The Collective Messiah

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, this Israel as King Messiah thing is not working.

Well, let’s see if you have something better that can work without assumption?

Israel has in part recogized the first coming of her King, Yeshua. Its at his Second coming he will fully restore the land and people of Israel, as well as judge the nations for their treatment of Israel.

And what do you have to prove your assertion, only assumptions?

Meanwhile, the Jews that are currently being restored to their nation and land of Israel need to humble themselves before their God.

And what makes you think we don’t? Unless you want that we humble ourselves before your Church. Is it what you mean?

**Ezekiel 36:16-32
Again the word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight. So I poured out my wrath on them because they had shed blood in the land and because they had defiled it with their idols. I dispersed them among the nations, and they were scattered through the countries; I judged them according to their conduct and their actions. And wherever they went among the nations they profaned my holy name, for it was said of them, ‘These are the LORD’s people, and yet they had to leave his land.’ I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel profaned among the nations where they had gone.

**That time is gone. We have been purged of our uncleanness
and we have been restored into God’s favor. Perhaps this is what you don’t like to hear. ****

"Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes.

**As I said above, we went into exile, had our uncleanness purged and restored into God’s favor. **

" 'For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and make it plentiful and will not bring famine upon you. I will increase the fruit of the trees and the crops of the field, so that you will no longer suffer disgrace among the nations because of famine. Then you will remember your evil ways and wicked deeds, and you will loathe yourselves for your sins and detestable practices. I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign LORD. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, O house of Israel!

As you can see, we are all right now, and in peace with our Lord.

I find it odd that you are not awaiting for a King or a Messiah.

If you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, so that you don’t have to assume that he could have been Jesus. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4. As you can see, we don’t need to await for another King or another Messiah. We are the Messiah and we already reign in the Land of Israel.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I look at Jesus through the lenses of Biblical Judaism. And Jesus never argued with Pharisees or Rabbis of the day.

There is absolutely nothing in Biblical Judaism which would suggest that Jesus didn’t argue with the Pharisees. And very much in the way of historical evidence in support of that. Aside from the Gospels, we have Josephus’s history of 1CAD in which he described several major religoius factions who were constantly arguing with one another. Indeed, unless one is bent on historical revisionism, it is probably more reasonable to say that a Jesus who didn’t argue with his contemporaries could not be a religious Jew.

Moreover, under Biblical Judaism, it was the Temple priests, not the Rabbis, who were the closest thing to a Jewish religious authority. The Pharisees were still wannabe authorities at that time and they would not efffect their coup of the religion until the Temple had been destroyed in the first war with Rome.

So arguing with Pharisees/Rabbis was not religiously significant at that time.

This is a false accusation from the gospel writer who had been a disciple of Paul’s. The one who always had a grudge against the Pharisees was Paul, because the Jewish authorities never allowed him to build a church in Israeli soil.

I’ve never before heard it proposed that Paul sought to build a church on Israeli soil. The Apostles had already accomplished this and Paul was relatively late to the game. He came to the Jerusalem Church to argue for his activities outside of Israel. Or is that, too, a Christian invention?

 

[Ben_Masada]

There is absolutely nothing in Biblical Judaism which would suggest that Jesus didn’t argue with the Pharisees. And very much in the way of historical evidence in support of that. Aside from the Gospels, we have Josephus’s history of 1CAD in which he described several major religoius factions who were constantly arguing with one another. Indeed, unless one is bent on historical revisionism, it is probably more reasonable to say that a Jesus who didn’t argue with his contemporaries could not be a religious Jew.

**Jesus was of the same line of the Pharisees, although he was not a Pharisee himself, for being a junior Rabbi and a Jew not-well-to-do. But I doubt very much that he was at variance with the Pharisees. Perhaps the Priests but not Pharisees. I guess you want to save the hide of the gospel writers for showing Jesus only too frequently offending the Pharisees with name-calling. **

Moreover, under Biblical Judaism, it was the Temple priests, not the Rabbis, who were the closest thing to a Jewish religious authority. The Pharisees were still wannabe authorities at that time and they would not efffect their coup of the religion until the Temple had been destroyed in the first war with Rome.

**I never said that the Rabbis were significant authorities in Jewish religion. **

So arguing with Pharisees/Rabbis was not religiously significant at that time.

Exactly. That’s why I don’t believe it ever happened.

I’ve never before heard it proposed that Paul sought to build a church on Israeli soil. The Apostles had already accomplished this and Paul was relatively late to the game. He came to the Jerusalem Church to argue for his activities outside of Israel. Or is that, too, a Christian invention?

**There was never anything else Paul wanted more. But because of the havoc he caused in Jerusalem, preaching about Jesus as the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, he had the local Jews on an uproar to kill him for preaching apostasy in Jerusalem. Therefore, he was banned and never allowed another chance like that. Were not for the Nazarenes who took him down to Caesarea, and from there back to Tarsus, where he belonged, he would have been killed in Jerusalem.

