Kosher Jesus

[Penelope]

Poor Paul----"paul was not against Pharisees"----he just created the basis for more libels to justify the massive genocide inflicted on PHARISEES by those who adopted some sort of perverted moral code. ----as in "don't wash your
hands but if you find people who do-----just kill them"
'"don't circumcise---but circumcision works well as an identifying mark ------for people you should murder" ---I do
agree that Paul DID NOT KNOW what he was cooking up.

Paul did not advocate killing anyone, let alone Pharisees or people who were circumcised or washed their hands.

Penny---you endorsed Merri's statement about Paul---did you forget that you "know" that Paul did not exist?

Merri was referring to the Paul in scripture

 

[irosie91]

View attachment 87172 That's the least of your worries about the
Last Supper Story.
Historically the only sentencing on passover was done to Yeshu son of the harlot Mary of 100bc. They don't do things like that on high holidays, that's to specific an occurance, therefore that portion of the "created" image is regarding another era persona, the half Roman Yeshu.
The other problem is that the story uses 12 for the zodiac, and 12 is the number of messenger prophets under Mithra
& Lucifer. All 12 fall asleep(through using psychedelic mushrooms says Yehuda texts) supposedly guarding over their icon.
For crying out loud the are called Nazarenes (guardians) and they all failed to live up to that name, just as Jesus is fallaciously called the great Shepherd after causing his sheep to be scattered and slain.

Poor Paul----"paul was not against Pharisees"----he just created the basis for more libels to justify the massive genocide inflicted on PHARISEES by those who adopted some sort of perverted moral code. ----as in "don't wash your
hands but if you find people who do-----just kill them"
'"don't circumcise---but circumcision works well as an identifying mark ------for people you should murder" ---I do
agree that Paul DID NOT KNOW what he was cooking up.

Paul did not advocate killing anyone, let alone Pharisees or people who were circumcised or washed their hands.

what Paul DID do is advocate NOT engaging in circumcision and -----not washing hands-----making it very easy to identify
jews. He set the table for Constantine and the children of
Constantine---- to wit----genocidal catholics like whore Isabella and adolf and the various popes that presided over church mediated genocide-------and Muhummad who adopted the
some of the canon laws which mandated, easy identification of jews into "shariah" law. Muhummad retained
circumcision and to some extent hand washing----but he adopted ----quite specifically-----mandatory yellow marking and the all important ban on weapons and even ban on riding horses. Some of the very same laws ----found their way into the Nuremburg laws. Thus PAUL---probably unwittingly---initiated the feasibility of religious authority mediated genocide
thru methods of convenient ID. Identification is very important in conducting selective genocide. and selective
oppression and exploitation. Constantine did the poll tax thing---which became Jizya in shariah law and was more or less imposed in catholic countries-----and pillage and confiscation in the Nuremburg laws.

Paul said circumcision of the heart was more important that

Poor Paul----"paul was not against Pharisees"----he just created the basis for more libels to justify the massive genocide inflicted on PHARISEES by those who adopted some sort of perverted moral code. ----as in "don't wash your
hands but if you find people who do-----just kill them"
'"don't circumcise---but circumcision works well as an identifying mark ------for people you should murder" ---I do
agree that Paul DID NOT KNOW what he was cooking up.

Paul did not advocate killing anyone, let alone Pharisees or people who were circumcised or washed their hands.

Penny---you endorsed Merri's statement about Paul---did you forget that you "know" that Paul did not exist?

Merri was referring to the scripturee

Poor Paul----"paul was not against Pharisees"----he just created the basis for more libels to justify the massive genocide inflicted on PHARISEES by those who adopted some sort of perverted moral code. ----as in "don't wash your
hands but if you find people who do-----just kill them"
'"don't circumcise---but circumcision works well as an identifying mark ------for people you should murder" ---I do
agree that Paul DID NOT KNOW what he was cooking up.

Paul did not advocate killing anyone, let alone Pharisees or people who were circumcised or washed their hands.

Penny---you endorsed Merri's statement about Paul---did you forget that you "know" that Paul did not exist?

err

Poor Paul----"paul was not against Pharisees"----he just created the basis for more libels to justify the massive genocide inflicted on PHARISEES by those who adopted some sort of perverted moral code. ----as in "don't wash your
hands but if you find people who do-----just kill them"
'"don't circumcise---but circumcision works well as an identifying mark ------for people you should murder" ---I do
agree that Paul DID NOT KNOW what he was cooking up.

Paul did not advocate killing anyone, let alone Pharisees or people who were circumcised or washed their hands.

Penny---you endorsed Merri's statement about Paul---did you forget that you "know" that Paul did not exist?

