Chit Chat

By Ted Belman

From now on comments on every post must relate to the content of the post.

Comments that don’t relate to the post must go here.

Any person who contravenes this demand will be put on moderation. Also their offending comment will be trashed.

The reason for this demand is so that people who want to read comments which pertain to the post, don’t have to wade through the chatter.

Everyone will be happier.

April 16, 2020 | 7,908 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 7908 Comments

  1. @ bernard ross:

    “i don’t trust the christian churches on this subject [Jewish authorship of NT] but you are quite satisfied.”

    “You don’t know that what you call ‘Christian sources’ consist exclusively of christian churches. Some are simply independent scholars who specialize in matters relating to Christianity.

    It does not follow that they are necessarily connected with some church, or even have some prior intellectual interest in the outcome of their researches.”

    “In any case, if you think it all hinges on whether there is external evidence to corroborate the existence of Christ, I’ll take up that matter immediately after YOU provide ME evidence of the existence of Eliyahu haNavi. (Surely that’s fair, isn’t it?)

    “At least in the case of haNitzri, there are his sayings. No way they were written by a committee of Byzantine or Roman hacks. If you can’t see something very special, indeed extraordinarily brilliant, in the Sermon on the Mount…”

    “a pretty story is your support for the existence of someone?”

    “Pretty STORY”? — I said nothing [above] of the NARRATIVE. I clearly referenced the SAYINGS specifically, the remarks, the Sermon on the Mount, etc — the internal unity & coherence of them, the fact that they couldn’t have been concocted & assembled ‘by committee.’ One needn’t be a literary expert to realize this

    — only an interested seeker with an open mind.”

    “this is irrelevant, the existence of literary tracts,nor their literary quality, DOES NOT prove the existence of [Jesus of Nazareth]”

    It’s not the least bit ‘irrelevant,’ but very much to the point.

    Once again, however, you completely (and I do mean COMPLETELY) miss the point. One would’ve thought you could put it together for yourself. No such luck. So, okay, we’ll plod:

    It’s not about tracts. It’s not about literary quality. It’s not in any way an issue of aesthetics. Got that? It’s about examining & comparing texts for reliability & authenticity. And to THAT end, literary examination has value.

    Repeat: looking at the sayings from a literary perspective is not an end in itelf but a means of discovering its likely PROVENANCE — just as looking at Obama’s first ‘bio,’ Dreams From My Father, from a literary perspective was not an end in itself either. It showed that he very likely was NOT its actual author, and that Bill Ayres very probably was.

    To say that those lustrous, luminescent, brilliant sayings of haNitzri are NOT the work of a ‘committee’ is another way of stating that they can only have been the utterances of a single individual — and reading those sayings leaves no doubt that WHOEVER that single individual was would’ve had to be a very special individual, and most definitely one with a first century Jewish background; no way around that. You don’t just make that stuff up, out of whole cloth, like a novel.

  2. @ yamit82:

    ” I would rather deal with an Arab terrorist than the likes of you…”

    “That tells more about you than Arabs, terrorists, OR Li’l Ole Winemaker, me.”

    “Looks like you drink too much of your own home brew. Made you stupid and nuts.”

    Nah! Principles of quality control require that one never imbibe the stuff while makin’ it.

    ” There was a time any Jew would have offed you and be declared like Pinchas a man of G-d and given his covenant of peace. If you were a Jew.”

    “Pinchas & Joshua were dealing with a whole different paradigm from the one of today (much to your obvious chagrin) — the children of a slave people unused to doing their own thinking, unused to being free. Needful of despots, tyrants, dictators. . . . until they developed a sense of themselves as persons and as part of a civil polity. That was to take centuries.”

    “Again your arrogance and ignorance are showing again as you don’t even come close to understanding the narrative.”

    Prove that I don’t. ANYBODY can make an assertion.

    Making a case, OTOH, is a bite of a different bagel.

    @ yamit82:

    “Your are certifiably Insane and a bum!!!!”

    It would be SO comforting to be able to believe that, wouldn’t it?

  3. @ honeybee:

    “Sweetie Darlin, you misunderstand me. I ‘ troll’ your comments for errors in your arguments [ and there are many] in order gently and lovingly correct you. I do this for you and only for you, Sweetie out of concern for your intellectual wellbeing.”

    Put the apple down, Eve.

    Now step away from it; that’s a good girl.

  4. dweller Said:

    Hogwash. It’s precisely because of your envy of me that you NEED to see me as a ‘traitor’ & ‘SOB.’

    No I see you ‘exactly’ as I described “exactly”!!! What is there to be envious about???

    Your are certifiably Insane and a bum!!!!

  5. dweller Said:

    Li’l Ole Winemaker, me.

    Looks like you drink too much of your own home brew. Made you stupid and nuts.

    Pinchas & Joshua were dealing with a whole different paradigm than the one of today (much to your obvious chagrin) — the children of a slave people unused to doing their own thinking, unused to being free. Needful of despots, tyrants, dictators. . . . until they developed a sense of themselves as persons and as part of a civil polity. That was to take centuries.

    Again your arrogance and ignorance are showing again as you don’t even come close to understanding the narrative. Idiot.

    “Intelligent people know of what they speak; fools speak of what they know.”