What the Apostles had accomplished was Nazarene synagogues not only in Israel and Jerusalem but also throughout Asia Minor and Alexandria. Even the first church of Paul in
Antioch had been a Nazarene synagogue which Paul had overturned into a Christian church. (Acts 11:26) The truth is that the Sect of the Nazarenes never had anything to do with Christianity.**

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Jesus was of the same line of the Pharisees, although he was not a Pharisee himself, for being a junior Rabbi and a Jew not-well-to-do. But I doubt very much that he was at variance with the Pharisees.

Even the Pharisees argued among themselves as is well documented.

Perhaps the Priests but not Pharisees. I guess you want to save the hide of the gospel writers for showing Jesus only too frequently offending the Pharisees with name-calling.

Why would you consider that improbable when all the evidence supports it? What evidence is there against it other than your preference that it not be so?

I never said that the Rabbis were significant authorities in Jewish religion.

Then why would you expect anyone to avoid offending the Pharisees in their disagreement with them?

So arguing with Pharisees/Rabbis was not religiously significant at that time.

Exactly. That’s why I don’t believe it ever happened.

That simply makes no sense. Praisees where in the practice of rendering opinions about the Torah and the Mosaic Law. Different people had/have different opinions on that subject. Thus they disagree (even the Pharisees among themselves). And in some cases, those who disagree offend those with whom they disagree.

I’ve never before heard it proposed that Paul sought to build a church on Israeli soil. The Apostles had already accomplished this and Paul was relatively late to the game. He came to the Jerusalem Church to argue for his activities outside of Israel. Or is that, too, a Christian invention?

There was never anything else Paul wanted more. But because of the havoc he caused in Jerusalem, preaching about Jesus as the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected, he had the local Jews on an uproar to kill him for preaching apostasy in Jerusalem. Therefore, he was banned and never allowed another chance like that. Were not for the Nazarenes who took him down to Caesarea, and from there back to Tarsus, where he belonged, he would have been killed in Jerusalem.

Then it was Paul’s preaching which came first. Now it is no secret that Paul introduced many new ideas (I would argue he was the first Christian theologeon, putting two and two together in ways that the original Apostles hadn’t) but your original claim was that Paul invented Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees because he wanted to build a Church in Israel, something that already existed.

What the Apostles had accomplished was Nazarene synagogues not only in Israel and Jerusalem but also throughout Asia Minor and Alexandria. Even the first church of Paul in Antioch had been a Nazarene synagogue which Paul had overturned into a Christian church. (Acts 11:26) The truth is that the Sect of the Nazarenes never had anything to do with Christianity.

Ah, so you are a acolyte of Hyam Maccoby’s “Paul invented Christianity” theory? The problem with Maccoby’s thesis is that it rests on no facts, only wishful conjecture.

It’s no secret that Paul was the most prolific contributor to Christian theology. The problem is that the records we have support his arguments and the theory that he single-handedly rewrote history borders on a conspiracy theory. You might as well be quoting the DeVinci Code.

I invite you to present some evidence for your position in your next reply.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Even the Pharisees argued among themselves as is well documented.

Agreed. But their arguments were in the same line of the arguments between Hillel and Shamai. Constructive.

Why would you consider that improbable when all the evidence supports it? What evidence is there against it other than your preference that it not be so?

Jewish History. Pharisees were never at variance with the Rabbis or with each other. I mean, destructive variance.

Then why would you expect anyone to avoid offending the Pharisees in their disagreement with them?

**If Jesus had offended the Pharisees as the gospel writers report, Jesus would have broken the Golden Rule of not doing unto others what we would not like they did unto us. **

That simply makes no sense. Praisees where in the practice of rendering opinions about the Torah and the Mosaic Law. Different people had/have different opinions on that subject. Thus they disagree (even the Pharisees among themselves). And in some cases, those who disagree offend those with whom they disagree.

But not the way the gospel writers report. They were reflecting the Pauline grudge against the Pharisees, which was really sick.

Then it was Paul’s preaching which came first. Now it is no secret that Paul introduced many new ideas (I would argue he was the first Christian theologeon, putting two and two together in ways that the original Apostles hadn’t)

**Now, I agree with you 101 percent, because Paul was indeed a genius of a Theologian. **

but your original claim was that Paul invented Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees because he wanted to build a Church in Israel, something that already existed.

Not Paul himself invented that conflict. His disciples were aware of Paul’s grudge against the Pharisees, and there was nothing better than to transfer that attriction to Jesus to make the Raplacement more obvious.

Ah, so you are a acolyte of Hyam Maccoby’s “Paul invented Christianity” theory? The problem with Maccoby’s thesis is that it rests on no facts, only wishful conjecture.

**Never heard of the guy. Paul invented Christianity because it was with him that the disciples started being called Christians. Read Acts 11:26. **

I invite you to present some evidence for your position in your next reply.

