The Jewish Concept of a Messiah

[steve_bank]

Marxists live in the past. Marx and the economics and social dynamics of the day are long gone.
Today we are not the America of the 1800s, same for Europe and Canada.


America 100 years from now will not be what they are today,. As Marx said a continuous revolution.

The problem with Marx is he was an observer and commentator, not and administrator. A philosopher not an administrator.

The question I ask Marxists and anarchists and others is if you want a new system, exactly how will it be structured and run with us humans as we are. I never get a response because they are ideological not practical.

At the national level

How are decisions made?
How are differences and disputes resolved?
Who decides how much of somebody gets manufactured?
Who decides compensation for work?
Who decides how much of something somebody gets?


And so on.

 

[No Robots]

^Socialism accommodates itself to the existing order. Only communism embodies the revolutionary fervor for a better future.

Sorry dude.
You're putting on your self centered ideological blinders again.
Tom

Heh. Good luck with your tepid liberalism in Trumpland.

 

[TomC]

^Socialism accommodates itself to the existing order. Only communism embodies the revolutionary fervor for a better future.

Sorry dude.
You're putting on your self centered ideological blinders again.
Tom

Heh. Good luck with your tepid liberalism in Trumpland.

It's you Bible believers supporting Trump that have given me darned good reason to believe that you and your Abrahamic religion cohorts have no discernable moral compass or conscience.
Tom

 

[No Robots]

Marxists live in the past. Marx and the economics and social dynamics of the day are long gone.
Today we are not the America of the 1800s, same for Europe and Canada.


America 100 years from now will not be what they are today,. As Marx said a continuous revolution.

The problem with Marx is he was an observer and commentator, not and administrator. A philosopher not an administrator.

The question I ask Marxists and anarchists and others is if you want a new system, exactly how will it be structured and run with us humans as we are. I never get a response because they are ideological not practical.

At the national level

How are decisions made?
How are differences and disputes resolved?
Who decides how much of somebody gets manufactured?
Who decides compensation for work?
Who decides how much of something somebody gets?


And so on.

You can start with some basic economics. Try Mariana Mazzucato for instance. As for the philosophic side of things, I won't bother providing links to any dead gurus.

 

[No Robots]

^Socialism accommodates itself to the existing order. Only communism embodies the revolutionary fervor for a better future.

Sorry dude.
You're putting on your self centered ideological blinders again.
Tom

Heh. Good luck with your tepid liberalism in Trumpland.

It's you Bible believers supporting Trump that have given me darned good reason to believe that you and your Abrahamic religion cohorts have no discernable moral compass or conscience.
Tom

Heh. Maybe you missed this:

Bishop asks Trump to show mercy to LGBT people and migrants​

 

[Jarhyn]

^Socialism accommodates itself to the existing order. Only communism embodies the revolutionary fervor for a better future.

Sorry dude.
You're putting on your self centered ideological blinders again.
Tom

Heh. Good luck with your tepid liberalism in Trumpland.

It's you Bible believers supporting Trump that have given me darned good reason to believe that you and your Abrahamic religion cohorts have no discernable moral compass or conscience.
Tom

Heh. Maybe you missed this:

Bishop asks Trump to show mercy to LGBT people and migrants​

It's a pretty active topic on Reddit. Apparently, Trump is demanding an apology. But I already made a thread for that. You should come participate!

 

[No Robots]

^Socialism accommodates itself to the existing order. Only communism embodies the revolutionary fervor for a better future.

Sorry dude.
You're putting on your self centered ideological blinders again.
Tom

Heh. Good luck with your tepid liberalism in Trumpland.

It's you Bible believers supporting Trump that have given me darned good reason to believe that you and your Abrahamic religion cohorts have no discernable moral compass or conscience.
Tom

Heh. Maybe you missed this:

Bishop asks Trump to show mercy to LGBT people and migrants​

It's a pretty active topic on Reddit. Apparently, Trump is demanding an apology. But I already made a thread for that. You should come participate!

Thanks for the invitation, but won't you just say that, once again, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about?

 

[Jarhyn]

^Socialism accommodates itself to the existing order. Only communism embodies the revolutionary fervor for a better future.

Sorry dude.
You're putting on your self centered ideological blinders again.
Tom

Heh. Good luck with your tepid liberalism in Trumpland.

It's you Bible believers supporting Trump that have given me darned good reason to believe that you and your Abrahamic religion cohorts have no discernable moral compass or conscience.
Tom

Heh. Maybe you missed this:

Bishop asks Trump to show mercy to LGBT people and migrants​

It's a pretty active topic on Reddit. Apparently, Trump is demanding an apology. But I already made a thread for that. You should come participate!

