The Collective Messiah

[Lapell]

The truth is that the Sect of the Nazarenes never had anything to do with Christianity.

Was Paul the Apostle Peter’s enemy? Or was Peter Paul’s enemy? when they met, they shook hands.and when Paul reproached something to Peter as Paul told in Galatians, it did not make them hate each other! Paul was commenting rumors in that community. Nazarenes or Christians, it was the same group, Ben, I maintain it.

 

[Lapell]

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.

I thought it was told that rabbi Akiva did say that Bar Kochba was the promised Messiah? If not, what did he say then? (according to which source, if you get it from a written source: a book; an article on a Jewish website, maybe Israeli; an article in a magazine, a text from a reknown rabbi, or from the Talmud itself…?)

 

[Lapell]

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.

How then did his disciples call him “Rabbi”? And are all rabbis married in our time? (I include all denominations in Judaism here)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

How then did his disciples call him “Rabbi”? And are all rabbis married in our time? (I include all denominations in Judaism here)

The term “rabbi” long preceeded Rabbinical Judaism. The term simply means “religious teacher”.

Here is an analogy: Imagine that a cabal of political science professors decided that they knew better how to run the government than the constitutionally elected representatives and proceeded to overthrow the government and institute a Professorial Government based on the authority of political science professors.

Now imagine further that you were reading a history book and you came across a dialog between a student and a political science professor that occured prior to the coup. If you did not think hard about it you might presume that this political science professor was part of the cabal who overthrew the government and, hence, model your understanding of him by your experience with the governing cabal. But obiously that would be a mistaken assumption.

Similarly, the fact that Jesus was a religious teacher, a rabbi, does not imply that he was a Rabbinical Jew much less a Pharisee (or “in the line of” the Pharisees as Ben likes to say).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I thought it was told that rabbi Akiva did say that Bar Kochba was the promised Messiah? If not, what did he say then? (according to which source, if you get it from a written source: a book; an article on a Jewish website, maybe Israeli; an article in a magazine, a text from a reknown rabbi, or from the Talmud itself…?)

Wikipedia:

The part which Akiva is said to have taken in the Bar Kokba revolt cannot be historically determined. The only established fact concerning his connection with Bar Kokba is that the venerable teacher regarded the patriot as the promised Jewish Messiah (Yer. Ta’anit, iv. 68d), and this is absolutely all there is in evidence of an active participation by Akiba in the revolution. In this regard, Akiva expounded the following verse homiletically: “A star has shot off Jacob” (Numbers 24:17) and so nicknamed the rebel as Kochva, “the star”, rather than Kozieva. When Akiva would see bar Kochba, he would say: “Dein hu Malka Meshiecha!” (This is the King Messiah) (Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4:8). The numerous journeys which, according to rabbinical sources, Akiba is said to have made, cannot have been in any way connected with politics. In 95–96 Akiba was in Rome (H. Grätz, Gesch. d. Juden, iv. 121), and some time before 110 he was in Nehardea (Yeb. xvi. 7), which journeys cannot be made to coincide with revolutionary plans.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akiba_ben_Joseph#His_Relations_with_Bar_Kokba

 

[Ben_Masada]

. You happen to follow the branch of Judaism that rejected Jesus and his teachings.

Bubba, you are mistaken about me. If I had been born in the First Century, I would have joined the Sect of the Nazarenes, and be a second Apollos. I mean, before he became a Christian.

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.

No, that’s not true. You are not focusing when you read. I never said that Jesus was a junior Pharisee. I said that he was a junior Rabbi. Now, you open your NT and show me the evidence that indicates Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist. You are not reading your NT. Jesus was never a follower of anyone. He was always a leader.

Why doesn’t Rabbinical Judaism regard Jesus as a prophet or at least a noted rabbi?

**Because of what you Christians have done to the Jews in the name of Jesus, when Jesus never had anything to do with what Christians did. **

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.

Well, how do you call this? When Jesus came, he declared that he had not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; in a word, Judaism. (Mat. 5:17-19) When Paul came, 30 years later, he declared that the Law was indeed abolished on the cross as if Jesus was lying. (Ephe. 2:15) Don’t you call this “corrupting Jesus’ teachings?” Ponder.

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.

Hey Bubba, what are you trying to teach to the Jews, Judaism or History? Akiva was a Sage in Judaism. Jewish Sages don’t believe in the concept of an individual Messiah. They know that a person is born, lives his span of life, and then dies. Are we to wait for a Messiah in every generation? It makes no sense. The Messiah cannot die. According to God’s promise to David, he is to remain forever. (I Kings 11:36) The life of Mankind is depended on the life of the Messiah. (Jer. 31:35-37)

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.