Do you need more evidences than those I have presented from the NT? What do you want to hear, the opinion of another man or the evidences in your own Scriptures?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba Switzler;5324737:

Even the Pharisees argued among themselves as is well documented.

Agreed. But their arguments were in the same line of the arguments between Hillel and Shamai. Constructive.

Why would you consider that improbable when all the evidence supports it? What evidence is there against it other than your preference that it not be so?

Jewish History. Pharisees were never at variance with the Rabbis or with each other. I mean, destructive variance.

You have a naieve view of the Pharisees and Rabbis. (I note in passing that you have yet to offer any evidence that Jesus was a Pharisee, the Gospels describe him as being a follower of John the Baptist who was a disident Priest, but let’s set that aside for the moment.)

Let me offer, for example, one of the more famouse intranecine Pharisee conflicts: Akiba vs. Gamaliel whom he had ejected from the Yavneh Academy through a classic power play of lockint out Gamaliel’s supporters before the vote after setting him up on a matter that split the academy. Then there is the excommuniation of Rabbi Elizier the Great.

The Rabbis could be absolutely vicious to one another all culminating in the Doctrine of the Rebellious Elder through which dissenting views (not least of which was the emerging Christinaity) was suppressed.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You have a naieve view of the Pharisees and Rabbis. (I note in passing that you have yet to offer any evidence that Jesus was a Pharisee, the Gospels describe him as being a follower of John the Baptist who was a disident Priest, but let’s set that aside for the moment.)

**I never said that Jesus was a Pharisee. He was of the same line, but a formal Pharisee, he was not. For Jesus to be a Pharisee, he needed either seniority as a Rabbi or connections helped with wealth. Jesus was a junior Rabbi and a poor fella. Perhaps his status went up a little after he married Mary Magdalene, a well-to-do lady. **

Let me offer, for example, one of the more famouse intranecine Pharisee conflicts: Akiba vs. Gamaliel whom he had ejected from the Yavneh Academy through a classic power play of lockint out Gamaliel’s supporters before the vote after setting him up on a matter that split the academy. Then there is the excommuniation of Rabbi Elizier the Great.

This kind of politics is found everywhere. Look at the Church. There was a time when there were two Popes excommunicating each other between Avinnon in France and Rome in Italy. Also, when Luter returned from a visit to the Vatican, he swore to the German Princes that if there was Hell, the Vatican had been built on it. These are just two of many such cases.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I never said that Jesus was a Pharisee. He was of the same line, but a formal Pharisee, he was not. For Jesus to be a Pharisee, he needed either seniority as a Rabbi or connections helped with wealth. Jesus was a junior Rabbi and a poor fella. Perhaps his status went up a little after he married Mary Magdalene, a well-to-do lady.

This kind of politics is found everywhere. Look at the Church. There was a time when there were two Popes excommunicating each other between Avinnon in France and Rome in Italy. Also, when Luter returned from a visit to the Vatican, he swore to the German Princes that if there was Hell, the Vatican had been built on it. These are just two of many such cases.

The basis of your claim that Jesus couldn’t have rudely criticized the Pharisees, as is described in the Gospels, is that

1. He was one of them, and
2. They never did that to one another.

So now you concede that:

1. Jesus was not a Pharisee, and, anyway,
2. Pharisees, like all humans everywhere, can be very hostile to one another.

In other words, there is no reason not to believe the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees in all its venom. Jesus had something to say and he didn’t mince words.

It is entirely plausible that a religious Jew, such as Jesus was, would be so critical of Pharisees. That is particularly the case if you examine the content of his criticisms, and not simply the tone, and see that he had every reason to say what he did, how he did. As critical as he was, his words fell on deaf ears for too many.

Which led to the ruin of Israel in two wars with Rome.

Now you seem to place great stock in the restoration of modern Israel. But there are a couple interesting points of history. Modern Israel is more accuratley a product of European secular socialists who happened to have been Jewish. Israel is not a restoration of Biblical Judaism as is plainly evidenced by the structure of its government and the failure to rebuild the Temple. This is most obvious when you notice that the most religious Jews are anti-Zionist (believing as they do that the time has not come for the restoration of Israel).

And it’s worth remembering a little history: At the turn of the 20th century, German Jews thought they had reached the pinacle of resolution and that their home, Germany, was the new land of milk and honey. Then came the Holocaust.

That may yet happen in Israel, which as you know is surrounded by enemies seeking its destruction, one of which is about to go nuclear. The time may come soon when Jews will have to leave Israel again for their own survival.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The basis of your claim that Jesus couldn’t have rudely criticized the Pharisees, as is described in the Gospels, is that

1. He was one of them, and
2. They never did that to one another.

**You have forgotten a third one: That Jesus could not have broken the Golden Rule of not doing unto others what we would not like they did unto us. What I said stands because it would be unethical of Jesus being of the line of Pharisees as Rabbis were and still are to offend them as the gospel writers report. **

So now you concede that:

1. Jesus was not a Pharisee, and, anyway,
2. Pharisees, like all humans everywhere, can be very hostile to one another.

You are using the wrong verb. We don’t have Pharisees today.