Merri was referring to the Paul in scripture

yes----that one-----the one that never existed according to
the THE PENELOPIAN GOSPEL----he advised AGAINST
circumcision-----the only indication for circumcision of the
heart ----as far as I know---- is ADHESIVE PERICARDITIS----
which is kinda like PHIMOSIS of the heart

 

[irosie91]

'For all the undeniable good Christianity has done, even its most passionate adherents would admit it has also been directly and indirectly responsible for a great deal of suffering. Until the modern era, Christian history is rife with physical violence and discrimination. Awful acts of hatred and intolerance were committed in Jesus’ name. And for far too long, the received picture of Jesus has obscured a simple and powerful truth: Jesus would never stand as an enemy against his own people, nor would he tolerate his followers doing so.


From the very beginning, as Christianity branched away from Judaism to develop its own identity, Jesus was intentionally shorn of his Jewishness like Samson deprived of his strength. Christians obfuscated the idea of Jesus the Jew – preferring to see him as an innovator, who at once transcended Judaism and brought it to a conclusion. This deception deeply alienated Jesus from the Jewish people and led to considerable torment and distress. This is not to suggest that the chilly relationship between Christians and Jews was one-sided. Jews have long avoided any connection to Jesus. Over the centuries, as he was slowly turned into a deity and violence perpetrated in his name against the Jews increased, they came to see him as a source of unrelenting persecution, the supreme example of heresy. They wanted no association with the patron saint of zealots who demeaned, attacked, and murdered them, and taught sacrilege in his name. But times are changing. Christianity has opened its heart to the Jews.





Kosher Jesus

I guess you forget your OT history, and the Romans would of never destoryed Judea and if not for the continuous civil wars in the Judea and Israel among different sects of jews and Samaritans. Emperors Titus main general was a jew from Alexandria, an Alexander.

You have also forgot your Russian history and well Christians are fighting to protect Israel now,

so not only have Christians opened their hearts to the jews (some), they have given their life for Israel and they have

opened their pocketbooks, and yet you jews continue to blast Christians.

Smuley books was not well received by orthodox jews nor fundamental Christians.

try again Penelope-----you got it ALL WRONG------I have ancestors from Russia---(on my father's side) -----the ones
who survived the pogroms fled to England.---some of those --
came to the USA. Russia continues to arm any islamo Nazi
entity willing to kill jews. The EO s have been just as virulent jew killers as have been the catholics. The more
the Russians "allow" religion---the more the EOs express
their penchant for KILLING. As to reception of BOOKS----
you have no idea-------every time you read something in the
islamo Nazi pig literature written by a jew-----even a satmar
jew----you seem to decide "DATS DA JOOOOOOOS"-----
I have distressing news for you---------even the average
satmar does not believe it SATMARS IS MY FRIENDS---
well----not actually friends------but very close acquaintances

 

[irosie91]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

you do lots of GUESSING penny dear------most often based on no facts, whatsoever. Galilee was chock full of pharisees

Obviously he did, so his teaching didn't coincide with theirs.

no evidence whatsoever

 

[Penelope]

'For all the undeniable good Christianity has done, even its most passionate adherents would admit it has also been directly and indirectly responsible for a great deal of suffering. Until the modern era, Christian history is rife with physical violence and discrimination. Awful acts of hatred and intolerance were committed in Jesus’ name. And for far too long, the received picture of Jesus has obscured a simple and powerful truth: Jesus would never stand as an enemy against his own people, nor would he tolerate his followers doing so.


From the very beginning, as Christianity branched away from Judaism to develop its own identity, Jesus was intentionally shorn of his Jewishness like Samson deprived of his strength. Christians obfuscated the idea of Jesus the Jew – preferring to see him as an innovator, who at once transcended Judaism and brought it to a conclusion. This deception deeply alienated Jesus from the Jewish people and led to considerable torment and distress. This is not to suggest that the chilly relationship between Christians and Jews was one-sided. Jews have long avoided any connection to Jesus. Over the centuries, as he was slowly turned into a deity and violence perpetrated in his name against the Jews increased, they came to see him as a source of unrelenting persecution, the supreme example of heresy. They wanted no association with the patron saint of zealots who demeaned, attacked, and murdered them, and taught sacrilege in his name. But times are changing. Christianity has opened its heart to the Jews.





Kosher Jesus

I guess you forget your OT history, and the Romans would of never destoryed Judea and if not for the continuous civil wars in the Judea and Israel among different sects of jews and Samaritans. Emperors Titus main general was a jew from Alexandria, an Alexander.