**I know that, but Rome became Paul’s second choice after he lost his dream to transfer his headquarters from Antioch to Jerusalem. The Jews did not destroy Jerusalem or Israel. The Romans did it because we could never accept to become slaves of Gentiles in our own Land. **

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

Yes, but all because of the foreign occupation. Then, Politics divided the People, just like we have today.

Before the Jewish Wars, Rome accorded Jews respect and special privaleges. Afterwards, they became the scourage of the known world struggling to survive.

**What kind of respect and special priviledges? On the conditions of idolatry to Caesar in our own Temple? You have no clue of what being Jewish is. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

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.

And if Jesus was not a Rabbinical Jew, Nicodemus, a great Pharisee and Sage was a moron for not knowing what a Rabbi is. He used to address Jesus as a Rabbi. (John 3:1,2) Likewise, Jesus Apostles used to address him as a Rabbi. Mary Magdalene would call him Rabboni. Just as today wives of Rabbis call their husbands. I see this here as I interact with them.

 

[Ben_Masada]

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”?

So, why do you call Jesus Messiah and son of God if he was never a king in Israel?

 

[Ben_Masada]

I thought it was told that rabbi Akiva did say that Bar Kochba was the promised Messiah? If not, what did he say then? (according to which source, if you get it from a written source: a book; an article on a Jewish website, maybe Israeli; an article in a magazine, a text from a reknown rabbi, or from the Talmud itself…?)

Yes, he might have said that Bar Kochba was the Messiah, but because by the time he declared that, Bar Kochba had destroyed almost a legion of Romans. Then, still imprudently, I should say, he thought that if the People heard a Rabbinical voice in favor of the Revolt, Bar Kochba would succeed to get the Romans out of Israel. That’s when Akiva decided to pledge his word of confidence. But I am sure that even after victory, Akiva would back up. Why? Because Judah the Maccabee and his brothers did many more wonders than Bar Kochba and they never had a voice from the Clergy in that sense. I recall to have read in the Gemarah about Rabbi Akiva.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

And if Jesus was not a Rabbinical Jew, Nicodemus, a great Pharisee and Sage was a moron for not knowing what a Rabbi is. He used to address Jesus as a Rabbi. (John 3:1,2) Likewise, Jesus Apostles used to address him as a Rabbi. Mary Magdalene would call him Rabboni. Just as today wives of Rabbis call their husbands. I see this here as I interact with them.

You are making the same error as Lapell. Rabbinical Judaism hadn’t been invented yet. Rabbi originally meant simply religious teacher and rabboni, great master. (And note that, for the most part, what we have today are translations from Greek, not Hebrew, so the use of the word “rabbi” is a translator’s choice.)

Bubba Switzler;5359796:

You happen to follow the branch of Judaism that rejected Jesus and his teachings.

Bubba, you are mistaken about me. If I had been born in the First Century, I would have joined the Sect of the Nazarenes, and be a second Apollos. I mean, before he became a Christian.

No, I don’t think I’m mistaken in this because you are twisting Jesus into a Rabbinical Judaism mold. You’re willing to accept Jesus only insofar as he conforms to your expectations of him as a Rabbinical Jew, an anachronism.

Bubba Switzler;5359796:

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.

No, that’s not true. You are not focusing when you read. I never said that Jesus was a junior Pharisee. I said that he was a junior Rabbi. Now, you open your NT and show me the evidence that indicates Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist. You are not reading your NT. Jesus was never a follower of anyone. He was always a leader.

No, Jesus did not become a leader until after he was baptized. The very fact that he came to John to be baptized implies more than a mere stroll into the desert and a happenstance encounter. The NT doesn’t say much about John the Baptist but Josephus does.

Why doesn’t Rabbinical Judaism regard Jesus as a prophet or at least a noted rabbi?

Because of what you Christians have done to the Jews in the name of Jesus, when Jesus never had anything to do with what Christians did.

You seem to have a serious confusion about chronology. In 1C-2C AD Christians hadn’t done anything to anyone; they were still Jews and would continue to be so until they were ejected by Rabbinical Judaism. The root of your complaint lies hundreds of years in the future.

Please reconsider the question and try again.

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.

Well, how do you call this? When Jesus came, he declared that he had not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; in a word, Judaism. (Mat. 5:17-19) When Paul came, 30 years later, he declared that the Law was indeed abolished on the cross as if Jesus was lying. (Ephe. 2:15) Don’t you call this “corrupting Jesus’ teachings?” Ponder.