In other words, there is no reason not to believe the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees in all its venom. Jesus had something to say and he didn’t mince words.

In that case, he was a sinner just like anyone of us. Words can kill.

It is entirely plausible that a religious Jew, such as Jesus was, would be so critical of Pharisees. That is particularly the case if you examine the content of his criticisms, and not simply the tone, and see that he had every reason to say what he did, how he did. As critical as he was, his words fell on deaf ears for too many.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Jesus could not have done that and still be claimed as a paragon of perfection.

Which led to the ruin of Israel in two wars with Rome.

Those wars had nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus had been dead for half a Century already.

Now you seem to place great stock in the restoration of modern Israel. But there are a couple interesting points of history. Modern Israel is more accuratley a product of European secular socialists who happened to have been Jewish.

We are back and we have our State with a lot less trouble than at the time of Jesus.

Israel is not a restoration of Biblical Judaism as is plainly evidenced by the structure of its government and the failure to rebuild the Temple.

It’s natural for Governments to go through evolution. Regarding the Temple, somehow, we will rebuild it. Just give us some more time. The problem now is that the exile was too long. That’s why in our return, we brought the Diaspora with us instead of leaving it behind. But it will change with our native generation.

This is most obvious when you notice that the most religious Jews are anti-Zionist (believing as they do that the time has not come for the restoration of Israel)

Oh! Those are of the superstitious kind, who think that God Himself needs to bring down from Heavens the third Temple and just settle it into place. And then bring the Jews back in wings of eagles. They do not understand that we are the tools in God’s “hands” to get things done..

And it’s worth remembering a little history: At the turn of the 20th century, German Jews thought they had reached the pinacle of resolution and that their home, Germany, was the new land of milk and honey. Then came the Holocaust.

That’s normal. If you didn’t know, let me remind you that less than one third of the Jews who had been exiled to Babylon returned. More than two thirds had decided to stay. Isaiah says in chapter nine that only a small remnant is supposed to return anyways. The greater part stays in the Diaspora in order to safeguard the existence of the majority of the People, and therefore, of all Mankind.

That may yet happen in Israel, which as you know is surrounded by enemies seeking its destruction, one of which is about to go nuclear. The time may come soon when Jews will have to leave Israel again for their own survival.

**And what is sad about this, is that, with tears in my eyes, I agree with you. I hope it won’t happen in my lifetime, because I don’t want to leave the Land of Israel alive. **

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You have forgotten a third one: That Jesus could not have broken the Golden Rule of not doing unto others what we would not like they did unto us. What I said stands because it would be unethical of Jesus being of the line of Pharisees as Rabbis were and still are to offend them as the gospel writers report.

You have simply gone back to the points that were just refuted. What is this “of the line of Pharisees as Rabbis?” And nothing in Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees was unethical. It’s called “tough love.”

You are using the wrong verb. We don’t have Pharisees today.

Rabbinical Judaism is the Pharisitic tradition minus the Temple Cult. It’s the product of the Pharisees taking over Judaism, crushing the Sadducees and ejecting the Christians.

In that case, he was a sinner just like anyone of us. Words can kill.

Except that harsh criticsm is not sinful. And the Hebrews who died did so following the words of the Jewish leaders, not Jesus. Twice within a century. (Not that death is the worst outcome when more is at stake but even in that sense the Jewish deaths in throwing themselves against Rome were worse than pointless.)

Those wars had nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus had been dead for half a Century already.

Jesus was, among other things, warning the Jews away from rebelling against Rome. That’s what prophets do.

We are back and we have our State with a lot less trouble than at the time of Jesus.

In the time of Jesus there was peace and prosperity in Israel, albeit under the thumb of the Romans. The Romans did not seek the destruction of the Jewish State much less the Temple Cult prior to the later wars. They demanded only taxes and sacrifices to the Emperor (setting aside the occassional abberations that inflamed the Jews).

It’s natural for Governments to go through evolution. Regarding the Temple, somehow, we will rebuild it. Just give us some more time. The problem now is that the exile was too long. That’s why in our return, we brought the Diaspora with us instead of leaving it behind. But it will change with our native generation.

Too long, indeed. How do you unscramble those eggs? Does anyone really remember how to perform the Temple sacrifices after almost 2000 years?

Oh! Those are of the superstitious kind, who think that God Himself needs to bring down from Heavens the third Temple and just settle it into place. And then bring the Jews back in wings of eagles. They do not understand that we are the tools in God’s “hands” to get things done.

