How does Deuteronomy 28 not completely refute all of Zionism?
(www.bible.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (72)
sorted by:
Just pull up Matthew 2:6: "But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.”
It says a ruler will shepherd the people of Israel (not some of them, not a new kind of people, it's all of Israel).
Considering the ruler in question is Jesus, who are the people who follow Jesus?
Oh I know this one! The people who murdered Him, believe that He is boiling in shit in hell, and hold to an identity rooted in their hatred and rejection of Him!
(Yeah, I'm a dispensationalist, how could you tell?)
The slack jaw, vacent eyes, drool and being my in laws gave it away.
Hi Mildred. You are about the 15th person to allude to the most misquoted text anywhere on Scored.
That reads like a bunch nonsence to try to get around the fact it says Jesus is boiling in excrement.
Depends on your definition on "Jesus", "is", "boiling", "in", and "excrement". Other than that, perfectly clear.
Or, you could actually, you know, learn. It wouldn't kill you, I promise.
Funny how there's supposedly many candidates for who that Leviticus-ignoring(10:31) rabbi was speaking with, yet apologists for the Christ-haters never name them.
In my Talmud quotes compilation, I do name the primary two other candidates who contributed to the stock figure "Yeshu" besides Yehoshua of Nazareth. They are Yeshu the Student who served the rabbi ben Perachiah (a rabbi who is yet another Yehoshua) in the early 1st century BC, and Yeshu son of Pappos who was present during the bar Kochba rebellion in the 130s AD. Simple historical inquiry indicates that these were three different people nicknamed Yeshu who fell into disfavor with much of Jewry and so any reference to Yeshu alone is generally an amalgamation of those. In the whole Talmud, besides generic narratives, there is basically one narrative each where a figure can be historically placed, and the narrative for Yehoshua of Nazareth is pretty accurate (he was killed on Passover for stirring up the people, his disciples like Mattai continued teaching his words and were killed for it).
After years of seeing all kinds of things said here about the Talmud, I looked for myself and found the historically accurate parts are pretty easily separated from the exaggerations.
Your reference to ignorance of whatever would be "Lev. 10:31" (you might mean Deut. 18:10-11) seems to mean that Onkelos was not Levitically pure. That's part of the humor of the intended joke, it starts with a taboo before it gets worse and develops its punchline (about how Israel is beloved even in hell). This is spoken of Onkelos when he was a Gentile thinking of conversion, and he never became a rabbi (though he was a translator whose textual work is still used by Christians and Jews). So the point is that even with Onkelos being in total ignorance, he yet received a (humorous) confirmation of the rightness of following Moses, from Yeshu himself, whichever dishonorable Yeshu or Yeshus the author intended.
You may be interested in extended discussion about how Onkelos, being a Gentile convert, is actually my best historical candidate for who Jesus meant by the synagogue of satan. He had fingers in many pies.
Fuck off kike, we have seen through your talmudic tricks ages ago.