  6. @ dweller:

    Sweetie Darlin, you misunderstand me. I ” troll” your comments for errors in your arguments [ and there are many] in order gently and lovingly correct you. I do this for you and only for you, Sweetie out of concern for your intellectual wellbeing.

  7. @ yamit82:

    ” You have as much called the G-d of Israel a liar and a charlatan, a mean prankster at best.”

    “Oh? — where did I do that? Frankly, I think He would agree with me that you are stuffed shirt with a ruler stuck up your keister, and hardly a credit to Him.”

    “If and I say if you were born a Jew you are now a heretic and a traitor to the Jewish people.”

    That’s a lie; those who propound it are liars and bearers of false witness.

    ” You are everything and more we are opposed to.”

    The only “we” in your remark is you.

    ” I would rather deal with an Arab terrorist than the likes of you…”

    That tells more about you than Arabs, terrorists, OR Li’l Ole Winemaker, me.

    ” There was a time any Jew would have offed you and be declared like Pinchas a man of G-d and given his covenant of peace. If you were a Jew.”

    Pinchas & Joshua were dealing with a whole different paradigm than the one of today (much to your obvious chagrin) — the children of a slave people unused to doing their own thinking, unused to being free. Needful of despots, tyrants, dictators. . . . until they developed a sense of themselves as persons and as part of a civil polity. That was to take centuries.

    ” As a gentile and christian…”

    Am nothing of the sort, on either count..

    “Doesn’t mean I still don’t hold out hope for something disastrous to happen to you.”

    That’s how any honest person can see that you don’t seek God’s will, but clearly your OWN.

    “I don’t hate you because of envy I hate you because I consider you a traitor and sick evil SOB.”

    Hogwash. It’s precisely because of your envy of me that you NEED to see me as a ‘traitor’ & ‘SOB.’

  8. @ yamit82:

    You still haven’t told me which ones you observe, nor why you think their observance necessarily makes you more of a ‘Jew’ than those who are less formalistic about their conduct.

    “They are all equally important so say our sages because we don’t know which ones G-d thinks are more important.”

    You still haven’t answered the question.

    ” inane and puerile.”

    “And then there are the words that you got from Li’l Ole Winemaker, me [sigh].”

    “No they are all min and have used them from first day of commenting on this blog which I believe proceeded your unfortunate appearance.”

    You do precede me on this site. But if you have used them that long, you should have no problem showing a couple of instances going back a ways.

    ” In any event they were not taken from you but only used against you.”

    And how could you have used them only against me if you were here before I showed up?

    “Reversal of attribution scam don’t cut it here.”

    Fooled me — since you’re doing it here.

    “I won’t say blasphemous because you do not believe in the G-d of Israel (Jacob).”

    “He would take issue with you over the latter part of that.”

    “Prove it”

    Disprove it.

  9. @ yamit82:

    “Since you mostly reject Rabbinic authority and do not observe Mitzvot…”

    “So you observe all 613, do you? (when do you find time to blog???)”

    “Your responses are SOP for you obfuscation misdirection…”

    “So Ross provides you with most of your new words, eh? — is that how it works?”

    “Not so AH”

    Oh, very much so.

    “… I’ve been using those words mostly wrt you for years long Before Bernie Appeared…”

    Nah. No more than eight months (if that).

    “… check the archives you seem to spend much time on them. “

    Nonsense. I’ve spent no time on the archives since I pulled up those three pages of links on Reagan stuff — and no time at all before that for a long, long time.

    — The hours needed for hunting like that is a luxury I just don’t have.

    But if you’re so sure you’ve used those terms in re YoursTruly for so long, you should have no problem pulling up some examples.

    Let’s see you pull up a few going back as much as, say, two years.

    “I asked you a question, since you never defined what you meant by saying, “you…do not observe Mitzvot.”

    “Denial won’t cut it it’s too transparent”

    WHAT’S ‘transparent’? WHAT ‘denial’?

    “I asked you a question, since you never defined what you meant by saying, ‘you…do not observe Mitzvot’.”

    “Irrelevant!!!!”

    Of course it’s relevant.

    You accuse me of not observing mitzvot, yet refuse to tell me if you DO? Get real. You’re being evasive.

    “I supplied the traditional and consensus view of what constitutes a Jew according to Jewish authoritative sources, not only today but for the past 3300 years.”

    There is NO such ‘authoritative source.’ You supplied one view among several, and it is not even clear from an objective view whether the one you offered is even a truly unbroken line.

    “I didn’t like you make them up.”

    Don’t gimme that crap. I don’t make stuff up.

    “My personal observance is not at issue…”

    It is very MUCH at issue as long as you are making accusations like the above.

    “… and I don’t ow you any response to that question it’s none of YFB!!!”

    If you continue to refuse to answer, then the discussion is over.

    ” The very construct of your question provides evidence that you have no idea what are mitzvot and their function within Judaism.”

    I know their function within one view, a very narrow, circumscribed view. But what I know or don’t know is quite beside the point, because despite your huffing & puffing, you still don’t know WHETHER I observe them or not.

    I also know that the mere observance of them, even in every detail, will not make you (or anybody else) a better man. You are walking evidence.

    “I know what paul said and did to them and i know what you thin about the liar and dwarf that he was”

    You haven’t YET shown him to be a ‘liar’ (let alone, a ‘dwarf’).