So religious Jews are “superstitious”? I’m not defending their religious views but simply noting that Israel is a secular state, not a restoration of Biblical Israel.

That’s normal. If you didn’t know, let me remind you that less than one third of the Jews who had been exiled to Babylon returned. More than two thirds had decided to stay. Isaiah says in chapter nine that only a small remnant is supposed to return anyways. The greater part stays in the Diaspora in order to safeguard the existence of the majority of the People, and therefore, of all Mankind.

My point was that Jews are no safer today in Israel than they were in the Diaspora. Far from being resolved, the problem is as acute as ever.

And what is sad about this, is that, with tears in my eyes, I agree with you. I hope it won’t happen in my lifetime, because I don’t want to leave the Land of Israel alive.

Then doesn’t it make sense not to invest your faith in God in your occupation of Israel at this particular time in history? I’m praying for Israel’s survival as hard as any Jew but maybe the “superstitious” Jews are right, maybe this is not the final restoration of Israel that God has promised. Maybe Jews have something still to learn.

 

[Ben_Masada]

And nothing in Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees was unethical. It’s called “tough love.”

"Tough love!" That’s what fundamentalism produces: Euphemisms to mask the wrongdoings of those whom we love.

Rabbinical Judaism is the Pharisitic tradition minus the Temple Cult. It’s the product of the Pharisees taking over Judaism, crushing the Sadducees and ejecting the Christians.

I agree with the Pharisees for crushing the Sadducees because they cooperated with the occupiers of Israel. And I agree with ejecting Christians for bringing Greek Mythology into Judaism.

Jesus was, among other things, warning the Jews away from rebelling against Rome. That’s what prophets do.

Prove it.

In the time of Jesus there was peace and prosperity in Israel, albeit under the thumb of the Romans.

This statement above depicts absolute lack of knowledge of Jewish life in the First Century.

Too long, indeed. How do you unscramble those eggs? Does anyone really remember how to perform the Temple sacrifices after almost 2000 years?

And this only shows you have zero knowledge of the Jewish mind.

So religious Jews are “superstitious”? I’m not defending their religious views but simply noting that Israel is a secular state, not a restoration of Biblical Israel.

The Ultra Ortodox ones, yes, they are. Just like fundamentalist Christians. Difference being that they are no idolaters.

My point was that Jews are no safer today in Israel than they were in the Diaspora. Far from being resolved, the problem is as acute as ever.

Life is supposed to be a struggle. No wonder we are the best soldiers in the world.

Then doesn’t it make sense not to invest your faith in God in your occupation of Israel at this particular time in history? I’m praying for Israel’s survival as hard as any Jew but maybe the “superstitious” Jews are right, maybe this is not the final restoration of Israel that God has promised. Maybe Jews have something still to learn.

**I already invest my faith in the true God. Are you trying to suggest something else? **

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

“Tough love!” That’s what fundamentalism produces: Euphemisms to mask the wrongdoings of those whom we love.

No, tough love means being hard on those you love for their own sake. I saw in your bio that you are a teacher. Are you a teacher who gives his students what they want or what they need? Are you never hard on your students for their own good?

Morover, Jesus words compare well to those of the prophets who also did not mince words when expresing themselves. And let’s not forget God’s own tough love. What kind of God would put Israel through its historical experience?

If Jesus words still sting it’s because they have not been taken to heart.

I agree with the Pharisees for crushing the Sadducees because they cooperated with the occupiers of Israel.

That’s precisely the thinking that lead to the destruction of Israel.

And I agree with ejecting Christians for bringing Greek Mythology into Judaism.

This is a lame libel that deserves its own thread. Suffice it to say, here, that the Pharisees were pursuing an invented dogmatic purity that, no coincidence, left them in control of Judaism.

But let’s set that aside for the moment. If you sincerely believe that Paul et alia corrupted Jesus words why then didn’t the Pharisses preserve their own version of them? Why didn’t Rabinical Judaism at least recognize Jesus as a prophet? Why did it not occur to them, as it does to modern revisionists, to distinguish Jesus from his followers?

Jesus was, among other things, warning the Jews away from rebelling against Rome. That’s what prophets do.

Prove it.

The proof is in the Gospels and in the Mishnah. The Gospels speak pretty directly to the matter on several counts, I can cite them for you if you are unfamiliar with them. The Mishnah is more indirect about it but the implication is the same: Christians were ejected, in part, because they would not join the Bar Kobha revolt.

In the time of Jesus there was peace and prosperity in Israel, albeit under the thumb of the Romans.

This statement above depicts absolute lack of knowledge of Jewish life in the First Century.

On the contrary, few things are as well established matters of historical fact. In most instances, Roman rule was more generous than local rule. Pax Romana mean that Israel was part of a Mediterreanean economy which lead to great prosperity in 1C AD. And among all Roman subjects, the Jews were given special treatment and consideration because of their “peculiar” religious beliefs.

