firstborn son, wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger (and all that).

To my view, Christianity is not a foreign religion. If anything, it is what happens when Judaism -or, again, whatever it was called at the time of Jesus- encounters the Hellenic world and mutates. It may, however, be foreign to you. In that case, perhaps you should learn to speak Greek. The language was so commonly spoken by your coreligionists prior to and at the time of Jesus’ emergence that your scriptures were translated into the Septuagint. We Christians (and here I include myself among them) did not demand that -we were just among the beneficiaries, though Nietzsche and others would for the same reason consider us decidedly, in fact perilously ill-fated.

Sorry, Ben, but, to me, that switch was only slightly more ineffective than it was transparent. Again, as I see it, Christianity was a Jewish reaction. And thus, due in large part to that “gay, epileptic and Jewish” Paul’s evangelizing efforts, Christians are become, in Nietzsche’s words, “little ultra-Jews” (whether you like it or not) .

Furthermore, Christianity did not make Jesus a bastard. It (together with Islam on this part of the story) had him miraculously born of the righteous Jewess, Mary.

You seem, in more ways than one, quite the dualist. Is it possible for you to think in other terms than fault and blame and either or? If we are going to shoot spit-wads, let’s aim at the piano player. That bloke is irritating me.

Serv

Since the main idea of this post of yours above is about Jesus being miraculously born of a virgin, needless to ask, you are referring to the prophecy of Isaiah about the virgin that would bear a child in Isaiah 7:14. Let me explain to you how and why the plagiarism of this prophecy took place.

Isaiah 7:14 - "The virgin shall be with a child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel." Focus here on the son named Immanuel. Now, read Amos 5:2.

Amos 5:2 - Amos understood what Isaiah was talking about and said that "The virgin of Israel is fallen." That's a reference to the taking of Israel, the Ten Tribes to Assyria for good. Now, read Isaiah 7:15.

Isaiah 7:15 - "He shall feed on butter and honey." He who? The son born of the virgin Israel. Now, go to Isaiah 7:22.

Isaiah 7:22 - "For butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land." Butter and honey was the food of the child Immanuel. And here, the same prophet says that butter and honey is the food of all that is left in the land. Who was left in the land after Israel was taken to Assyria? Judah
right? Right. It means that Judah was that child born by the virgin Israel when she fell. This would be enough to identify the son born of the virgin with Judah. But, in case there is any doubt in your mind, take a look at Isaiah 8:8.

Isaiah 8:8 - And the Assyrians shall pass into Judah; and in the stretching of their wings, they shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel. Whose land? The Land of the son of the virgin who had remained in the land while the virgin was taken to Assyria. As you can see, Israiah is identifying Immanuel here with Judah, the present Jewish People.

That's HOW the plagiarism of this prophecy took place. The WHY can easily be seen through the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.
Ben