    “but your stupidity in asking the question in the manner you did is classic missionary trope.”

    LMMFAO. If you honestly believe I’m a ‘missionary,’ then you’re dumber than a boxarox. The treadmill inside your cage turning

    — but the hamster’s dead.

  10. dweller Said:

    “Your responses are SOP for you obfuscation misdirection…”

    So Ross provides you with most of your new words, eh? — is that how it works?

    Not so AH, I’ve been using those words mostly wrt you for years long Before Bernie Appeared check the archives you seem to spend much time on them. Your conspiracy paranoia is showing it’s green face again.

    Actually the comment was neither ‘obfuscation’ NOR ‘misdirection’ on my part.

    I asked you a question, since you never defined what you meant by saying, “you…do not observe Mitzvot.”

    Denial won’t cut it it’s too transparent but you are the King of denial on this site nothing, meaning no criticism is ever admitted even when faced with your own words.

    I asked you a question, since you never defined what you meant by saying, “you…do not observe Mitzvot.”

    Irrelevant!!!! I supplied the traditional and consensus view of what constitutes a Jew according to Jewish authoritative sources, not only today but for the past 3300 years. Not my ideas and I didn’t like you make them up.
    My personal observance is not at issue and I don’t ow you any response to that question it’s none of YFB!!! The very construct of your question provides evidence that you have no idea what are mitzvot and their function within Judaism.

    Yeah Yeah I know what paul said and did to them and i know what you thin about the liar and dwarf that he was but your stupidity in asking the question in the manner you did is classic missionary trope.

    You still haven’t told me which ones you observe, nor why you think their observance necessarily makes you more of a ‘Jew’ than those who are less formalistic about their conduct.

    They are all equally important so say our sages because we don’t know which ones G-d thinks are more important. Any interpretation on that would be subjective. I would never think to assume like you such a prerogative.

    And then there are the words that you got from Li’l Ole Winemaker, me [sigh].

    No they are all min and have used them from first day of commenting on this blog which I believe proceeded your unfortunate appearance. In any event they were not taken from you but only used against you. Reversal of attribution scam don’t cut it here. SAH!!

    He would take issue with you over the latter part of that.

    Prove it!!!

    Frankly, I think He would agree with me that you are stuffed shirt with a ruler stuck up your keister, and hardly a credit to Him.

    If and I say if you were born a Jew you are now a heretic and a traitor to the Jewish people. You are everything and more we are opposed to. I would rather deal with an Arab terrorist than the likes of you… There was a time any Jew would have offed you and be declared like Pinchas a man of G-d and given his covenant of peace. If you were a Jew. As a gentile and christian you would be left alone as long as you were out of sight and mind. Doesn’t mean I still don’t hold out hope for something disastrous to happen to you. I don’t hate you because of envy I hate you because I consider you a traitor and sick evil SOB. 🙂

  11. @ yamit82:

    “When you stop reading for provocative opportunities, and START reading for comprehension, YOUR questions will start being relevant too.”

    “But Sweetie my love, how can I read your post for comprehension, when you never propose but only respond yourself, to Yamit82’s superior intellect.”

    “All that’s necessary is that you stop seeking opportunities for provocation

    — like the one you just seized upon w/ this post.”

    “Since it’s true how can it be a provocation AH?”

    Even if it were true (FTR, it isn’t, yet even if it were), it would still constitute a provocation — as she knows perfectly well.

    She threw out a bone, and instead of patiently-but-firmly correcting her, you jumped on it and slathered all over it. You’re so easy

    — and soooo dense.

  12. @ yamit82:

    “Since you mostly reject Rabbinic authority and do not observe Mitzvot…”

    “So you observe all 613, do you? (when do you find time to blog???)”

    “Your responses are SOP for you obfuscation misdirection…”

    So Ross provides you with most of your new words, eh? — is that how it works?

    Actually the comment was neither ‘obfuscation’ NOR ‘misdirection’ on my part.

    I asked you a question, since you never defined what you meant by saying, “you…do not observe Mitzvot.”

    You still haven’t told me which ones you observe, nor why you think their observance necessarily makes you more of a ‘Jew’ than those who are less formalistic about their conduct.

    ” inane and puerile.”

    And then there are the words that you got from Li’l Ole Winemaker, me [sigh].

    “I won’t say blasphemous because you do not believe in the G-d of Israel (Jacob).”

    He would take issue with you over the latter part of that.

    ” You have as much called the G-d of Israel a liar and a charlatan, a mean prankster at best.”

    Oh? — where did I do that?

    Frankly, I think He would agree with me that you are stuffed shirt with a ruler stuck up your keister, and hardly a credit to Him.

  13. @ yamit82:

    “I’ve no intention of wading thru all that lengthy verbiage to find your argument. Make the case in your own words, and if I need a reference on followup, I may check your linked essays then.”

    “Lengthy verbiage? Much less then crap you just posted above.”

    The actual fresh text coming from me (viz., not counting the blockquoted material) in the post you referenced amounts to something under 150 words. The amount of text in the essays you linked to comes to several thousand words.

    I’d ask how you ever passed high school math, but the question is really more fundamental: do you know how to COUNT???