Life is supposed to be a struggle. No wonder we are the best soldiers in the world.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. The previous generation stood against the united Arab armies but the modern generation can’t even defeat rag-tag militias.

I already invest my faith in the true God. Are you trying to suggest something else?

I’m suggesting that you have expressed the same error as the 1C Pharisees. Here is what you said previously:

As you can see, we are all right now, and in peace with our Lord…As you can see, we don’t need to await for another King or another Messiah. We are the Messiah and we already reign in the Land of Israel.

Interestingly, this is essentially what Jesus was criticizing among the Pharisees: their belief that they were right with God (and uniquely so). The Pharisees followed their beliefs to the destruction of Isreal.

My concern is that you are following the exact same path that they did. We can only pray that it does not end similarly.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Morover, Jesus words compare well to those of the prophets who also did not mince words when expresing themselves. And let’s not forget God’s own tough love. What kind of God would put Israel through its historical experience?

If by not mincing words, you refer to that rough treatment of the Pharisees the gospel writers attributed to Jesus, this broke the Golden Rule of not doing unto others what we would not like they did unto us. Therefore, he was no longer sinless.

That’s precisely the thinking that lead to the destruction of Israel.

We cannot have Israel is we are not free. That’s what being Jewish is.

But let’s set that aside for the moment. If you sincerely believe that Paul et alia corrupted Jesus words why then didn’t the Pharisses preserve their own version of them? Why didn’t Rabinical Judaism at least recognize Jesus as a prophet? Why did it not occur to them, as it does to modern revisionists, to distinguish Jesus from his followers?

Did you know that the Nazarene Council in Jerusalem had Pharisees in their Committee, who had become followers of Jesus? (Acts 15:5) It means Jesus never had anything against the Pharisees, and that all those tough words against them were from Paul. And probably the reason was because the Pharisees never allowed him to build a Christian church in Israeli soil. I think the gospel writers took the pain of their master and transferred it to Jesus with the purpose to dramatize the case against te Jews.

The proof is in the Gospels and in the Mishnah. The Gospels speak pretty directly to the matter on several counts, I can cite them for you if you are unfamiliar with them. The Mishnah is more indirect about it but the implication is the same: Christians were ejected, in part, because they would not join the Bar Kobha revolt.

**Christians would not join the BarCochba revolt because Paul had already well convinced them that Jesus was the Messiah, and not BarCochba, as Rabbi Akiva had proclaimed. **

On the contrary, few things are as well established matters of historical fact. In most instances, Roman rule was more generous than local rule. Pax Romana mean that Israel was part of a Mediterreanean economy which lead to great prosperity in 1C AD. And among all Roman subjects, the Jews were given special treatment and consideration because of their “peculiar” religious beliefs.

**Nothing from the Romans would mean anything to lovers of freedom. We could have no Master but God Himself. Besides, Jews don’t need the Gentiles to make us prosper. You cannot deny what I say by looking around you wherever Jews live. The opposite is true. **

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. The previous generation stood against the united Arab armies but the modern generation can’t even defeat rag-tag militias.

And you know only very well that’s because we have decided to give a chance to Gentile dirty politics. But wait and let us realize imminent danger to our existence, and you will see again the spirit of the previous generation in action.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If by not mincing words, you refer to that rough treatment of the Pharisees the gospel writers attributed to Jesus, this broke the Golden Rule of not doing unto others what we would not like they did unto us. Therefore, he was no longer sinless.

So you keep repeating but only you seem to believe this to be true. Most obviously, you presume to interpret Jesus’ rough treatment of the Phraisees as something other than tough love. I notice that you avoided my questions on that subject.

We cannot have Israel is we are not free. That’s what being Jewish is.

Huh?

But let’s set that aside for the moment. If you sincerely believe that Paul et alia corrupted Jesus words why then didn’t the Pharisses preserve their own version of them? Why didn’t Rabinical Judaism at least recognize Jesus as a prophet? Why did it not occur to them, as it does to modern revisionists, to distinguish Jesus from his followers?

Did you know that the Nazarene Council in Jerusalem had Pharisees in their Committee, who had become followers of Jesus? (Acts 15:5) It means Jesus never had anything against the Pharisees, and that all those tough words against them were from Paul.

That is a complete and utter non-sequitor. In fact, it demonstrates that Jesus was not simply being mean to the Pharisees but was actually teaching something which some Pharisees recognized to be true.

And probably the reason was because the Pharisees never allowed him to build a Christian church in Israeli soil. I think the gospel writers took the pain of their master and transferred it to Jesus with the purpose to dramatize the case against te Jews.

Probably this is as good an example of revisionist history as you can find.

Christians would not join the BarCochba revolt because Paul had already well convinced them that Jesus was the Messiah, and not BarCochba, as Rabbi Akiva had proclaimed.