That is certainly an interesting issue to ponder. But my question was: why didn’t the Pharisees correct Paul and preserve the original Jesus’ teachings?

In fact, the Jerusalem Church, and presumably the bulk of Jewish Christians, continued to be practicing Jews keeping kosher and visitng the Temple.

Paul did not lead the Christians away from Judaism. Judaism ejected the Christians and then virtually exteriminated itself leaving only the gentile, Pauline, church behind. Paul inherited Christianity because the Jews committed suicide against the Romans.

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.

Hey Bubba, what are you trying to teach to the Jews, Judaism or History? Akiva was a Sage in Judaism. Jewish Sages don’t believe in the concept of an individual Messiah. They know that a person is born, lives his span of life, and then dies. Are we to wait for a Messiah in every generation? It makes no sense. The Messiah cannot die. According to God’s promise to David, he is to remain forever. (I Kings 11:36) The life of Mankind is depended on the life of the Messiah. (Jer. 31:35-37)

See Yer. Ta’anit, iv. 68d and Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4:8. I’ve never heard anyone deny that Akiva promoted BarChochba as the Messiah. This is a new historical revisionism to me.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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.

I know that, but Rome became Paul’s second choice after he lost his dream to transfer his headquarters from Antioch to Jerusalem. The Jews did not destroy Jerusalem or Israel. The Romans did it because we could never accept to become slaves of Gentiles in our own Land.

Any halfwit would have known what would be the consequences of making war with Rome. The Jews of Israel did not become “slaves of Gentiles” until after they rebelled and were defeated. They were simply a province in the Roman Empire, and a well treated one at that.

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

Yes, but all because of the foreign occupation. Then, Politics divided the People, just like we have today.

That would be a hatred with a cause. But the Jews of the time had no cause to hate Rome. And they were divided of their own account. (Read Josephus’ account of the siege of Jerusalem, for example.)

Before the Jewish Wars, Rome accorded Jews respect and special privaleges. Afterwards, they became the scourage of the known world struggling to survive.

What kind of respect and special priviledges? On the conditions of idolatry to Caesar in our own Temple? You have no clue of what being Jewish is.

The Romans recognized that the Jews had a particularly sensitive temple cult and so they did not require the Jews to worship the emperor as a god as they did all other Roman subjects. They required only that the Jews offer sacrirfices to Yaweh on behalf of the emperor, which was not inconsistent with Jewish law and which the Jews were happy to do. This was the general rule. The problem only arose when the occassional bone-headed governor or emperor violated that established rule. It was on one such occassion that Jewish hotheads started the revolt in Jerusalem that led to its destruction. Sort of like when the ultra-orthodox go nuts at an Arab driving through town on sabbath.

On Roman/Jewish relations generally, I highly recommend the book Rome and Jerusalem (amazon.com/Rome-Jerusalem-Clash-Ancient-Civilizations/dp/0375411852). It’s Jewish author admits, in the introduction, his own surprise at his findings.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You are making the same error as Lapell. Rabbinical Judaism hadn’t been invented yet. Rabbi originally meant simply religious teacher and rabboni, great master. (And note that, for the most part, what we have today are translations from Greek, not Hebrew, so the use of the word “rabbi” is a translator’s choice.)

Bubba, please, do you really know what is Rabbinical Judaism? I don’t want to get into details but I tell you that it is the Judaism of the Talmud. Do you know when they started with the Talmud/Gemarah and Mishnah? About 200 BCE and uninterruptedly till 200 CE. Jesus experienced the high of Rabbinical Judaism. Jesus went through all those rituals of hand washing, Kashrut and all that paraphernalia of Rabbinical Judaism. So, Lapell was right and so am I.

No, Jesus did not become a leader until after he was baptized. The very fact that he came to John to be baptized implies more than a mere stroll into the desert and a happenstance encounter. The NT doesn’t say much about John the Baptist but Josephus does.

Bubba, for heaven’s sake, don’t say that! Hundreds of Jews, low and high class would come daily to John the Baptist to be immersed into waters. Are you thinking that it was a once-in-a-lifetime kind of baptism? No, Bubba, Jews would do that daily, as many religious ones still do today. That was a daily ceremony to symbolize cleanness of sins.

You seem to have a serious confusion about chronology. In 1C-2C AD Christians hadn’t done anything to anyone; they were still Jews and would continue to be so until they were ejected by Rabbinical Judaism. The root of your complaint lies hundreds of years in the future.