    “…’Deut 16. Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons, nor shall sons be put to death because of fathers; each man shall be put to death for his own transgression.’

    Case closed.”

    Not so fast, Slick.

    Case closed as to man’s justice.

    Not necessarily as to God’s.

    He didn’t say to the original pair, ‘if you do this I will kill you.’

    He said if you do this, you will die.

    He didn’t actively threaten them. He showed them the lay of the land. He told them of the structure of His universe and how to conduct themselves within it; they violated that structure.

    If I tell my kids, ‘don’t lay your hand on that hot stove; if you do you’ll get burned’

    — and if (being kids) they do it anyway, and get burned. . . .was it I that burned them?

    In violating the structure of the universe, the original pair lost their bright nature. The evidence of that (part of the evidence) is that they now KNEW they were naked.

    Absent that bright nature, death became inevitable.

    21…’and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.’ 22 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden…”

    Because death was inevitable they now needed to perpetuate themselves.

    Their offspring inherit the post-Edenic, fallen world created by the disobedience of the original pair, where the very ground (and everything ultimately issuing forth from it) is cursed — a world in which the Tree of Life remaining in the center of the Garden is off-limits to them.

    Remember: Its fruit was NOT forbidden to our first parents while they LIVED in Eden; only the fruit of the other tree, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil, was forbidden them.

    Their disobedience lost them their immortality.

    “First 3 Chapters are 100% parable. No Jewish authority or sage thought it wasn’t.”

    Never said (nor suggested) that it didn’t have a heavily symbolic component. That would be hard to miss.

    This, however, does not keep it from being ALSO — at the same time — quite literal. Truth can express itself simultaneously on a multiplicity of levels.

    There is nothing in the text — before, during, or after — to suggest that the narrative is ‘not’ to be taken literally.

    You show me any ‘sage’ or other ‘authority’ who says, flat-out, that the story is not literally true, and I’ll show you one unsagacious, unauthoritative dummy who shouldn’t be allowed out of the house by himself. He isn’t safe in traffic.

  14. dweller Said:

    All that’s necessary is that you stop seeking opportunities for provocation

    — like the one you just seized upon w/ this post.

    Since it’s true how can it be a provocation AH?

  15. @ honeybee:

    “When you stop reading for provocative opportunities, and START reading for comprehension, YOUR questions will start being relevant too.”

    “But Sweetie my love, how can I read your post for comprehension, when you never propose but only respond yourself, to Yamit82’s superior intellect.”

    All that’s necessary is that you stop seeking opportunities for provocation

    — like the one you just seized upon w/ this post.

  16. @ honeybee:
    In this part of the world they put it in almost everything especially meat dishes. I’ve grown to like it an acquired taste. Never had it states side

  17. @ honeybee:

    Would be tough and thanks for the song used to be favorite.

    Maybe the real curse is having to cook not farm????

    We use a lot of cumin, Curcumin – ?Cuminaldehyde – ?Cuminum

    Some say it’s also an anti carcinogen.

  18. dweller Said:

    I’ve no intention of wading thru all that lengthy verbiage to find your argument. Make the case in your own words, and if I need a reference on followup, I may check your linked essays then.

    Lengthy verbiage? Much less then crap you just posted above.

    Deut 16. Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons, nor shall sons be put to death because of fathers; each man shall be put to death for his own transgression.

    Case closed. Btw First 3 Chapters are 100% parable. No Jewish authority or sage thought it wasn’t. Only you stupid chistians think otherwise 😛

    Genesis 3:18

    And it will cause thorns and thistles to grow for you, and you shall eat the herbs of the field.

    “and you shall eat the herbs of the field”: Now what [kind of] curse is this? Was it not said to him in the blessing (Gen 1:29): “Behold I have given you every seed-bearing herb, etc?

    29. And God said, “Behold, I have given you every seed bearing herb, which is upon the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit; it will be yours for food.

  19. dweller Said:

    (When you stop reading for provocative opportunities, and START reading for comprehension, YOUR questions will start being relevant too.)

    But Sweetie my love, how can I read your post for comprehension, when you never propose but only respond yourself, to Yamit82’s superior intellect.

  20. @ yamit82:

    “The name, ‘Original Sin,’ may WELL be 5th century — but that doesn’t make the concept 5th century. QTC, it’s as old as B’reishit 3:17 — ‘Cursed is the ground for thy sake’…”

    “And to man He said, ‘Because you listened to your wife, and you ate from the tree from which I commanded you saying, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life.”

    “…’cursed be the ground for your sake: It will bring up cursed things for you, such as flies, fleas, and ants. This can be compared to one who falls into evil ways, and people curse the breasts from which he suckled.” — [from Gen. Rabbah 20: 8] Rashi

    “Man was not cursed the ground was.”

    Even Rashi does not draw that conclusion.

    Notice what is included in his commentary on v. 7, “And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves girdles”:

    Now why was the tree not identified? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not wish to grieve any creature, so that [others] should not put it to shame and say, “This is [the tree] because of which the world suffered.” (Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma, Vayera 14, Buber 32).

    “Cursed be the ground“?

    And from whence came the man in the first place?

    — ha’adamah.

    And whence came the man’s name, “Adam?”

    The clear implication is that v. 17 should perhaps be rendered, “cursed be [even] the ground for your sake…” That is, you drawn not only upon yourselves the curse, but indeed, upon all of creation.

