On its face, this could mean anyone named Yeshu, Yeshua, Yehoshua, etc., who is also a Nazirite loosely defined. This conjunction could refer to many historical figures
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.
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.
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.
Hey doofus, He also says “they say they are jews” - so until you can explain to the class your special jewdar which lets you tell “the good jews” from “those who say they are jews but are not and do lie”, save your self-righteous indignation and gaslighting for zionist summer camp
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.
Hey doofus, He also says “they say they are jews” - so until you can explain to the class your special jewdar which lets you tell “the good jews” from “those who say they are jews but are not and do lie”, save your self-righteous indignation and gaslighting for zionist summer camp