Well, if you still remember, you asked me why Rabbinical Judaism DOES NOT recognize Jesus as an influential Rabbi or Teacher; something like that. I understood your question for an opinion of today.

That is certainly an interesting issue to ponder. But my question was: why didn’t the Pharisees correct Paul and preserve the original Jesus’ teachings?

They did Bubba, but none of the writings of the Nazarenes was approved into the Canon of the NT, due to their controversial character vis-a-vis the writings of Paul. In fact, a few Pharisees had converted to become Nazarenes. Since they were very learnt, they would be in their Council in the Jerusalem headquarters. (Acts 15:5)

In fact, the Jerusalem Church, and presumably the bulk of Jewish Christians, continued to be practicing Jews keeping kosher and visitng the Temple.

**They were not Christians Bubba, they were Nazarenes. Christians started with Paul in Antioch. Read Acts 11:26. There is no such a thing as a Jewish Christian. One is either a Jew or a Christian. **

Paul did not lead the Christians away from Judaism. Judaism ejected the Christians and then virtually exteriminated itself leaving only the gentile, Pauline, church behind. Paul inherited Christianity because the Jews committed suicide against the Romans.

I agree with you because Christians were never in Judaism to be led away in the first place. So, Judaism had no need to eject any Christian from it. And about suicide, it happened only in Masada. In Jerusalem the Jews fought the Romans and lost. That’s all.

See Yer. Ta’anit, iv. 68d and Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4:8. I’ve never heard anyone deny that Akiva promoted BarChochba as the Messiah. This is a new historical revisionism to me.

And I don’t remember to have denied it. Akiva did promote Bar Chochba the Messiah but to enhance the revolt, and not because he believed it in his heart that he was indeed the Messiah. Got it now? Good!

 

[Ben_Masada]

Any halfwit would have known what would be the consequences of making war with Rome. The Jews of Israel did not become “slaves of Gentiles” until after they rebelled and were defeated. They were simply a province in the Roman Empire, and a well treated one at that.

---

That would be a hatred with a cause. But the Jews of the time had no cause to hate Rome. And they were divided of their own account. (Read Josephus’ account of the siege of Jerusalem, for example.)

The Romans recognized that the Jews had a particularly sensitive temple cult and so they did not require the Jews to worship the emperor as a god as they did all other Roman subjects. They required only that the Jews offer sacrirfices to Yaweh on behalf of the emperor, which was not inconsistent with Jewish law and which the Jews were happy to do. This was the general rule. The problem only arose when the occassional bone-headed governor or emperor violated that established rule. It was on one such occassion that Jewish hotheads started the revolt in Jerusalem that led to its destruction. Sort of like when the ultra-orthodox go nuts at an Arab driving through town on sabbath.

On Roman/Jewish relations generally, I highly recommend the book Rome and Jerusalem (amazon.com/Rome-Jerusalem-Clash-Ancient-Civilizations/dp/0375411852). It’s Jewish author admits, in the introduction, his own surprise at his findings.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Any halfwit would have known what would be the consequences of making war with Rome. The Jews of Israel did not become “slaves of Gentiles” until after they rebelled and were defeated. They were simply a province in the Roman Empire, and a well treated one at that.

"And a well treated one at that." Well, if you consider our daughters being raped almost daily by Romans soldiers, God keep us far away from what you call "well treated at that."

That would be a hatred with a cause. But the Jews of the time had no cause to hate Rome. And they were divided of their own account. (Read Josephus’ account of the siege of Jerusalem, for example.)

Yes, I have read a lot of Josephus and others. And causes did not lack to hate the Romans in Israel. Their Procurators would even provoke the Jews just to have a reason to crucify some.This Josephus you have been reading must be a Catholic.

The Romans recognized that the Jews had a particularly sensitive temple cult and so they did not require the Jews to worship the emperor as a god as they did all other Roman subjects. They required only that the Jews offer sacrirfices to Yaweh on behalf of the emperor, which was not inconsistent with Jewish law and which the Jews were happy to do.

Yes, they were so happy that there was never a Roman province where Rome lost more legions of their soldiers than in Israel. I wonder if they were so happy.

On Roman/Jewish relations generally, I highly recommend the book Rome and Jerusalem (amazon.com/Rome-Jerusalem-Clash-Ancient-Civilizations/dp/0375411852). It’s Jewish author admits, in the introduction, his own surprise at his findings.