But if, as you seem to believe, Roman occupation was such a terrible thing then that alone would have been reason enough to join. But, in fact, the Christians were uninterested in the rebellion not only because BarCochba was a fraud, contrary to the esteemed Akiva, as history proved, but because they had learned from Jesus to turn the other cheek to the Romans, to carry the Roman pack an extra mile, to give to Caesar what is his due.

Nothing from the Romans would mean anything to lovers of freedom. We could have no Master but God Himself. Besides, Jews don’t need the Gentiles to make us prosper. You cannot deny what I say by looking around you wherever Jews live. The opposite is true.

The Jews did, indeed, prosper under the Romans. They did have peace in 1C AD. These are historical facts. They also had religious freedom under the Romans, save for the occassional transgression, unlike the case under the Seleucids. The Jewish hyper-sensitivity to Roman slights which led to the two revolts is exactly the sort of thing you would dismiss today as “superstition” and “fundamentalism”. Your branch of Judaism was founded by exatly the type of people you revile today.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. The previous generation stood against the united Arab armies but the modern generation can’t even defeat rag-tag militias.

And you know only very well that’s because we have decided to give a chance to Gentile dirty politics. But wait and let us realize imminent danger to our existence, and you will see again the spirit of the previous generation in action.

In each case Israel acted like a weak and tired fighter begging his companions, “hold me back”. I wonder if this is how Isreal looked before the Assyrians and Babylonians conquered it.

 

[Ben_Masada]

So you keep repeating but only you seem to believe this to be true. Most obviously, you presume to interpret Jesus’ rough treatment of the Phraisees as something other than tough love. I notice that you avoided my questions on that subject.

There was no Jesus’ rough treatment of the Pharisees. I told you already that the rough treatment was from Paul albeit in absencia. They always kept Paul away from Israel.

That is a complete and utter non-sequitor. In fact, it demonstrates that Jesus was not simply being mean to the Pharisees but was actually teaching something which some Pharisees recognized to be true.

**Jesus was inferior to the Pharisees in rank. Jesus was an ambulant Rabbi or Teacher. For lack of only two things Jesus was short of becoming a formal Pharisee: Seniority and money. Three years and a half as a Rabbi was too junior. And in money, only after he married Mary Magdalene, who was a well-to-do lady, he approached that level. **

But if, as you seem to believe, Roman occupation was such a terrible thing then that alone would have been reason enough to join. But, in fact, the Christians were uninterested in the rebellion not only because BarCochba was a fraud, contrary to the esteemed Akiva, as history proved, but because they had learned from Jesus to turn the other cheek to the Romans, to carry the Roman pack an extra mile, to give to Caesar what is his due.

Sorry to disagree with you in two points here. Akiva never believed for a moment that BarCochba was the Messiah. He took advantage of the BarCochba revolt to enhance the chance to get rid of the Romans whom he hated to the uttermost. The other point is that this of turning the other cheek one could never have learned it from Jesus, because Jesus was never that masochist. Christians didn’t join BarChochba because they needed Rome for their headquarters and all they needed was to have that on their record. One must be synic to understand the strikes of History.

The Jews did, indeed, prosper under the Romans. They did have peace in 1C AD. These are historical facts. They also had religious freedom under the Romans, save for the occassional transgression, unlike the case under the Seleucids. The Jewish hyper-sensitivity to Roman slights which led to the two revolts is exactly the sort of thing you would dismiss today as “superstition” and “fundamentalism”. Your branch of Judaism was founded by exatly the type of people you revile today.

My branch of Judaism broke through Vespasion and Titus because of Flavius Josephus. If it were not for this Jew, the Romans would have never allowed anything Jewish to survive in Yavneh. Therefore, we owe nothing to Rome. Paul yes, he was the one who owed the power of Christianity to Rome.

 

[SteveLohr]

**Jesus was inferior to the Pharisees in rank. Jesus was an ambulant Rabbi or Teacher. For lack of only two things Jesus was short of becoming a formal Pharisee: Seniority and money. Three years and a half as a Rabbi was too junior. And in money, only after he married Mary Magdalene, who was a well-to-do lady, he approached that level. **

Ben, can you clarify this comment? Do you in fact believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene?

Regards,
SteveLohr

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5358728:

**Jesus was inferior to the Pharisees in rank. Jesus was an ambulant Rabbi or Teacher. For lack of only two things Jesus was short of becoming a formal Pharisee: Seniority and money. Three years and a half as a Rabbi was too junior. And in money, only after he married Mary Magdalene, who was a well-to-do lady, he approached that level. **

Ben, can you clarify this comment? Do you in fact believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene?

Regards,
SteveLohr

Yes, Steve, I do. With all the sincerity of my heart. Sorry if I startled you with the surprise. I know Catholics don’t believe it. But if we are to have a Jesus who was a religious Jew, Rabbi or Teacher, the evidences are just too shouting about Jesus as a married man. It’s so today, and much more so in the First Century.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba:

So you keep repeating but only you seem to believe this to be true. Most obviously, you presume to interpret Jesus’ rough treatment of the Phraisees as something other than tough love. I notice that you avoided my questions on that subject.