    “no basis in your professed assertions that it was part of the original 1st century beliefs of the followers of yeshu.”

    “LOLROF. Actually it was not merely PART of the 1st century beliefs of the followers of Jesus, but it antedates them (by several thousand years).

    Have you never wondered why it was decided to use Psalm 51 for the the vidui, the confessional? Careful how you answer, because there’s more involved than just the Batsheva-Uriah matter that prompted the writing of the psalm in the first place:

    “…’Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’…” [v.7]

    Hoo-hah! — where’d that come from?

    If the iniquity — even in the womb — referred purely to David’s Canaanite & Moabite ancestry, why would the rabbis use it as the confessional? Surely they could’ve found something else that didn’t contain that little tweaker; yes?”

    “Sin”; “Doctrine of Original Sin & Psalm 51:7”

    I’ve no intention of wading thru all that lengthy verbiage to find your argument. Make the case in your own words, and if I need a reference on followup, I may check your linked essays then.

    “You are nothing more than an deceitful charlatan with a nefarious theological agenda.”

    I am nothing of the sort.

    It’s you who approach this blog with an agenda, mi Senor el Gran Inquisidor

    — and given that it amounts to an outpicturing of your personal pathology, I’d have to say it’s nefarious to boot.

  21. @ dweller:

    So you observe all 613, do you? (when do you find time to blog???)

    Your responses are SOP for you obfuscation misdirection inane and puerile. I won’t say blasphemous because you do not believe in the G-d of Israel (Jacob). You have as much called the G-d of Israel a liar and a charlatan, a mean prankster at best.

    Stupid christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I call it the arrogance of Ignorance and stated by a moronic ignoramus.

    “Although there is not 100% agreement on the precise list of the 613 (there are some slight discrepancies in the way some lists divide related or overlapping mitzvot), there is complete agreement that there are 613 mitzvot. This number is significant: it is the numeric value of the word Torah (Tav = 400, Vav = 6, Resh = 200, Heh = 5), plus 2 for the two mitzvot whose existence precedes the Torah: I am the L-rd, your G-d and You shall have no other gods before Me. There is also complete agreement that these 613 mitzvot can be broken down into 248 positive mitzvot (one for each bone and organ of the male body) and 365 negative mitzvot (one for each day of the solar year).

    The most accepted list of the 613 mitzvot is Maimonides’ list in his Mishneh Torah. In the introduction to the first book of the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides lists all of the positive mitzvot and all of the negative mitzvot, then proceeds to divide them up into subject matter categories.

    Many of these 613 mitzvot cannot be observed at this time for various reasons. For example, a large portion of the laws relate to sacrifices and offerings, which can only be made in the Temple, and the Temple does not exist today. Some of the laws relate to the theocratic state of Israel, its king, its supreme court, and its system of justice, and cannot be observed because the theocratic state of Israel does not exist today. In addition, some laws do not apply to all people or places. Agricultural laws only apply within the state of Israel, and certain laws only apply to kohanim or Levites. The modern scholar Rabbi Israel Meir of Radin, commonly known as the Chafetz Chayim, has identified 77 positive mitzvot and 194 negative mitzvot which can be observed outside of Israel today. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/mitzvot.html

  22. @ honeybee:

    “The REAL and RELEVANT question for me…”

    “When have you ever asked a relevant question or even been relevant, Sweetie ?”

    Whenever the question was relevant for ME, Twinkie.

    (When you stop reading for provocative opportunities, and START reading for comprehension, YOUR questions will start being relevant too.)

  23. @ yamit82:

    “When I read the Gospel I don’t see ‘fabrications.’ I see some things that make more sense to me than others; but I don’t see ‘fabrications’.

    — But then, I do READ it, so I’m entitled to an opinion in the matter…”

    “Stupid!!!”

    “Why would a Jew believe those followers of that org who committed…”

    “I DON’T believe any organization’s followers. I do believe, however, what I understand of the Gospel ITSELF. “

    “You only understand what you think and believe you do but it all BS of a psychotic in denial.”

    Thanks for your opinion. Your psychobabble is so. . . illuminating.

    “You will reject any contradiction to your beliefs no matter the strength of arguments against.”

    Isn’t that what you’ve just done here?

    “Intellectual fool and coward at best.”

    Standard, Yamit-style projection:

    — persuade yourself that you’ve found in others what you actually fear is true of yourself.

    @ yamit82:

    “The REAL and RELEVANT question for me is why a Jew wouldn’t want to find out FOR HIMSELF — apart from what everybody else says — what the reality was, and what it wasn’t. No way I could leave out the reading of NT for myself to that end.”

    “For the exact same reasons we reject Zeus and a whole Pantheon of other Pagan Deities.”

    So, then, you’ve never read the Greek myths for yourself?

    “Few real Jews are a stupid as you.”

    ALL real Jews have my kind of ‘stupidity.’

    You just don’t know any real ones (except, of course, for YoursEverTruly).

    @ yamit82:

    “Your only claim to being a Jew is not based on Torah by thru Rabbinic exegesis.”

    By your definition, none of the patriarchs were Jews.

    “Since you mostly reject Rabbinic authority and do not observe Mitzvot…”

    So you observe all 613, do you? (when do you find time to blog???)