You have also forgot your Russian history and well Christians are fighting to protect Israel now,

so not only have Christians opened their hearts to the jews (some), they have given their life for Israel and they have

opened their pocketbooks, and yet you jews continue to blast Christians.

Smuley books was not well received by orthodox jews nor fundamental Christians.

try again Penelope-----you got it ALL WRONG------I have ancestors from Russia---(on my father's side) -----the ones
who survived the pogroms fled to England.---some of those --
came to the USA. Russia continues to arm any islamo Nazi
entity willing to kill jews. The EO s have been just as virulent jew killers as have been the catholics. The more
the Russians "allow" religion---the more the EOs express
their penchant for KILLING. As to reception of BOOKS----
you have no idea-------every time you read something in the
islamo Nazi pig literature written by a jew-----even a satmar
jew----you seem to decide "DATS DA JOOOOOOOS"-----
I have distressing news for you---------even the average
satmar does not believe it SATMARS IS MY FRIENDS---
well----not actually friends------but very close acquaintances

And zealots jews killed secular ones and vice versa.
These Jewish communists were incredibly ruthless in stamping out any type of religious activity by fellow Jews. They killed rabbis, closed the yeshivos and synagogues, banned all religious practices, and enforced it by getting friends to turn in neighbors, children to turn in parents and send them to Siberia for observing the religion. It was the Yevsektsia more than anything else that destroyed the Jewish community in Russia.

http://www.jewishhistory.org/jewish-europe-between-the-wars/

anyway this thread is about Kosher Jesus, not about the jews in Russia.

 

[Penelope]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

you do lots of GUESSING penny dear------most often based on no facts, whatsoever. Galilee was chock full of pharisees

Obviously he did, so his teaching didn't coincide with theirs.

no evidence whatsoever

He fought with the Pharisees in the NT, get over it. He called their teachings the traditions of men. I deny he was a Pharisee.

 

[irosie91]

'For all the undeniable good Christianity has done, even its most passionate adherents would admit it has also been directly and indirectly responsible for a great deal of suffering. Until the modern era, Christian history is rife with physical violence and discrimination. Awful acts of hatred and intolerance were committed in Jesus’ name. And for far too long, the received picture of Jesus has obscured a simple and powerful truth: Jesus would never stand as an enemy against his own people, nor would he tolerate his followers doing so.


From the very beginning, as Christianity branched away from Judaism to develop its own identity, Jesus was intentionally shorn of his Jewishness like Samson deprived of his strength. Christians obfuscated the idea of Jesus the Jew – preferring to see him as an innovator, who at once transcended Judaism and brought it to a conclusion. This deception deeply alienated Jesus from the Jewish people and led to considerable torment and distress. This is not to suggest that the chilly relationship between Christians and Jews was one-sided. Jews have long avoided any connection to Jesus. Over the centuries, as he was slowly turned into a deity and violence perpetrated in his name against the Jews increased, they came to see him as a source of unrelenting persecution, the supreme example of heresy. They wanted no association with the patron saint of zealots who demeaned, attacked, and murdered them, and taught sacrilege in his name. But times are changing. Christianity has opened its heart to the Jews.





Kosher Jesus

I guess you forget your OT history, and the Romans would of never destoryed Judea and if not for the continuous civil wars in the Judea and Israel among different sects of jews and Samaritans. Emperors Titus main general was a jew from Alexandria, an Alexander.

You have also forgot your Russian history and well Christians are fighting to protect Israel now,

so not only have Christians opened their hearts to the jews (some), they have given their life for Israel and they have

opened their pocketbooks, and yet you jews continue to blast Christians.

Smuley books was not well received by orthodox jews nor fundamental Christians.

try again Penelope-----you got it ALL WRONG------I have ancestors from Russia---(on my father's side) -----the ones
who survived the pogroms fled to England.---some of those --
came to the USA. Russia continues to arm any islamo Nazi
entity willing to kill jews. The EO s have been just as virulent jew killers as have been the catholics. The more
the Russians "allow" religion---the more the EOs express
their penchant for KILLING. As to reception of BOOKS----
you have no idea-------every time you read something in the
islamo Nazi pig literature written by a jew-----even a satmar
jew----you seem to decide "DATS DA JOOOOOOOS"-----
I have distressing news for you---------even the average
satmar does not believe it SATMARS IS MY FRIENDS---
well----not actually friends------but very close acquaintances

And zealots jews killed secular ones and vice versa.
These Jewish communists were incredibly ruthless in stamping out any type of religious activity by fellow Jews. They killed rabbis, closed the yeshivos and synagogues, banned all religious practices, and enforced it by getting friends to turn in neighbors, children to turn in parents and send them to Siberia for observing the religion. It was the Yevsektsia more than anything else that destroyed the Jewish community in Russia.

http://www.jewishhistory.org/jewish-europe-between-the-wars/

anyway this thread is about Kosher Jesus, not about the jews in Russia.

you are quoting the opinion of a jew who despised ANY tinge of secularism and might accuse a secular jew of any perversion on earth-----try that crap with someone else----but you might like to talk to some satmar.