There was no Jesus’ rough treatment of the Pharisees. I told you already that the rough treatment was from Paul albeit in absencia. They always kept Paul away from Israel.

Yes, this is your claim. Which you supported by solely claiming that if Jesus had been so rough on the Pharisees he would have been committing a sin and no Pharisee would have followed him. I countered that claim by pointing out that God has always been hard on Israel, practicing tough love, that the Prophets were as hard as well, and that the specific nature of the rough treatment, far from being merely egregious, was in fact pointed criticism which some took to heart and others ignored. You happen to follow the branch of Judaism that rejected Jesus and his teachings.

Bubba:

That is a complete and utter non-sequitor. In fact, it demonstrates that Jesus was not simply being mean to the Pharisees but was actually teaching something which some Pharisees recognized to be true.

Jesus was inferior to the Pharisees in rank. Jesus was an ambulant Rabbi or Teacher. For lack of only two things Jesus was short of becoming a formal Pharisee: Seniority and money. Three years and a half as a Rabbi was too junior. And in money, only after he married Mary Magdalene, who was a well-to-do lady, he approached that level.

You continue to claim that Jesus was a (junior) Pharisee when the evidence indicates that he was, instead, a follower of John the Baptist, a Priest.

But as I asked before, if Paul corrupted Jesus’ teachings then why didn’t the Pharisees preserve the correct teachings? Why doesn’t Rabbinical Judaism regard Jesus as a prophet or at least a noted rabbi?

Because, in fact, it was created in large part to counter Christianity at its source. Paul could not be corrected because he did not corrupt Jesus’ teachings.

Bubba:

But if, as you seem to believe, Roman occupation was such a terrible thing then that alone would have been reason enough to join. But, in fact, the Christians were uninterested in the rebellion not only because BarCochba was a fraud, contrary to the esteemed Akiva, as history proved, but because they had learned from Jesus to turn the other cheek to the Romans, to carry the Roman pack an extra mile, to give to Caesar what is his due.

Sorry to disagree with you in two points here. Akiva never believed for a moment that BarCochba was the Messiah. He took advantage of the BarCochba revolt to enhance the chance to get rid of the Romans whom he hated to the uttermost. The other point is that this of turning the other cheek one could never have learned it from Jesus, because Jesus was never that masochist. Christians didn’t join BarChochba because they needed Rome for their headquarters and all they needed was to have that on their record. One must be synic to understand the strikes of History.

Akiva promoted BarChochba as the Messiah. I agree with you that he was probably disengenuous in doing so but not to get rid of the Romans but, rather, to facilitate his transformation of Biblical Judaism into Rabbinical Judaism, to replace the authority of prophets with the authority of the rabbis.

Rome would not become the headquarters of Christianity for many more centures. Christian shift to Rome was a consequence of the Jewish war with Rome. First the Jews destroyed Jerusalem. Then they destroyed Israel entirely.

And what is the explanation for this? The Mishna confirms Jesus’ evaluation: That Israel at this time was filled with hate for no cause.

Bubba:

The Jews did, indeed, prosper under the Romans. They did have peace in 1C AD. These are historical facts. They also had religious freedom under the Romans, save for the occassional transgression, unlike the case under the Seleucids. The Jewish hyper-sensitivity to Roman slights which led to the two revolts is exactly the sort of thing you would dismiss today as “superstition” and “fundamentalism”. Your branch of Judaism was founded by exatly the type of people you revile today.

My branch of Judaism broke through Vespasion and Titus because of Flavius Josephus. If it were not for this Jew, the Romans would have never allowed anything Jewish to survive in Yavneh. Therefore, we owe nothing to Rome. Paul yes, he was the one who owed the power of Christianity to Rome.

You still don’t get it. Israel committed suicide in 1C-2C AD. And that suicide was led by those who founded your branch of Judaism. The sole reason that the survival of the Jewish relgion was ever in question was because of the bad choices that 1C Jews made. Before the Jewish Wars, Rome accorded Jews respect and special privaleges. Afterwards, they became the scourage of the known world struggling to survive.

That you are blind to this after 2000 years is truly astounding.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But if we are to have a Jesus who was a religious Jew, Rabbi or Teacher, the evidences are just too shouting about Jesus as a married man. It’s so today, and much more so in the First Century.

If Jesus were a Rabbinical Jew then it might follow as you claim. So there are two possibilities here:

1. Paul corrupted the history Jesus, or
2. Jesus was not a Rabbincal Jew.

Your arguement rests on ignoring the second possibility and focusing on the first.

 

[Lapell]

Ben, isn’t it true that every king in the Davidic dynasty was a messiah? And is it true that one of King Solomon’s titles as king of Israel was “son of God”?