Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Liam R wrote:

A reply in two parts...
<quoted text>
Good job of showing that Jesus was not a god. Nothing that you posted does anything to actually show that the Messiah was supposed to be Divine. Instead, you show that there was NO reason to believe that the Messiah would be anything other than a normal human, just like the rest of the house of David.

I take it then, that the Jewish scriptures that tell where God says there is no savior other than YHWH mean something other than what they say?

So, are you then saying that YHWH is not divine?

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
I wouldnt expect otherwise from a raving Christian evangelicist such as yourself.

Thank You!

MAAT wrote:

Hi Liam,
Yup good start...i thought so to.
Hillbillyboy you end with messies having it probably right and thus being the lamb saved.
But at the same time you declared them the remnant as in sacrificial lamb, sinoffer.
(Well that took reading the parable entirely different, as in not saving the lamb, but substituting with a mere nothing lamb only fit for offering.)
The one out of a hundred. And we all know that the righteous according to John can be discarded.
(just following your lead here)
Another proper fix.

The remnant has nothing to do with being a sin offering. Where did that come from?

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank You!

Now that you see eye to eye, you might want to consider how you come off telling Jewish people what is in their scripture. A little arrogant, to put it very mildly. Especially since you dont even know the language of the scripture.

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
The remnant has nothing to do with being a sin offering. Where did that come from?

I posted a link to the various versions in the gospel about the parable of the lamb. And partways using your words.

Just look in the other thread.

We could also go outside the box and check mithra and the lamb f.i.

http://heideggerm1.blogspot.nl/2011/02/parabl...

Hillbillyboy please do read.
By the way; there is no need to repeat your posts, unless it was caused by a technical hick-up.
Could you however post the source of your bibleverses?

Liam R wrote:

Part two...
<quoted text>
No human NEEDS to be perfect or sinless. That was the whole point of having a path for forgiveness and the commandment to have an annual Day of Atonement.
<quoted text>
Believing that a mere human like Jesus was a god IS idolatry!
So, you accept that the gospel of John claims that Jesus was supposed to be the Passover lamb (ignoring the fact that human sacrifice is an abomination and utterly useless as a path of redemption)? But that is just ONE of the contradictions contained within the NT.
One gospel claims that Jesus had his last meal with his buds as the Passover meal, but another claims that he was crucified BEFORE the Passover meal was eaten. Oops. Which gospel is right and which is the lie? Mark or John - only one can be right, the other is false!

I think Both false is a solid option.

MAAT wrote:

God + holy ghost = son of god
God + son of god = residual holy ghost
God = holy ghost = son of god
An agency=prophet
If you see his name (name title mind not the person. And aramic noun femininin pronoun 'yeshua' is a poor substitute for what was formerly written as the 'proof for simple man's eyes' or 'handworkman' in old greek and latinised greek) it is as if you see god.
I wish they would finally make up their mind as to what dogma get's first price.

rabbee: well just like my wordly name has a femine ending, so does Yeshooah. for G-D made Adam He and She, G-D made Them. and there is no word eesh in there, to call Him son of man. or to say that G-D, made man in THEIR IMAGE. since The IMAGE of G-D, is the combinationational HE/SHE IMAGE.
son of man, is an errant translation of Benee Adam. even ElShaddae, has that masculine begunning and femine ending. one of the main themes of TheTorah, is TheMale and His Mate. G-D did not allow any homos as animals, to make there escape on the ark.

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You should get off those atheist websites and read the Bible for yourself. Here is the text that fixes the events, and all the gospels match each other...
... "Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away."...John 19:42
Key Word...Day of preparation.
So, another supposed contradiction resolved. No contradiction after all.

Silly child, wrong...

Mark and John contradict one another , and it is IMPOSSIBLE to rectify them.

Mark 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?
...
14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
...
15:1 And straightway in the morning
...
15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

At the so-called "last supper", they were eating the Passover feast. In the rest of Mark 14, we can read about the arrest and a hearing before the High Priest, etc, etc, etc, ending with Mark 15:25 and Jesus gets crucified at 9:00 Passover morning.

In contrast with that:

In John, there is no mention of a last supper, or of bread & wine as body and blood, but there is a story of foot washing (bordering on the homoerotic! Eewww.) that is not mentioned anywhere else. Then finally...