**Not enough the NT to transfer the blame on the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews, now, another book to canonize the Romans and condemn the Jews? **

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba, please, do you really know what is Rabbinical Judaism? I don’t want to get into details but I tell you that it is the Judaism of the Talmud. Do you know when they started with the Talmud/Gemarah and Mishnah? About 200 BCE and uninterruptedly till 200 CE. Jesus experienced the high of Rabbinical Judaism. Jesus went through all those rituals of hand washing, Kashrut and all that paraphernalia of Rabbinical Judaism. So, Lapell was right and so am I.

Rabbinical Judaism is not simply the accumulation of Jewish rituals. While Rabbinical Judaism obviously has roots going back it was not until after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the innovations of Akiba that the rabbis asserted their authority. Before that, the Pharisees, the forerunners of Rabbinical Judaism, were simply one faction among many. In partcular, the root of Rabbinical Judaism, the Oral Torah, was not recognized by the Jewish authorities, the Priests and Sadducees.

Bubba, for heaven’s sake, don’t say that! Hundreds of Jews, low and high class would come daily to John the Baptist to be immersed into waters. Are you thinking that it was a once-in-a-lifetime kind of baptism? No, Bubba, Jews would do that daily, as many religious ones still do today. That was a daily ceremony to symbolize cleanness of sins.

Going to John the Baptist was an alternative to going to the Jewish Temple for those who could not afford the later. But Jesus’ relationship to John goes far deeper than simply being one among many who went to him.

Well, if you still remember, you asked me why Rabbinical Judaism DOES NOT recognize Jesus as an influential Rabbi or Teacher; something like that. I understood your question for an opinion of today.

It is not merely that Jews are alergic to Jesus today. They have been so at least since the Mishnah was first recorded. If Paul corrupted Jesus’ words you would have expected the Jewish authorities of the day to have corrected Paul and to have set the early Christians correct.

On the other hand, if Rabbinical Judaism were created, in part, to counter the growing Christian movement without distinction between Jesus, Paul, and his various apostles and disciples, you would get what you have, a few cryptic disparaging references to Jesus.

Bubba:

That is certainly an interesting issue to ponder. But my question was: why didn’t the Pharisees correct Paul and preserve the original Jesus’ teachings?

They did Bubba, but none of the writings of the Nazarenes was approved into the Canon of the NT, due to their controversial character vis-a-vis the writings of Paul. In fact, a few Pharisees had converted to become Nazarenes. Since they were very learnt, they would be in their Council in the Jerusalem headquarters. (Acts 15:5)

So where are they?

Bubba:

In fact, the Jerusalem Church, and presumably the bulk of Jewish Christians, continued to be practicing Jews keeping kosher and visitng the Temple.

They were not Christians Bubba, they were Nazarenes. Christians started with Paul in Antioch. Read Acts 11:26. There is no such a thing as a Jewish Christian. One is either a Jew or a Christian.

You play with words, the term “Christian” was, in fact, a disparaging invention of the pagans that the Christians adopted, like Marx’ invention of “captialism”. But the fact remains that there was a growing Jewish following of Jesus who retained their Jewish identity.

Bubba:

Paul did not lead the Christians away from Judaism. Judaism ejected the Christians and then virtually exteriminated itself leaving only the gentile, Pauline, church behind. Paul inherited Christianity because the Jews committed suicide against the Romans.

I agree with you because Christians were never in Judaism to be led away in the first place. So, Judaism had no need to eject any Christian from it. And about suicide, it happened only in Masada. In Jerusalem the Jews fought the Romans and lost. That’s all.

I don’t mean simply literal individual suicide. I mean that Israel, as a society, committed suicide in two wars with Rome. It literally exteriminated itself from the map of the earth. In Jesus time there was a place called Israel and Jews lived there and worshiped as Jews. After 135AD there was a place called Palestine and what Jews survived had become the scourage of the known world, despised by the Romans. Antisemitism was born.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba Switzler;5364538:

Any halfwit would have known what would be the consequences of making war with Rome. The Jews of Israel did not become “slaves of Gentiles” until after they rebelled and were defeated. They were simply a province in the Roman Empire, and a well treated one at that.

“And a well treated one at that.” Well, if you consider our daughters being raped almost daily by Romans soldiers, God keep us far away from what you call “well treated at that.”

Really?! There must have been a lot of busy Roman soldiers. What is the basis for this mass rape claim? (Not that I’m claiming that Roman soldiers were any better behaved than other soldiers of the day but what did the Romans do to merit the self destruction of Israel?)