 

[irosie91]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

you do lots of GUESSING penny dear------most often based on no facts, whatsoever. Galilee was chock full of pharisees

Obviously he did, so his teaching didn't coincide with theirs.

no evidence whatsoever

He fought with the Pharisees in the NT, get over it. He called their teachings the traditions of men. I deny he was a Pharisee.

well---you are wrong----there is no place in the NT in which Jesus "FOUGHT" with the Pharisees------in fact he FOUGHT with the enemies of the Pharisees------which was PRECISELY
what his foray into the temple courtyard was all about. He had lunch with Pharisees ------cautioned people to learn from
them (and himself) and BERATED them for not being "PHARISEE ENOUGH"----(for that part you need to grasp the
style of the time------AMOS, JEREMIAH, EZRA made the mode) He was buried in the family tomb of a pharisee

 

[irosie91]

BTW---the money changers were not Pharisees. there were no "high priests" who were Pharisees including the infamous
CAIAPHAS-----Herod was an Edomite. Pilate hated Pharisees and crucified an estimated 20,000 of them----Constantine hated
Pharisees too--------but his mother decided to be a Christian and
HE liked the idea of creating an ANTI JEW religion. Now you know the origin of the 'holy' roman empire. Luther was a child of CONSTANTINE------so anti jew that he denied the fact
that Jesus was a jew. I am not entirely clear on what John
the Baptist was -----but if his doppelganger ELIJAH had lived
to that time HE would have been a Pharisee

 

[Meriweather]

what Paul DID do is advocate NOT engaging in circumcision and -----not washing hands-----making it very easy to identify
jews. He set the table for Constantine and the children of
Constantine---- to wit----genocidal catholics like whore Isabella and adolf and the various popes that presided over church mediated genocide-------and Muhummad who adopted the
some of the canon laws which mandated, easy identification of jews into "shariah" law. Muhummad retained
circumcision and to some extent hand washing----but he adopted ----quite specifically-----mandatory yellow marking and the all important ban on weapons and even ban on riding horses. Some of the very same laws ----found their way into the Nuremburg laws. Thus PAUL---probably unwittingly---initiated the feasibility of religious authority mediated genocide
thru methods of convenient ID. Identification is very important in conducting selective genocide. and selective
oppression and exploitation. Constantine did the poll tax thing---which became Jizya in shariah law and was more or less imposed in catholic countries-----and pillage and confiscation in the Nuremburg laws.

I see no reason to blame Paul for what happened centuries after he lived. Nor should Constantine be blamed for Hitler, and nor is the Catholics faith responsible for all the lost lives. I'm teaching science this week, and one of the tenets we are emphasizing is that when there are multiple variables in play, no one should assign the outcome to a single variable.

We also should be aware of questions/assumptions that cannot possibly be answered or proven. For example, we cannot assume that life would have been better (or worse) without Paul.

When we look at scholarly, historical studies, we see that democide (death traced directly to government not religion) is responsible for so much tragic killing--and much of that was done by atheist or non-theistic governments. We follow that line of study even further, and it is evident that hunter/gatherer/farming/agriculture/undeveloped cultures have more killing than urban and developed countries.

Almost to an individual, each one of us comes from a background that has been hated and discriminated against sometime in its past--and I'm speaking recent past. The Irish were considered beneath contempt, worse than chimps, and Irish Catholics were at the bottom of that heap.

The question should be, has society evolved since those days? While some of my Irish and/or Catholic ancestors were treated abominably, that is not happening to me. Some of my Quaker ancestors were also whipped and mistreated--but that does not happen to me today. My Protestant ancestors fought my Catholic ancestors, yet we live in peace today. None of this is the fault--or due to the merit--of Paul. Any fault/merit rests solely on the people involved in that particular event in that particular time period.