John 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

So, according to one gospel, Jesus was crucified on the day of Passover, but the other says that it was the day of PREPARATION for Passover.

It CANNOT have been both, ONLY one of them can be correct; the other MUST be wrong. Of course, they could BOTH be wrong...

Stop denying reality.

hillbillyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
I take it then, that the Jewish scriptures that tell where God says there is no savior other than YHWH mean something other than what they say?
So, are you then saying that YHWH is not divine?

And this reading disability is the reason you believe xianity in the first place.

Clearly, it says that there will never be any reason for there to be a so-called savior like Jesus to come along, since the God of the Bible has always been the savior of the children of Israel. It was a warning for the children of Israel to not be taken in by the lies of christians...

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>I think Both false is a solid option.

Well, yeah. However, I do think that there was a historical Jesus, and that he was crucified. Absent any other evidence, it is entirely possible that that took place on one of those days - more likely Mark, since John changed soooooo much to create support for his theology.

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, yeah. However, I do think that there was a historical Jesus, and that he was crucified. Absent any other evidence, it is entirely possible that that took place on one of those days - more likely Mark, since John changed soooooo much to create support for his theology.

I agree with that, although there is still the possiblity that the whole yarn was built around somebody,not necessary this guy. But the question that continues to intrigue me is whyyy? Who would benefit from concocting this idea. There are a couple of possibilities based on the needs of the times.
1. The Romans? with the help of Josephus Flavius to turn the populace into pacifist, tax-paying zombies. Luke's writing much like Josephus in style.
2. Paul? but why? a couple of possibilities.
a. Jim Bakker syndrome
b. Hellenistic convert, but rejection of marriage to High Priest's daughter caused him to look for revenge (put forth by the Ebionites, and mentioned by Eusebius)
c. He was a real Jew, but wanted to separate this reform movement completely in order to protect Torah Judaism from total assimilation.

Either of the above suspects helps answer some of the discrepancies in the gospels that have puzzled scholars. We realize,(although the usual suspects here are not cognizant of either the language or the main precepts of Judaism), that there are just enough mistranslations and impossible scenarios to make the gospels easily recognizable as treif to any educated Jew.

Both Paul and Josephus knew enough to pull this off.

rabbee yehoshooah adam wrote:

<quoted text>
rabbee: well just like my wordly name has a femine ending, so does Yeshooah. for G-D made Adam He and She, G-D made Them. and there is no word eesh in there, to call Him son of man. or to say that G-D, made man in THEIR IMAGE. since The IMAGE of G-D, is the combinationational HE/SHE IMAGE.
son of man, is an errant translation of Benee Adam. even ElShaddae, has that masculine begunning and femine ending. one of the main themes of TheTorah, is TheMale and His Mate. G-D did not allow any homos as animals, to make there escape on the ark.

So that epigenetic fact missed the signs stating forbidden for heterosexual sodomites and bestiality-practicers as well as missing the point that animals can't read.
Slight design flaw?

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, yeah. However, I do think that there was a historical Jesus, and that he was crucified. Absent any other evidence, it is entirely possible that that took place on one of those days - more likely Mark, since John changed soooooo much to create support for his theology.

Some historical figures reported about crucifixions in various forms (all were practiced) but depiction and descriptions came mainly from Syria and Egyptian gnostics.
On the whole it was not much of an issue in any or if any form of early xianity, thus suspect by it's absense.
Reading the gospel one would get the impression that only one person in 'history' was ever crucified.
Hundred thousands would make the gesture entirely devoid of meaning.

Again: people are dying in large numbers in refugee camps in south-sudan, a humanitarian disaster the UN says.
Well we could see it coming.

"Let us create man in ""our"" image". Sounds like many gods. Why?

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
Some historical figures reported about crucifixions in various forms (all were practiced) but depiction and descriptions came mainly from Syria and Egyptian gnostics.
On the whole it was not much of an issue in any or if any form of early xianity, thus suspect by it's absense.
Reading the gospel one would get the impression that only one person in 'history' was ever crucified.
Hundred thousands would make the gesture entirely devoid of meaning.

From Josephus "And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered. " 70CE approx.
hmmm, three of them..