Thanks for the invitation, but won't you just say that, once again, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about?

I think you have many very strong religious beliefs that do not align with reality, and that many are misconceptions layered on misconceptions all the way back to an original author that was in their own way *impenetrably obtuse*, assuming I myself know what I am talking about.

That said, the truth of prophecy isn't the subject of the thread so much as it's political implication true or not.

 

[No Robots]

I think you have many very strong religious beliefs that do not align with reality, and that many are misconceptions layered on misconceptions all the way back to an original author that was in their own way *impenetrably obtuse*, assuming I myself know what I am talking about.

That said, the truth of prophecy isn't the subject of the thread so much as it's political implication true or not.

Dude, I'm not the one running around calling myself a wizard.

Your last sentence is incoherent.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think you have many very strong religious beliefs that do not align with reality, and that many are misconceptions layered on misconceptions all the way back to an original author that was in their own way *impenetrably obtuse*, assuming I myself know what I am talking about.

That said, the truth of prophecy isn't the subject of the thread so much as it's political implication true or not.

Dude, I'm not the one running around calling myself a wizard.

Your last sentence is incoherent.

And I have adequately defended my ontology so far.

Secondly, I don't know how to make it any clearer that the other thread is agnostic to whether the prophecy is revealed or self-fulfilling, as politics happens either way.

 

[No Robots]

Jarhyn, you must be talking about this thread: Trump as the Antichrist? Correct? Why didn't you provide a link?

I do not see where that thread discusses the incident in question, viz. Bishop asks Trump to show mercy to LGBT people and migrants

Are you just muddying the waters in this thread in an attempt to deflect attention from this incident and at the same trying to promote your own thread?

 

[Jarhyn]

Jarhyn, you must be talking about this thread: Trump as the Antichrist? Correct? Why didn't you provide a link?

I do not see where that thread discusses the incident in question, viz. Bishop asks Trump to show mercy to LGBT people and migrants

Are you just muddying the waters in this thread in an attempt to deflect attention from this incident and at the same trying to promote your own thread?

Dude, I could care less. I was genuinely interested in your take as this specifically relates to the relationship between actual Christianity and whatever is going on with Trump. It's specifically a juxtaposition of the image people have of him with the reality, which is "someone who when asked to show mercy demands apologies 'for the slight'".

You brought up the incident, and it directly relates to concepts of the Messiah because it's a thread about the literal inverse, over there.

I really don't care whatever it is you're mad at me about. I think Gnostic Christianity and Kabbalah is, in a lot of ways, woo woo crazy pants, and even when it isn't, struggles to meet terms with any branch of established academic thought. It is a set of confusions by confused people over something phrased in a confusing way about something confusing.

If we have one common interest, let it be building the kingdom of heaven on Earth, here, today, for everyone. This thread here has ostensibly been made to be about determining whether living and dying for the mission of bringing the kingdom of heaven to earth for everyone, as may be done in that moment, qualifies for being a Messiah.

The other thread is about whether living for the mission of bringing heaven only to oneself on the backs of everyone else qualifies much as the inverse, and what political implications would be germane to that, and is made specific to that topic.

You have so much to say about who the Messiah is, but is it not germane to the topic to at least acknowledge that the Bible does at least describe in large part something much the inverse?

 

[No Robots]

If we have one common interest, let it be building the kingdom of heaven on Earth, here, today, for everyone. This thread here has ostensibly been made to be about determining whether living and dying for the mission of bringing the kingdom of heaven to earth for everyone, as may be done in that moment, qualifies for being a Messiah.

Indeed, let us build unity on this.

The other thread is about whether living for the mission of bringing heaven only to oneself on the backs of everyone else qualifies much as the inverse, and is made specific to that topic.

You have so much to say about who the Messiah is, but is it not germane to the topic to at least acknowledge that the Bible does at least describe in large part something much the inverse?

Got it now. Will consider further. Thanks.

 

[DBT]

The mention of Jesus and Paul in the dead sea scrolls;

''We now find that right in the Dead Sea Scrolls, after the Biblical citation and the reference to “a man who betrays his people”, the ancient writer states “you shall crucify him on a tree [i.e., a cross] and he will die”.