 

[Penelope]

I guess Jesus knew more than the Pharisees of his day. The man from Galilee. The Pharisees were suppose to be the teachers of the law, weren't they?

you do lots of GUESSING penny dear------most often based on no facts, whatsoever. Galilee was chock full of pharisees

Obviously he did, so his teaching didn't coincide with theirs.

no evidence whatsoever

He fought with the Pharisees in the NT, get over it. He called their teachings the traditions of men. I deny he was a Pharisee.

well---you are wrong----there is no place in the NT in which Jesus "FOUGHT" with the Pharisees------in fact he FOUGHT with the enemies of the Pharisees------which was PRECISELY
what his foray into the temple courtyard was all about. He had lunch with Pharisees ------cautioned people to learn from
them (and himself) and BERATED them for not being "PHARISEE ENOUGH"----(for that part you need to grasp the
style of the time------AMOS, JEREMIAH, EZRA made the mode) He was buried in the family tomb of a pharisee

No he warned his apostles about the Pharisees. No Pharisees until the return of the exile. Josephus said around 6000 at the time of Jesus.

 

[Meriweather]

No he warned his apostles about the Pharisees.

More specifically, Jesus cautioned his Apostles about hypocrisy and to watch out for it. We know Jesus had many (certainly not all) supporters among the Pharisees. Today, Jesus would have the same message (shame on hypocrisy) to some religious leaders (of all faiths) and to some politicians (in all nations). For example, one of the reasons many are against H. Clinton is because she holds others to one standard of behavior while giving herself a free pass to a much lower one.

In reading some Jewish scholars and Pharisees today, I can easily imagine Jesus telling us, "Listen to the Pharisees." This does not mean listen to all Pharisees, use discretion, just as we should use discretion in all things.

 

[irosie91]

from penny---who now manifests a psychotic break----the era
ere under consideration is the Russian Revolution>>>

""And zealots jews killed secular ones and vice versa.""

in the above historical revision---"zealot" is Pharisee jew----
(think TEVYE in FIDDLER ON THE ROOF) According
to Penny----Tevye and family were killing secularized jews.
The "young student '''revolutionary"" --who was guest
teacher. was the secularized jew. The writer of the
story was the author SHOLOM ALEICHEM (nom de
plumb)---he, himself----was an ardent socialist----sorta.
He was the kinda guy lots of PHARISEES despised and
----well ----tolerate as well as they tolerate me. No one
killed Sholom Aleichem when he was living in NY. No
one hated him-----he lived amongst Pharisees in NY----
died at the beginning of the RUSSIAN REVOLUTION.
Russia liked his support of SOCIALISM and claim him
as their own.

 

[irosie91]

you do lots of GUESSING penny dear------most often based on no facts, whatsoever. Galilee was chock full of pharisees

Obviously he did, so his teaching didn't coincide with theirs.

no evidence whatsoever

He fought with the Pharisees in the NT, get over it. He called their teachings the traditions of men. I deny he was a Pharisee.

well---you are wrong----there is no place in the NT in which Jesus "FOUGHT" with the Pharisees------in fact he FOUGHT with the enemies of the Pharisees------which was PRECISELY
what his foray into the temple courtyard was all about. He had lunch with Pharisees ------cautioned people to learn from
them (and himself) and BERATED them for not being "PHARISEE ENOUGH"----(for that part you need to grasp the
style of the time------AMOS, JEREMIAH, EZRA made the mode) He was buried in the family tomb of a pharisee

No he warned his apostles about the Pharisees. No Pharisees until the return of the exile. Josephus said around 6000 at the time of Jesus.

your sentence does not make sense ----Josephus was a
Pharisee. 6000 what? what exile? "Pharisee" was
and is not an hereditary status. Does the 6000 refer to the
number of Pharisees LEFT after repeated mass killings
by the romans? What did Jesus say that the PHARISEES
had against the apostles of Jesus?-------did they want to kill
Luke? or the non-existent Paul?

 

[irosie91]

what Paul DID do is advocate NOT engaging in circumcision and -----not washing hands-----making it very easy to identify
jews. He set the table for Constantine and the children of
Constantine---- to wit----genocidal catholics like whore Isabella and adolf and the various popes that presided over church mediated genocide-------and Muhummad who adopted the
some of the canon laws which mandated, easy identification of jews into "shariah" law. Muhummad retained
circumcision and to some extent hand washing----but he adopted ----quite specifically-----mandatory yellow marking and the all important ban on weapons and even ban on riding horses. Some of the very same laws ----found their way into the Nuremburg laws. Thus PAUL---probably unwittingly---initiated the feasibility of religious authority mediated genocide
thru methods of convenient ID. Identification is very important in conducting selective genocide. and selective
oppression and exploitation. Constantine did the poll tax thing---which became Jizya in shariah law and was more or less imposed in catholic countries-----and pillage and confiscation in the Nuremburg laws.

I see no reason to blame Paul for what happened centuries after he lived. Nor should Constantine be blamed for Hitler, and nor is the Catholics faith responsible for all the lost lives. I'm teaching science this week, and one of the tenets we are emphasizing is that when there are multiple variables in play, no one should assign the outcome to a single variable.