    “…it seem hypocritical and ignorant to claim to be something ordained by those you reject in most other ways.”

    The rabbis did not call the Jewish people into being.

    Somebody Else gets the credit for that.

    Case closed.

    “Heredity entitles you at best to be part of the Jewish nation ( call it tribal affiliation) but not within the covenant…”

    The covenant is renewed for me daily. (I venture to say, hourly.) I wonder if you can say the same. In any case, I don’t need your assistance in determining who or what I am.

    And neither does anybody else on this blog (or anywhere else) need that kind of assistance.

    “… or a Jew in spirit.”

    YOU speak to ME of “spirit”??? ROFLMAOBSST!

    “Accordingly you will not have a part of the world to come as a Jew. Maybe as a goy which I doubt and really don’t give a shit where you go although I do retain some hope as to where. Get paddle water wings and fire retardant full body suit. “

    “The world to come” is HERE AND NOW — and from the look of your posts, I’d have to say it’s PresentCompany who could do with the fire retardant.

  24. dweller Said:

    The REAL and RELEVANT question for me is why a Jew wouldn’t want to find out FOR HIMSELF — apart from what everybody else says — what the reality was, and what it wasn’t. No way I could leave out the reading of NT for myself to that end.

    For the exact same reasons we reject Zeus and a whole Pantheon of other Pagan Deities. Few real Jews are a stupid as you.

  25. dweller Said:

    When I read the Gospel I don’t see ‘fabrications.’ I see some things that make more sense to me than others; but I don’t see ‘fabrications.’

    Stupid!!!

    I do believe, however, what I understand of the Gospel ITSELF.

    You only understand what you think and believe you do but it all BS of a psychotic in denial.

    You will reject any contradiction to your beliefs no matter the strength of arguments against. Intellectual fool and coward at best.

  26. @ dweller:
    dweller Said:

    @ Justin:
    “The Jews have it right about Jesus – at best a talented magician, at worst a fraud and demagogue, and most likely a figment of Roman imperial folklore.”
    Well, this is one Jew who would answer “none of the above” to your perceived options.
    There’s no doubt but that soi-disant “Christians” are confused about a few things — not the least of which is Jesus’ purported ‘dvinity.’
    But the REMAINING choices — as you’ve laid them out — are, w/ all due respect, no less confused.

    Your only claim to being a Jew is not based on Torah by thru Rabbinic exegesis. Since you mostly reject Rabbinic authority and do not observe Mitzvot, it seem hypocritical and ignorant to claim to be something ordained by those you reject in most other ways.

    Heredity entitles you at best to be part of the Jewish nation ( call it tribal affiliation) but not within the covenant, or a Jew in spirit. Accordingly you will not have a part of the world to come as a Jew. Maybe as a goy which I doubt and really don’t give a shit where you go although I do retain some hope as to where. Get paddle water wings and fire retardant full body suit. 😛

  27. @ bernard ross:

    “Not all of the above. When did I endorse the ‘immaculate conception’???”

    “so you endorse the virgin birth, resurrection of haNitzri AND claim to be a jew?”

    Right.

    “Perhaps you prefer to believe the fabrications of those…”

    When I read the Gospel I don’t see ‘fabrications.’ I see some things that make more sense to me than others; but I don’t see ‘fabrications.’

    — But then, I do READ it, so I’m entitled to an opinion in the matter.

    “Why would a Jew believe those followers of that org who committed…”

    I DON’T believe any organization’s followers. I do believe, however, what I understand of the Gospel ITSELF.

    The REAL and RELEVANT question for me is why a Jew wouldn’t want to find out FOR HIMSELF — apart from what everybody else says — what the reality was, and what it wasn’t. No way I could leave out the reading of NT for myself to that end.

  28. @ bernard ross:

    “You appear to be employing that troll technique of role reversing(Jews the new nazis,Israel apartheid, Israel child killer, etc). It was the christians who slaughtered the jews with the Inquisition and you have reversed it here to the jew being the Inquisitor to the christian… nice try.”

    No trolling. No ‘technique.’ (Rhetorical reversal games are YOUR specialty.)

    I’ve addressed Capt Huff’n’puff as El Senor Gran Inquisidor for several years on this blogsite (since before you showed up), and w/ some regularity for all that time.

    But my reason for applying it to him was NOT because he identified as Jewish (there are lots of other Jews here whom I don’t address that way, and never have). QTC, I’ve used it for him SPECIFICALLY — and the archives will consistently bear me out — because it is so abundantly clear that intellectually he embodies the SPIRIT of the Inquisition. He is the essence of the Thought Police (particularly when it comes to his brand of ‘Judaism’). He has just the right temperament for the gig.

    In fact, I’ve frequently told him that he missed his calling by being born a Jew. Had he been an RC adherent, he could be putting in his CV right now for consideration for when the present Pope shuffles off this mortal coil and departs the present vale of tears for greener pastures (well, presumably greener).

  29. @ bernard ross:

    “I am sure you will be ready with the answers but I wonder where those answers come from?where did you get this idea from, I never read of this suggestion from any Jews?”

    Intuition.

    “Why would our omnipotent G_D need to father a child with a woman”

    To repair and resume what was left behind in the first disobedience to Him. Man is the crown of His creation, so the restoration had to be accomplished thru Man as well.