Bubba Switzler;5364538:

That would be a hatred with a cause. But the Jews of the time had no cause to hate Rome. And they were divided of their own account. (Read Josephus’ account of the siege of Jerusalem, for example.)

Yes, I have read a lot of Josephus and others. And causes did not lack to hate the Romans in Israel. Their Procurators would even provoke the Jews just to have a reason to crucify some.This Josephus you have been reading must be a Catholic.

The fact remains that Roman rule was no worse than was typical in the time and was, net, very beneficial to Israel. More importantly, Israel suffered far worse for its choice to wage war against Israel, something that surprises nobody.

Bubba Switzler;5364538:

The Romans recognized that the Jews had a particularly sensitive temple cult and so they did not require the Jews to worship the emperor as a god as they did all other Roman subjects. They required only that the Jews offer sacrirfices to Yaweh on behalf of the emperor, which was not inconsistent with Jewish law and which the Jews were happy to do.

Yes, they were so happy that there was never a Roman province where Rome lost more legions of their soldiers than in Israel. I wonder if they were so happy.

You seem determined to avoid facing the simple fact that Israel destroyed itself in 1C-2C AD for no good reason.

Bubba Switzler;5364538:

On Roman/Jewish relations generally, I highly recommend the book Rome and Jerusalem

(amazon.com/Rome-Jerusalem-Clash-Ancient-Civilizations/dp/0375411852). It’s Jewish author admits, in the introduction, his own surprise at his findings.
Not enough the NT to transfer the blame on the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews, now, another book to canonize the Romans and condemn the Jews?

I’m curious why you feel the need to change the subject from the culpability of the Jews for the destruction of Israel to the death of Jesus?

Is it so hard to admit that your ancestors screwed up royally in 1C-2C AD?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Rabbinical Judaism is not simply the accumulation of Jewish rituals. While Rabbinical Judaism obviously has roots going back it was not until after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the innovations of Akiba that the rabbis asserted their authority. Before that, the Pharisees, the forerunners of Rabbinical Judaism, were simply one faction among many. In partcular, the root of Rabbinical Judaism, the Oral Torah, was not recognized by the Jewish authorities, the Priests and Sadducees.

**Two hundred years of Rabbinical Judaism was enough to produce much more than simple roots. I don’t know where you are getting this kind of distorted information. The Oral Torah is but a commentary about the Torah. The problem of the Sadducees with the Oral Torah was more political than in the nature of being a Sadducee.
**

Going to John the Baptist was an alternative to going to the Jewish Temple for those who could not afford the later. But Jesus’ relationship to John goes far deeper than simply being one among many who went to him.

**What on earth are you talking about, Bubba? One thing never had anything to do with the other. John was only behaving like what we call today, those religious Jews with a little table with Philaterics on, in certain public places inviting Jews to don tephilin. “Alternative to going to the Jewish Temple!” That’s the first time I have heard such a thing. That Jesus’ relationship to John went deeper than the others, what does it have to do with anything else? Sorry, but I think you are a little too excited thinking that you might be teaching a Jew a thing or two. **

It is not merely that Jews are alergic to Jesus today. They have been so at least since the Mishnah was first recorded. If Paul corrupted Jesus’ words you would have expected the Jewish authorities of the day to have corrected Paul and to have set the early Christians correct.

**There were no earlier Christians than Paul. And the ealiest ones report to about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. The Jewish authorities did try to correct Paul and were after him to arrest him when the Nazarenes helped him escape. **

On the other hand, if Rabbinical Judaism were created, in part, to counter the growing Christian movement without distinction between Jesus, Paul, and his various apostles and disciples, you would get what you have, a few cryptic disparaging references to Jesus.

**That’s absolutely absurd! Rabbinical Judaism started 260 years before Christianity. Where are you getting these idle tales from? Jesus never had anything to do with Paul. The case of Paul was with his Christ conceived in his mind of a Hellenistic Diaspora Jew. Jesus was only the most convenient character he needed to impersonate his Christ. **

So where are they?

**The writings of the Nazarenes? They must be hidden in the undergrounds of the Vatican gathering dust. Some have been found in other places. The gospel of Judah, the gospel of Mary Magdalene, the gospel of Barnabas, the gospel of James. There were many. God knows how many are still hidden. **

You play with words, the term “Christian” was, in fact, a disparaging invention of the pagans that the Christians adopted, like Marx’ invention of “captialism”. But the fact remains that there was a growing Jewish following of Jesus who retained their Jewish identity.

