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:
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.
I did read it. "When they said Jesus, they didn't mean Jesus Jesus" Yeah they did. When they say Titus, they mean Titus. They hate Titus because he destroyed the physical temple. When they say Jesus, they mean Jesus because He destroyed their spiritual temple.
Also, funny wordplay: When we say "Gas the Jews" there is multiple, subtle layers humorously interplaying there.
"Gas" could refer to not just the de-lousing agents, it also calls to mind flatulence, which is often offensive to everyone else around but not to the one who actually caused it. Just like jewery is repulsive to everyone else in society except the jews that commit it.
Also, by "Jews" we don't necessarily mean the demonic religion that wears ancient Hebrew spirituality as a skinsuit to cover their abhorrent behavior... because then we wouldn't have capitalized it.
I have no idea why you think your train of thought here might be relevant. It's not.
The context of the arcane bit from the Talmud you're obsessing over cannot be understood until you know what the Talmud is, what it's written for, and how it's used.
You don't.
Neither am I saying it's important, and I certainly don't think it's worth the effort to study. First of all you should realize that well over 70% of all US Jews give no credence or consideration to the Talmud whatsoever. Smaller groups of them including Conservatives and Orthodox do, but very few of them spend any time reading it and almost none of them ever read the whole thing. And the few who do don't place any emphasis on bizarre bits like what you're focused on here.
Context.
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.
This is your brain on zionism
Jesus says twice they are not Jews. I don't know why it's so hard for followers of Jesus to hear Jesus say they are not Jews and to tell him they are Jews. Too much Scofield interpretation going on, methinks, self-deprecating.
I thought of a new one BTW. The fact is that nobody in that century would take "satanic synagogue" as meaning all synagogues were satanic. The fact is that synagogues meant culturally acceptable religiosity anywhere the word was used and rarely had a negative overtone. Logically, by saying "satanic synagogue" Jesus is saying that it's a totally new kind of synagogue, not something that already existed. It's unlike the acceptable ones and is evil in its origin and practice (unlike the understanding about the thousands of others at the time). He explains the reason is that, unlike what would have to be called "traditional synagogues" by contrast, this synagogue was not composed of Jews but of Gentiles who lie that they are Jews. The only reason people read Jesus as saying the opposite of what he said is not listening to his words as they would be understood by his primary audience. Denial of the Shepherd.
Anyway, this is suitable for another thread, even the one I linked. It's a simple matter to trace how the false application of Jesus's words began recently among collectivists. If you wish to defend what I see to be false with your facts and logic, I just complimented you for your handling of similar things including your handling on this thread, so I think we can make headway.
To OP obviously (I just said) Deut. 28 shows that any "Zionism" should admit both the positive and the negative promises to Israel, just like we admit positive and/or negative promises to many other nations in Scripture, notably Egypt and Syria. So it's a good point if it's not taken into collectivism. Some Zionists are big cherry-pickers about promises.
Fuck off kike, we have seen through your talmudic tricks ages ago.