We also should be aware of questions/assumptions that cannot possibly be answered or proven. For example, we cannot assume that life would have been better (or worse) without Paul.

When we look at scholarly, historical studies, we see that democide (death traced directly to government not religion) is responsible for so much tragic killing--and much of that was done by atheist or non-theistic governments. We follow that line of study even further, and it is evident that hunter/gatherer/farming/agriculture/undeveloped cultures have more killing than urban and developed countries.

Almost to an individual, each one of us comes from a background that has been hated and discriminated against sometime in its past--and I'm speaking recent past. The Irish were considered beneath contempt, worse than chimps, and Irish Catholics were at the bottom of that heap.

The question should be, has society evolved since those days? While some of my Irish and/or Catholic ancestors were treated abominably, that is not happening to me. Some of my Quaker ancestors were also whipped and mistreated--but that does not happen to me today. My Protestant ancestors fought my Catholic ancestors, yet we live in peace today. None of this is the fault--or due to the merit--of Paul. Any fault/merit rests solely on the people involved in that particular event in that particular time period.

don't give up your day job------you will not make it as
an anthropologist-----or sociologist----and CERTAINLY ---
give up the idea of a career in developemental psychology.

getting back to the ISSUE---which is the HOLY ROMAN
EMPIRE and its penchant for GENOCIDE-----its manual
was (and in a limited ways still is) the book called
THE NEW TESTAMENT ---edited by and FOR the
Emperor of the first Reich----CONSTANTINE. I do
believe that Paul is an historic reality-----but CONSTANTINE
et al----created the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE and its manual
which includes the civil laws that inspired Adolf----and even
Muhummad. No one can KNOW what would have happened
if not for this or that......but history is a series of REAL EVENTS---mediated by REAL PEOPLE AND REAL IDEAS

 

[irosie91]

No he warned his apostles about the Pharisees.

More specifically, Jesus cautioned his Apostles about hypocrisy and to watch out for it. We know Jesus had many (certainly not all) supporters among the Pharisees. Today, Jesus would have the same message (shame on hypocrisy) to some religious leaders (of all faiths) and to some politicians (in all nations). For example, one of the reasons many are against H. Clinton is because she holds others to one standard of behavior while giving herself a free pass to a much lower one.

In reading some Jewish scholars and Pharisees today, I can easily imagine Jesus telling us, "Listen to the Pharisees." This does not mean listen to all Pharisees, use discretion, just as we should use discretion in all things.

oh gee----Penny back peddled. Jesus was a Pharisee---
talking to Pharisees ----addressing them DIRECTLY in
the style that Pharisees use when talking to EACH OTHER.
Some of that reported in the NT ---might be accurate
I got important news-----He was not speaking to you. Of course Edgar Allen Poe was not speaking to me either---but
I read his stuff. Even PLATO was not talking to me

 

[Penelope]

Obviously he did, so his teaching didn't coincide with theirs.

no evidence whatsoever

He fought with the Pharisees in the NT, get over it. He called their teachings the traditions of men. I deny he was a Pharisee.

well---you are wrong----there is no place in the NT in which Jesus "FOUGHT" with the Pharisees------in fact he FOUGHT with the enemies of the Pharisees------which was PRECISELY
what his foray into the temple courtyard was all about. He had lunch with Pharisees ------cautioned people to learn from
them (and himself) and BERATED them for not being "PHARISEE ENOUGH"----(for that part you need to grasp the
style of the time------AMOS, JEREMIAH, EZRA made the mode) He was buried in the family tomb of a pharisee

No he warned his apostles about the Pharisees. No Pharisees until the return of the exile. Josephus said around 6000 at the time of Jesus.

your sentence does not make sense ----Josephus was a
Pharisee. 6000 what? what exile? "Pharisee" was
and is not an hereditary status. Does the 6000 refer to the
number of Pharisees LEFT after repeated mass killings
by the romans? What did Jesus say that the PHARISEES
had against the apostles of Jesus?-------did they want to kill
Luke? or the non-existent Paul?

Your have not read Jose

No he warned his apostles about the Pharisees.

More specifically, Jesus cautioned his Apostles about hypocrisy and to watch out for it. We know Jesus had many (certainly not all) supporters among the Pharisees. Today, Jesus would have the same message (shame on hypocrisy) to some religious leaders (of all faiths) and to some politicians (in all nations). For example, one of the reasons many are against H. Clinton is because she holds others to one standard of behavior while giving herself a free pass to a much lower one.