**Do you know who wrote the book of Acts? Luke. He was the one who said that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Why? Because Paul had spent a whole year there preaching about Jesus as Christ. Now, you are saying that Pagans are responsible for that name? Come on! Stop the cop-out! What’s the basis for your denial? Do you want to rewrite the NT? **

I don’t mean simply literal individual suicide. I mean that Israel, as a society, committed suicide in two wars with Rome. It literally exteriminated itself from the map of the earth. In Jesus time there was a place called Israel and Jews lived there and worshiped as Jews. After 135AD there was a place called Palestine and what Jews survived had become the scourage of the known world, despised by the Romans. Antisemitism was born.

**So, Israel LITERALLY exterminated itself from the map of the earth! We are about 15 million of Jews on earth. What do you mean literally exterminated? I am not too sure where you are coming from and where you are about to get. Where did you get this idea about Palestine? There was never in the History of the world a country called Palestine. Why don’t you open your game before I find out the trumps myself? And regarding Antisemitism, it started in the NT with the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Take a look at Galatians 4:21-31. **

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Two hundred years of Rabbinical Judaism was enough to produce much more than simple roots. I don’t know where you are getting this kind of distorted information. The Oral Torah is but a commentary about the Torah. The problem of the Sadducees with the Oral Torah was more political than in the nature of being a Sadducee.

Yes, the Oral Torah is a commentary on the Torah (though there are many Jews today who claim that it was handed down by God to Moses along with the written Torah). However, you are making a Christian distinction between religion and state. You forget that Biblical Israel was a theocracy. (Whereas modern Israel is a democracy on the Greco-Roman-Christian model.) The Sadducees disagreement with the Pharisees was not, therefore, political as somehow distinct from religious.

And it was not only the Sadducees. There were other sects that also discounted the Pharisee claims such as the Essenes who were closer to the Sadducees but simply regarded the current priests as hopelessly corrupt.

The Pharisees had their own opinions, of course, which Rabinnical Judaism largely inherited and rendered authoritatively Jewish. But before that, they were just opinions.

“Alternative to going to the Jewish Temple!” That’s the first time I have heard such a thing. That Jesus’ relationship to John went deeper than the others, what does it have to do with anything else? Sorry, but I think you are a little too excited thinking that you might be teaching a Jew a thing or two.

Then go reread your Josephus. John the Baptist was not merely conducting a ritual washing. He was preaching apocolypse and using water to absolve sin. Jesus was not “in the line” of the Pharisees. If he was “in the line” of anyone, it was John the Baptist.

So far all that you have offered to support your claim that Jesus was "in the line of " the Pharisees was that a translator chose to use the word “rabbi” in translating from Greek to English.

There were no earlier Christians than Paul. And the ealiest ones report to about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. The Jewish authorities did try to correct Paul and were after him to arrest him when the Nazarenes helped him escape.

You miss the point once again. Why is there no “correct” teaching of Jesus in the Mishnah? I know that you have invented an elaborate alternate history but I’m asking here for evidence to support your claims.

Bubba:

On the other hand, if Rabbinical Judaism were created, in part, to counter the growing Christian movement without distinction between Jesus, Paul, and his various apostles and disciples, you would get what you have, a few cryptic disparaging references to Jesus.

That’s absolutely absurd! Rabbinical Judaism started 260 years before Christianity.

No, Christianity came first. Rabbinical Judaism began with Akiba in reaction to two historical events: 1) the destruction of the Jerusaelm Temple, and 2) the growing popularity of Christianity among Jews.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba:

So where are they?

The writings of the Nazarenes? They must be hidden in the undergrounds of the Vatican gathering dust. Some have been found in other places. The gospel of Judah, the gospel of Mary Magdalene, the gospel of Barnabas, the gospel of James. There were many. God knows how many are still hidden.
Ah, so now you are relying on the Dd Vinci Code for your history?

The Gospel of Judas was a product of the Gnostic sect of Egypt produced a couple hundred years after the NT gospels. This is true of all the alternatives and, in any case, none describe Jesus as a Pharisee (or “in the line of” the Pharisees). None support the claim that Paul corrupted Christianity.

Bubba:

You play with words, the term “Christian” was, in fact, a disparaging invention of the pagans that the Christians adopted, like Marx’ invention of “captialism”. But the fact remains that there was a growing Jewish following of Jesus who retained their Jewish identity.