    “surely He who created the universe, all species of life and all races of man and women would not need to engage in some form of “copulation’….”

    There was no copulation involved.

    “He can just make it happen, just like Adam.”

    But Man was already in existence, and He had no wish to abandon His creation; rather to work with it to His ends. So that required the agency of existing humanity. A direct creation, as with Adam, but this time, a direct creation thru EXISTING humanity.

    “your ideas sound oddly christian to me”

    And they sound oddly Jewish to Christians. So what’s that line of pursuit worth?

    “Since there appear to be no Jewish sources which attest to the existence of Jesus I must conclude that your christian sources led you there.”

    I may have misssed a post or two but I think you still haven’t defined what you call “christian sources” — instead you just continue the endless loop created by your circular argument. You’re in an intellectual cul-de-sac and appear incapable of stepping outside of it.

    “There is no jesus except according to the christian narratives …..”

    Funny how NONE of the “Christian narratives” — by which I assume you mean the Gospels — ever mentions any “christians.” (Unless you can find one or two in there for me?)

  30. @ Justin:

    “The Jews have it right about Jesus – at best a talented magician, at worst a fraud and demagogue, and most likely a figment of Roman imperial folklore.”

    Well, this is one Jew who would answer “none of the above” to your perceived options.

    There’s no doubt but that soi-disant “Christians” are confused about a few things — not the least of which is Jesus’ purported ‘dvinity.’

    But the REMAINING choices — as you’ve laid them out — are, w/ all due respect, no less confused.

  31. @ bernard ross:

    “All are based on non Jewish pagan beliefs.”

    “Sorry, mi Senor Gran Inquisidor, they were held by JEWS in re haNitzri BEFORE they were held by anybody else.”

    “You appear to be employing that troll technique of role reversing(Jews the new nazis,Israel apartheid, Israel child killer, etc). It was the christians who slaughtered the jews with the Inquisition and you have reversed it here to the jew being the Inquisitor to the christian… nice try.”

    No trolling. And no ‘technique’ either. (Rhetorical reversal games are YOUR specialty.)

    I’ve addressed Capt Huff’n’puff as El Senor Gran Inquisidor for several years on this blogsite (since before you showed up), and w/ some regularity for all that time.

    But my reason for applying it to him was NOT because he identified as Jewish (there are lot of others here whom I don’t address that way, and never have). QTC, I’ve used it for him — and the archives will consistently bear me out — because it is so abundantly clear that intellectually he embodies the SPIRIT of the Inquisition. He is the essence of the Thought Police.

    In fact, I’ve frequently told him that he missed his calling by being born a Jew. Had he been an RC adherent, he could be putting in his CV right now for consideration when the present Pope shuffles off this mortal coil and departs for greener pastures (well, presumably greener).

  32. @ bernard ross:

    “NOBODY who genuinely understood and believed the narrative & remarks of the central character in the Gospel could possibly behave in such a way as to persecute ANYBODY — let alone, those said to be the very flesh & blood of that central figure. (But then, you wouldn’t know that because you’re too much the coward to have read the Gospel for yourself.)

    It’s patently clear — strikingly obvious — from even the most cursory reading of the narrative & teachings, that the perpetrators of that conduct were acting NOT ‘pursuant’ to the Gospel but very much in SPITE of it — and, if anything, exploiting its goodness as cover for their malevolence & criminality.

    Any soi-disant ‘Christian’ who hates Jews (of all people) — hates Christ. It’s just that simple.

    “Inasmuch as ye did it unto the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me.”

    “this is the BS that you folks always market…. oooooh, they weren’t REAL christians.”

    You don’t know that it’s BS. You only assume that — blindly & compulsively.

    And you won’t be ABLE to know if it’s BS until you have some template to compare it to.

    That template is the Gospel.

    If the behavior matches the Gospel, then you have a case for calling it BS.

    If it doesn’t match the Gospel, you don’t.

    Until you’ve read the Gospel for yourself, you remain what you ALWAYS are whenever you discuss this stuff — an ignorant buffoon, proud of his ignorance, wallowing in his buffoonery.

    A clown.

  33. @ bernard ross:

    “The G_D worshiped by the jewish people fathered a child with a woman and resurrected him as the messiah?”

    Partly right. Partly wrong. The child was the messiah even BEFORE his resurrection.

    “I wonder why He didnt let on to the Jews about it and why we only know this from ‘christians’?”

    Conventional Jews maintain that He took a powder around 400 BC, and has been all clammed up ever since. (Pouting in his tent like Achilles, I guess.) So if He’s been silent all that time, how could He have let on to ANYBODY about His more current doings?

    “Did he send his messiah for a trial run and will do the real performance later?”

    No trial run. The play is written in two acts. One down; one to go. And those flickering house-lights indicate that intermission’s almost over.

    “Did he replace the jews with the christians as his chosen people”

    No ‘replacement.’ God always keeps his word. “The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” Rom 11:29. God doesn’t repent; doesn’t need to, because He isn’t a finite man. Bmidbar 23:19.

    So ‘replacement’ would never be part of Him. But then, you wouldn’t know that, would you — since you haven’t read Romans 11.

    “is that why he didnt tell us?