In reading some Jewish scholars and Pharisees today, I can easily imagine Jesus telling us, "Listen to the Pharisees." This does not mean listen to all Pharisees, use discretion, just as we should use discretion in all things.

oh gee----Penny back peddled. Jesus was a Pharisee---
talking to Pharisees ----addressing them DIRECTLY in
the style that Pharisees use when talking to EACH OTHER.
Some of that reported in the NT ---might be accurate
I got important news-----He was not speaking to you. Of course Edgar Allen Poe was not speaking to me either---but
I read his stuff. Even PLATO was not talking to me

No, Jesus was not a Pharisee.

 

[irosie91]

no evidence whatsoever

He fought with the Pharisees in the NT, get over it. He called their teachings the traditions of men. I deny he was a Pharisee.

well---you are wrong----there is no place in the NT in which Jesus "FOUGHT" with the Pharisees------in fact he FOUGHT with the enemies of the Pharisees------which was PRECISELY
what his foray into the temple courtyard was all about. He had lunch with Pharisees ------cautioned people to learn from
them (and himself) and BERATED them for not being "PHARISEE ENOUGH"----(for that part you need to grasp the
style of the time------AMOS, JEREMIAH, EZRA made the mode) He was buried in the family tomb of a pharisee

No he warned his apostles about the Pharisees. No Pharisees until the return of the exile. Josephus said around 6000 at the time of Jesus.

your sentence does not make sense ----Josephus was a
Pharisee. 6000 what? what exile? "Pharisee" was
and is not an hereditary status. Does the 6000 refer to the
number of Pharisees LEFT after repeated mass killings
by the romans? What did Jesus say that the PHARISEES
had against the apostles of Jesus?-------did they want to kill
Luke? or the non-existent Paul?

Your have not read Jose

No he warned his apostles about the Pharisees.

More specifically, Jesus cautioned his Apostles about hypocrisy and to watch out for it. We know Jesus had many (certainly not all) supporters among the Pharisees. Today, Jesus would have the same message (shame on hypocrisy) to some religious leaders (of all faiths) and to some politicians (in all nations). For example, one of the reasons many are against H. Clinton is because she holds others to one standard of behavior while giving herself a free pass to a much lower one.

In reading some Jewish scholars and Pharisees today, I can easily imagine Jesus telling us, "Listen to the Pharisees." This does not mean listen to all Pharisees, use discretion, just as we should use discretion in all things.

oh gee----Penny back peddled. Jesus was a Pharisee---
talking to Pharisees ----addressing them DIRECTLY in
the style that Pharisees use when talking to EACH OTHER.
Some of that reported in the NT ---might be accurate
I got important news-----He was not speaking to you. Of course Edgar Allen Poe was not speaking to me either---but
I read his stuff. Even PLATO was not talking to me

No, Jesus was not a Pharisee.

in fact he was-----which is why he stormed into the
temple courtyard and overturned the tables of the
money changers-----Sorry penny----your catechism whore
lied when she told you that the money changers were
PHARISEES-----they were the pigs and dogs that the
PHARISEES HATED------their roman fellow pigs and dogs,
LOVED THEM just as the filthy dog----CONSTANTINE
loved his own scum. You have a disadvantage----your
kith and kin did not write and you do not read ---illiterates
have NO HISTORY

 

[Penelope]

He fought with the Pharisees in the NT, get over it. He called their teachings the traditions of men. I deny he was a Pharisee.

well---you are wrong----there is no place in the NT in which Jesus "FOUGHT" with the Pharisees------in fact he FOUGHT with the enemies of the Pharisees------which was PRECISELY
what his foray into the temple courtyard was all about. He had lunch with Pharisees ------cautioned people to learn from
them (and himself) and BERATED them for not being "PHARISEE ENOUGH"----(for that part you need to grasp the
style of the time------AMOS, JEREMIAH, EZRA made the mode) He was buried in the family tomb of a pharisee

No he warned his apostles about the Pharisees. No Pharisees until the return of the exile. Josephus said around 6000 at the time of Jesus.

your sentence does not make sense ----Josephus was a
Pharisee. 6000 what? what exile? "Pharisee" was
and is not an hereditary status. Does the 6000 refer to the
number of Pharisees LEFT after repeated mass killings
by the romans? What did Jesus say that the PHARISEES
had against the apostles of Jesus?-------did they want to kill
Luke? or the non-existent Paul?

Your have not read Jose

No he warned his apostles about the Pharisees.

More specifically, Jesus cautioned his Apostles about hypocrisy and to watch out for it. We know Jesus had many (certainly not all) supporters among the Pharisees. Today, Jesus would have the same message (shame on hypocrisy) to some religious leaders (of all faiths) and to some politicians (in all nations). For example, one of the reasons many are against H. Clinton is because she holds others to one standard of behavior while giving herself a free pass to a much lower one.