Do you know who wrote the book of Acts? Luke. He was the one who said that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Why? Because Paul had spent a whole year there preaching about Jesus as Christ. Now, you are saying that Pagans are responsible for that name? Come on! Stop the cop-out! What’s the basis for your denial? Do you want to rewrite the NT?
Called Chritians by the pagans from the Greek Christos which the Jewish Christians used to communicate the concept of the Hebrew Messiah. It is entirely unremarkable and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Bubba:

I don’t mean simply literal individual suicide. I mean that Israel, as a society, committed suicide in two wars with Rome. It literally exteriminated itself from the map of the earth. In Jesus time there was a place called Israel and Jews lived there and worshiped as Jews. After 135AD there was a place called Palestine and what Jews survived had become the scourage of the known world, despised by the Romans. Antisemitism was born.

So, Israel LITERALLY exterminated itself from the map of the earth! We are about 15 million of Jews on earth. What do you mean literally exterminated? I am not too sure where you are coming from and where you are about to get. Where did you get this idea about Palestine? There was never in the History of the world a country called Palestine.
Palestine was the name invented by the Romans after BarKhoba revolt taken from the name Philistine which, as you probably know, refers to the non-Jewish Greeks who settled on the coast.

Following the suppression of Bar Kokhba’s revolt, the emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem became Aelia Capitolina in order to humiliate the Jewish population by attempting to erase their historical ties to the region.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iudaea_Province

Your claim that there was never a country of Palestine is technically correct because the province of Palestine simply passed from the Romans to the Turks to the British. However, the historical fact remains that Israel was destroyed by the Romans after the BarKohba revolt and Jews who survived were dispersed into the diaspora where they were no longer treated with respect but rather with suspicion and oppression.

All as a consequence of Israel’s rebellions against Rome.

And regarding Antisemitism, it started in the NT with the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Take a look at Galatians 4:21-31.

Nope, Paul didn’t invent Replacement Theology. That came later as the synthesis of Roman antisemitism and Christian theology. Galatians 4:21-31 is simply more of Paul’s teaching against the Judiazers who sought to impose the Mosaic law upon the gentile Christians.

Antisemitism was born of the Jewish revolts against Rome. Rome became antisemitic long before it became Christian. This is a simple fact of history. Gentile Christians were antisemtic because they were Romans and because the newly created Rabbinical Judiasm had so mistreated the Jewish Christians.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Really?! There must have been a lot of busy Roman soldiers. What is the basis for this mass rape claim? (Not that I’m claiming that Roman soldiers were any better behaved than other soldiers of the day but what did the Romans do to merit the self destruction of Israel?)

Finally, you had something to say against the Roman angels who were raping in Israel almost daily. Do you want to hear more about this. A 19th Century German Scholar called Erick Rinnerman, in his book “The Myth of the Pax Romana,” mentions that in the year 4 BCE there was a revolt of the Pharisees against Herod. He was about to fall when he appealed to Rome for help and Caesar ordered the 10th Legion stationed in Syria to pass to Israel and put the revolt down. They came, caused extensive destruction especially in the Galilee, crucified thousands of Jews and stayed two years to make sure everything was under control. During these two years the Roman soldiers would rape almost daily. And one of the ladies was Mary raped by a Roman soldier from Sidon, called Pantera. That he survived the Roman wars and chose to spend his retirement in a big farm in Sidon granted by Rome, as was the Roman policy to do this to soldiers after 25 years of services. A few years after Joseph, Jesus’ adoptive father died, Jesus would visit Sidon where he would enter a certain house and would prevent anyone from knowing where he was or why. You can see this in Mark 7:24. You don’t have to believe this. I myself don’t want to, but this is just to let you know of the Roman angelical job in Israel while they were there.

The fact remains that Roman rule was no worse than was typical in the time and was, net, very beneficial to Israel. More importantly, Israel suffered far worse for its choice to wage war against Israel, something that surprises nobody.

**You must be a famous Jewish hater to say that what the Romans did in Israel was beneficial to Israel. What about if what this German Scholar wrote about Mary was true? Was that beneficial? **

You seem determined to avoid facing the simple fact that Israel destroyed itself in 1C-2C AD for no good reason.

**What Israel did could not be suffered any longer, war was preferred to thousands of crucifixions of Jews almost daily. Otherwise Josephus would be lying. I prefer to believe that you are the one lying because of your antisemitic hatred of Israel. **

I’m curious why you feel the need to change the subject from the culpability of the Jews for the destruction of Israel to the death of Jesus?

What did you expect? The NT accuses the Jews with having killed Jesus, and now you make angels out of the Romans and devils out of the Jews.

Is it so hard to admit that your ancestors screwed up royally in 1C-2C AD?

**Why don’t you tell me why you are such a Jewish hater to lie so blatantly? **