"But the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened to the disobedient; on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified, while they were still alive, and breathed. They also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses. And if there were any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed, and those with whom they were found miserably perished also." Maccabean revolt 167BC

"for as he (Alexander Janneus) was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes.
100 BC

"Upon this, Varus (Roman legate of Syria)sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were crucified on this account were two thousand. 4BC

(this is another possiblity for the mysterious 'slaughter of the innocents' attributed wrongly about Jesus.)

This is the infamous testimonium, the church forgery which was added to the works of Josephus. The additions are bracketed:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man,[if it be lawful to call him a man;] for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher [of such men as receive the truth with pleasure,] He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.[He was the Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,(9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.] And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Josephus reports that the Romans crucified many before the walls of Jerusalem during the siege of 70 C.E. The idea was to terrorize the population and force a surrender. The number reached 500 a day at one point until there was no wood left in the area for this purpose.

None of this was taught in Sunday School. Just the anti-Jewish rhetoric passed down from the Catholic church.

So the NT story is devoid of meaning.

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
Some historical figures reported about crucifixions in various forms (all were practiced) but depiction and descriptions came mainly from Syria and Egyptian gnostics.
On the whole it was not much of an issue in any or if any form of early xianity, thus suspect by it's absense.
Reading the gospel one would get the impression that only one person in 'history' was ever crucified.
Hundred thousands would make the gesture entirely devoid of meaning.

From Josephus "And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered. " 70CE approx.
hmmm, three of them..

"But the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened to the disobedient; on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified, while they were still alive, and breathed. They also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses. And if there were any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed, and those with whom they were found miserably perished also." Maccabean revolt 167BC

"for as he (Alexander Janneus) was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes.
100 BC

"Upon this, Varus (Roman legate of Syria)sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were crucified on this account were two thousand. 4BC

(this is another possiblity for the mysterious 'slaughter of the innocents' attributed wrongly about Jesus.)

This is the infamous testimonium, the church forgery which was added to the works of Josephus. The additions are bracketed:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man,[if it be lawful to call him a man;] for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher [of such men as receive the truth with pleasure,] He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.[He was the Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,(9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.] And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Josephus reports that the Romans crucified many before the walls of Jerusalem during the siege of 70 C.E. The idea was to terrorize the population and force a surrender. The number reached 500 a day at one point until there was no wood left in the area for this purpose.

None of this was taught in Sunday School. Just the anti-Jewish rhetoric passed down from the Catholic church.

Still bugged by the incompatible server i see.

I thought the Jesus Pilate reference was an interpolation, standing out for it's different handwriting and out of context content.
Though you had the privilege of reading all those theories on f.i. Josephus writing the gospel as a play for Titus and Gaius.
And other theories.
So quite curious as to what other gems will come forward.

I'm allready quite pleased of not having to go another round with direct translations from the hebrew book.
Funny that in other parts of topix it is usually just about the meaning of one word and here one ended up translating entire verses...to no avail.

On that note; chabad.org is a good resource.

MAAT wrote:

Still bugged by the incompatible server i see.
I thought the Jesus Pilate reference was an interpolation, standing out for it's different handwriting and out of context content.
Though you had the privilege of reading all those theories on f.i. Josephus writing the gospel as a play for Titus and Gaius.
And other theories.
So quite curious as to what other gems will come forward.
I'm allready quite pleased of not having to go another round with direct translations from the hebrew book.
Funny that in other parts of topix it is usually just about the meaning of one word and here one ended up translating entire verses...to no avail.
On that note; chabad.org is a good resource.

This time i copied my post before it went into the ether.

I think that the extreme lack of interest in the translations by hillybilly is in direct correlation to lack of knowledge, coupled with "it doesn't fit my paradigm".

What I find interesting about these other theories is that they are much more plausible and historically-contextually correct than the actual gospels.

I'm still leaning to the Josephus-Flavian family sourcing, given the time frame of his writings which correspond to the earliest reasonable datings of the gospels.

However, the other idea is even more intriguing, that Paul, as a Jew decided to save Torah Judaism by distraction, possibly sacrificing his historical reputation. But I haven't yet mentioned is that I only tossed Paul out as a red herring - it could well have been someone else with a higher position in the Jerusalem church. What do you think, Alice? hillybilly didn't take the bait.