Who is the Dead Sea Scrolls writer talking about? Obviously, it’s Jesus of Nazareth. The writer of the Dead Sea Scrolls is making the same connections that Jesus makes when he quotes his enemies referring to him as a “glutton and a drunkard” i.e., a traitor and a collaborator. The writer of “11QT54” seems to be one of the enemies that Jesus is aware of and refers to in the Gospels.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls fragment, right after the reference to Jesus, the writer goes on to take a swipe at yet another man. This one initially avoids the death penalty and “escapes among the nations and curses his people, the children of Israel”. The Dead Sea Scrolls writer states that this man, too, “shall be crucified and he will die”.

Could this be a reference to Paul? After all, in the Book of Acts (21:27-34), in almost the same words as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the crowd in Jerusalem accuses Paul of “teaching everyone everywhere against our people and our law”.

It then describes Paul barely escaping with his life from the hands of the incensed Israelites. Paul is then protected by the Roman authorities, makes it to Rome and, according to Christian tradition, is crucified there.

Paul’s fate and the fate of this other man mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, right after the reference to Jesus, are identical: they barely escape with their lives, they turn against their people and they end up crucified. The textual evidence suggests that here we’ve discovered an allusion to Paul in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So it seems that there are at least three references to crucifixion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. One to Paul’s crucifixion and the other two referring to Jesus. The Jesus references use known terms for Jesus such as “dove” and a “glutton and drunkard”. But there is a difference. One of the two fragments seems to be written by a group that is positive to Jesus’ teachings, the other seems to be written by a group – known to Jesus – that is hostile to both Jesus and his message. Even the group that is positive, however, seems to be distancing itself from Paul’s theology of the “nail” i.e., the emphasis on Jesus’ death and resurrection, preferring to focus on Jesus’ teachings.

What does all this mean? It means that even though Jesus and Paul are referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls, at this point, we cannot draw any final conclusions about the theology of these early texts. In any event, one thing is for certain: The Dead Sea Scrolls have to be revisited and mined for information on the historical Jesus and the theological disputes between his earliest followers.''


The Blogs: Jesus and Paul in the Dead Sea Scrolls! | Simcha Jacobovici | The Times of Israel

 

[Ramaraksha]

The mention of Jesus and Paul in the dead sea scrolls;

''We now find that right in the Dead Sea Scrolls, after the Biblical citation and the reference to “a man who betrays his people”, the ancient writer states “you shall crucify him on a tree [i.e., a cross] and he will die”.

Who is the Dead Sea Scrolls writer talking about? Obviously, it’s Jesus of Nazareth. The writer of the Dead Sea Scrolls is making the same connections that Jesus makes when he quotes his enemies referring to him as a “glutton and a drunkard” i.e., a traitor and a collaborator. The writer of “11QT54” seems to be one of the enemies that Jesus is aware of and refers to in the Gospels.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls fragment, right after the reference to Jesus, the writer goes on to take a swipe at yet another man. This one initially avoids the death penalty and “escapes among the nations and curses his people, the children of Israel”. The Dead Sea Scrolls writer states that this man, too, “shall be crucified and he will die”.

Could this be a reference to Paul? After all, in the Book of Acts (21:27-34), in almost the same words as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the crowd in Jerusalem accuses Paul of “teaching everyone everywhere against our people and our law”.

It then describes Paul barely escaping with his life from the hands of the incensed Israelites. Paul is then protected by the Roman authorities, makes it to Rome and, according to Christian tradition, is crucified there.

Paul’s fate and the fate of this other man mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, right after the reference to Jesus, are identical: they barely escape with their lives, they turn against their people and they end up crucified. The textual evidence suggests that here we’ve discovered an allusion to Paul in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So it seems that there are at least three references to crucifixion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. One to Paul’s crucifixion and the other two referring to Jesus. The Jesus references use known terms for Jesus such as “dove” and a “glutton and drunkard”. But there is a difference. One of the two fragments seems to be written by a group that is positive to Jesus’ teachings, the other seems to be written by a group – known to Jesus – that is hostile to both Jesus and his message. Even the group that is positive, however, seems to be distancing itself from Paul’s theology of the “nail” i.e., the emphasis on Jesus’ death and resurrection, preferring to focus on Jesus’ teachings.

What does all this mean? It means that even though Jesus and Paul are referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls, at this point, we cannot draw any final conclusions about the theology of these early texts. In any event, one thing is for certain: The Dead Sea Scrolls have to be revisited and mined for information on the historical Jesus and the theological disputes between his earliest followers.''


The Blogs: Jesus and Paul in the Dead Sea Scrolls! | Simcha Jacobovici | The Times of Israel

The Romans killed a LOT of people that way - not just a few people
So to conclude that the people killed this way in the scrolls MUST be these people we know is a fallacy