In reading some Jewish scholars and Pharisees today, I can easily imagine Jesus telling us, "Listen to the Pharisees." This does not mean listen to all Pharisees, use discretion, just as we should use discretion in all things.

oh gee----Penny back peddled. Jesus was a Pharisee---
talking to Pharisees ----addressing them DIRECTLY in
the style that Pharisees use when talking to EACH OTHER.
Some of that reported in the NT ---might be accurate
I got important news-----He was not speaking to you. Of course Edgar Allen Poe was not speaking to me either---but
I read his stuff. Even PLATO was not talking to me

No, Jesus was not a Pharisee.

in fact he was-----which is why he stormed into the
temple courtyard and overturned the tables of the
money changers-----Sorry penny----your catechism whore
lied when she told you that the money changers were
PHARISEES-----they were the pigs and dogs that the
PHARISEES HATED------their roman fellow pigs and dogs,
LOVED THEM just as the filthy dog----CONSTANTINE
loved his own scum. You have a disadvantage----your
kith and kin did not write and you do not read ---illiterates
have NO HISTORY

Sorry you have the wrong Jesus. I doubt you read the NT or Josephus, but that's ok, you don't need to but don't try to debate the issues either.

 

[irosie91]

well---you are wrong----there is no place in the NT in which Jesus "FOUGHT" with the Pharisees------in fact he FOUGHT with the enemies of the Pharisees------which was PRECISELY
what his foray into the temple courtyard was all about. He had lunch with Pharisees ------cautioned people to learn from
them (and himself) and BERATED them for not being "PHARISEE ENOUGH"----(for that part you need to grasp the
style of the time------AMOS, JEREMIAH, EZRA made the mode) He was buried in the family tomb of a pharisee

No he warned his apostles about the Pharisees. No Pharisees until the return of the exile. Josephus said around 6000 at the time of Jesus.

your sentence does not make sense ----Josephus was a
Pharisee. 6000 what? what exile? "Pharisee" was
and is not an hereditary status. Does the 6000 refer to the
number of Pharisees LEFT after repeated mass killings
by the romans? What did Jesus say that the PHARISEES
had against the apostles of Jesus?-------did they want to kill
Luke? or the non-existent Paul?

Your have not read Jose

No he warned his apostles about the Pharisees.

More specifically, Jesus cautioned his Apostles about hypocrisy and to watch out for it. We know Jesus had many (certainly not all) supporters among the Pharisees. Today, Jesus would have the same message (shame on hypocrisy) to some religious leaders (of all faiths) and to some politicians (in all nations). For example, one of the reasons many are against H. Clinton is because she holds others to one standard of behavior while giving herself a free pass to a much lower one.

In reading some Jewish scholars and Pharisees today, I can easily imagine Jesus telling us, "Listen to the Pharisees." This does not mean listen to all Pharisees, use discretion, just as we should use discretion in all things.

oh gee----Penny back peddled. Jesus was a Pharisee---
talking to Pharisees ----addressing them DIRECTLY in
the style that Pharisees use when talking to EACH OTHER.
Some of that reported in the NT ---might be accurate
I got important news-----He was not speaking to you. Of course Edgar Allen Poe was not speaking to me either---but
I read his stuff. Even PLATO was not talking to me

No, Jesus was not a Pharisee.

in fact he was-----which is why he stormed into the
temple courtyard and overturned the tables of the
money changers-----Sorry penny----your catechism whore
lied when she told you that the money changers were
PHARISEES-----they were the pigs and dogs that the
PHARISEES HATED------their roman fellow pigs and dogs,
LOVED THEM just as the filthy dog----CONSTANTINE
loved his own scum. You have a disadvantage----your
kith and kin did not write and you do not read ---illiterates
have NO HISTORY

Sorry you have the wrong Jesus. I doubt you read the NT or Josephus, but that's ok, you don't need to but don't try to debate the issues either.

Josephus does not mention---JESUS---there is small insertion placed there by the catholic church---but it is actually meaningless. I also read the NT---in fact---by the time I was 10 years old. When I ten years old---catholic kids were NOT
PERMITTED to read the bible-------the nuns must have realized young minds are LOGICAL. I discussed the JESUS
presented in the NT----often by people who never met him----
an example is LUKE-----as the Matthew ---no one really knows who he is------and JOHN---has to be several different people. Of course since PAUL never existed----anything he wrote---should be considered FANTASY-----actually I believe
that Paul existed----but never met Jesus. The story "on the road to Damascus" is obviously fantasy