    Oh, he’s BEEN telling us. As usual, however, few are listening.

    What’s more, there are actually some who are themselves not only not listening, but ALSO trying (some, quite actively) to intimidate everybody else into not listening either.

    “you never answered the above!”

    Just hadn’t gotten round to it yet. Never is a long time (longer, it seems, than PresentCompany can grasp). Unlike some, I don’t have the luxury of unlimited online hours, so I have to budget what time I do have.

    “If JC does not ‘exist’ in Jewish writings of the era, that could well be because the knowledge of his existence was systematically suppressed from Jewish writing of the era.”

    “Just like I said, you find it more likely that the Jews hid the secrtet of [the] messiah…”

    No. Unlike yourself, I’m prepared to leave the matter an open question —despite what we know about the universality of human nature. . . .

    But then, I’ve read his words.

  34. dweller Said:

    “the gentile perpetrators of the Jewish persecution are the same as those who followed JC.”

    THAT IS A STINKING LIE.

    For one thing, the one you call “JC” never left the geographical boundaries of Eretz Yisrael

    Irrelevant, I am talking about a 2000 year period of followers.
    dweller Said:

    For another thing, NOBODY who genuinely understood and believed the narrative & remarks of the central character in the Gospel could possibly behave in such a way as to persecute ANYBODY

    this is the BS that you folks always market…. oooooh, they weren’t REAL christians. Its a 2000 year org whose leaders and members have been swindling, libeling, torturing and slaughtering jews and are still doing it today. Not all nazis and KKK members killed Jews.
    dweller Said:

    the perpetrators of that conduct were acting NOT ‘pursuant’ to the Gospel but very much in SPITE of it —

    so I keep hearing fro your associates who market the narratives but it is odd that such a theology has been associated with 2000 years of swindling,libeling, torturing and slaughtering jews…
    Bernard Ross Said:

    “You were not led to Jesus christ through any Jewish sources…”
    Dweller said:
    ANOTHER LIE. I was led to Jesus Christ thru the most Jewish of. . . . Sources: — ruach elohim.

    interesting argument, your god told you so… whether you believe in santa, yeshu pandera or snow white is of no interest to me. there is no evidence for the existence of any of them, Jewish sources do not assert the existence of yeshu or his disciples, for Jews he is non existent not a part of OUR culture or beleifs.

    bernard ross Said:

    Let me see, are you saying that:
    The G_D worshiped by the jewish people fathered a child with a woman and resurrected him as the messiah?

    I wonder why He didnt let on to the Jews about it and why we only know this from “christians”?
    Did he send his messiah for a trial run and will do the real performance later?
    Did he replace the jews with the christians as his chosen people, is that why he didnt tell us?

    you never answered the above!
    dweller Said:

    If JC does not ‘exist’ in Jewish writings of the era, that could well be because the knowledge of his existence was systematically suppressed from Jewish writing of the era.

    Just like I said, you find it more likely that the Jews hid the secrtet of your messiah and prefer to believe those who have been swindling, libeling, torturing, slaughtering Jews for 2000 years…. those who spent centuries trying to kill the witnesses, burn their books, rewrite their narratives, twist the jewish scriptures in order to preserve their myths..like the existence, virgin birth, resurrection, replacement theology…etc etc etc.
    “birds of a feather flock together”
    no need for all your long stories, You choose to believe the jew killers rather than the Jews. You seek your narratives from those who spent 2000 years libeling, swindling torturing and killing Jews. I would be very wary of beleiving anyone associated with such an historically despicable behavior towards jews…least of all would I beleive anything they say wrt the jewish bible and jewish history… which they continue to seek to destroy

  35. @ yamit82:

    It has been erroneously misstated on this blog the monsters have “green eyes”. This misstatement must be corrected. Most monster have ” chocolate brown eyes” except the most vicious monsters. Those monsters have “steely blue eyes”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  36. dweller Said:

    The name, “Original Sin,” may WELL be 5th century — but that doesn’t make the concept 5th century.

    QTC, it’s as old as B’reishit 3:17 — “Cursed is the ground for thy sake.”

    And to man He said, “Because you listened to your wife, and you ate from the tree from which I commanded you saying, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life.

    cursed be the ground for your sake: It will bring up cursed things for you, such as flies, fleas, and ants. This can be compared to one who falls into evil ways, and people curse the breasts from which he suckled. — [from Gen. Rabbah 20: 8] Rashi

    Man was not cursed the ground was.

    Jewish doctrine is not based on anything but the 5 books of Moses and only the commandments stated therein have any doctrinal authority in Judaism ( including Psalms ) .

    Doctrine of “Original Sin” & Psalm 51:7

    dweller Said:

    The name, “Original Sin,” may WELL be 5th century — but that doesn’t make the concept 5th century.

    Jewish doctrine is not based on anything but the 5 books of Moses and only the commandments stated therein have any doctrinal authority in Judaism ( including Psalms ) .

    Doctrine of “Original Sin” & Psalm 51:7

    SIN

    “The much discussed question of whether there are any parallels to the Christian doctrine of original sin in rabbinic literature can be disposed of simply by noting that there are no such parallels”.

    Doctrine of “Original Sin” & Psalm 51:7

    You are nothing more than an deceitful charlatan with a nefarious theological agenda.