Yoshke's spitefulness

RSS
Email

Author	Comment
weboh		#41	[-]
Posts: 39 (09/24/09 16:14:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	He didn't say I was missing the point. He said Xtains are "blind" and "blinkered" for not knowing the main point the parable. Quote: "And they call us blind and blinkered." Post #39 shows how they can be blind and blinkered by incorrect translation of the english. Did I not explain the parable well enough?
Sophiee1		#42	[-]
Posts: 12672 (09/24/09 16:40:27) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	You are missing the point completely that has been made repeatedly in this thread -- including in post #39. This includes the fact that the Herodian Kings were NOT of the tribe of Judah. They were Edomites who converted to Judaism hence he had NO TRIBE. Antipater II the Idumaean fathered Herod the Great. His wife wasn't Jewish. She was Cypros, a Nabataean (Arab) noblewoman. No tribe of Judah. Herod the Great was the father of Herod Archelaus who was the King (placed there by the Romans). His mother wasn't Jewish either. She was Malthace, a Samaritan. None of the Herods was of the tribe of Judah. Not a single one. The Pharisees belonged to various tribes -- including Levi (the priestly tribe), Judah, Benjamin and a few others who lived in the COUNTRY of Judah. I don't care what is mentioned in John or any other book of the Gospel, read a little history (Josephus maybe?). The point is that in the story of the Samaritan first is mentioned a priest then a Levi is mentioned one would expect the third mention to be an Israelite (who would be any tribe other than a Levi or a Kohein which is a subset of Levi). סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12 Last Edited By: Sophiee1 09/24/09 16:50:24. Edited 1 times.
weboh		#43	[-]
Posts: 40 (09/24/09 16:55:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Josephus is known to fudge his history. He claims Pilate drank Israelite blood. When gets to Antipater in his history, he claims Antipater was bringing foreigners into Israel. He doesn't bother to think that they may be exiled Jews. He interestingly only one incident with the samaritans, and does not give any proof of his claim about them: that they pretended to worship God or the Roman God depending on who excercised force on them. The Tenach is clear about the beginnings of the samaritan and how they made idols for Yahweh while being afraid of him. It disappointing to see Josephus not back up his claim. Sophiee: The Pharisees belonged to various tribes -- including Levi (the priestly tribe), Judah, Benjamin and a few others who lived in the COUNTRY of Judah. There is not one scripture to this effect. Sophiee: The point is that in the story of the Samaritan first is mentioned a priest then a Levi is mentioned one would expect the third mention to be an Israelite (who would be any tribe other than a Levi or a Kohein which is a subset of Levi). That I am incorrect about who was first just weakens your case even further. Think about it. And why isn't the nationality of the peer considered unimportant in the whole comparison. The entire order and the way the comparison is made is for shock value. Now, if I am correct, would that mean alot of Xtians aren't taking this comparison seriously, or the dumbness of their anti-deist dogmas? How does a parable about good works, and freedom of religious harm you?
Sophiee1		#44	[-]
Posts: 12673 (09/24/09 17:25:57) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Weboh, you are so beyond your depth you should truly just drop this topic. The term "Pharisee" doesn't appear in the T'nach at all. Jews have been called by various terms over the eons, but a Pharisee by any other name is still a Jew of ANY tribe who follows the Torah. Josephus isn't the only "source" on the Herodians. Try Roman history and even the Talmud. I have no clue why are you are trying to associate everyone with the tribe of Judah, but it is immaterial. The country was called Judah and perhaps you are confusing the country with the tribe. In any case you continue to miss the point. The story just shows both anti-Jewish fervor (and it is only mentioned in the one gospel) as well as ignorance of Judaism, not to mention Roman history. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
weboh		#45	[-]
Posts: 41 (09/24/09 18:24:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee: The term "Pharisee" doesn't appear in the T'nach at all. Jews have been called by various terms over the eons, but a Pharisee by any other name is still a Jew of ANY tribe who follows the Torah. Josephus isn't the only "source" on the Herodians. Try Roman history and even the Talmud. Roman history barely mentions the Israelites!! And why should I believe the Talmud? Really, where are your Roman sources on the Herodians, how that they are the only ones to be considered unbiased? Do they just copy Josephus then? As for the term Pharisee not being in the Tenach, nobody denies it... So why do you tripe about it? Sophiee: I have no clue why are you are trying to associate everyone with the tribe of Judah, but it is immaterial. I associate the pharisee with Judah (i.e. the ancient Jews) and Herod. So it is not immaterial. I see you have ignored my last two questions. Sophiee: The story just shows both anti-Jewish fervor (and it is only mentioned in the one gospel) as well as ignorance of Judaism, not to mention Roman history. What part of Levitical Priest as Doctor do you dislike or understand? The parable promotes good labors and religious tolerance. Perhaps, you have found some hidden meaning in it you don't like. :lol: Last Edited By: UriYosef 09/24/09 20:07:11. Edited 1 times.
UriYosef		#46	[-]
Posts: 1942 (09/24/09 20:22:00) Director of Education Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	weboh, Kindly refrain from using sarcasm - it won't get you anywhere here. You wrote: Roman history barely mentions the Israelites!! Why would Roman history mention Israelites? By the time the Romans conquered the territory previously inhabited by the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah, the Northern Kingdom had disappeared 7 centuries earlier, and its scattered population had long since then assimilated and become idolaters. You wrote: I associate the pharisee with Judah (i.e. the ancient Jews) and Herod. Herod was not a Jew and, thus, could not be a Pharisee. What's your point? And, speaking of "a point", you still don't get the point of ProfBenTziyyon's post. The accepted order is Kohen, Levi, Yisrael, not Kohen, Levi, Shomroni. That parable is a slam against the Pharisees and promotes the non-Jewish Samaritans no matter which way you cut it or how much spin you put on it. UriYosef Our raison d'être: WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a) The fruits of our effort: The battle against spiritual terrorism is being won, one soul at a time!!!
weboh		#47	[-]
Posts: 42 (09/24/09 21:19:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	UriYosef: Why would Roman history mention Israelites? By the time the Romans conquered the territory previously inhabited by the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah, the Northern Kingdom had disappeared 7 centuries earlier, and its scattered population had long since then assimilated and become idolaters. I am skeptical of your theory of assimilation, and perpetual idolatry. Only Dan did that, and I believe they is not mentioned in the GT. UriYosef: Herod was not a Jew... But he was and we won't agree on this. UriYosef: And, speaking of "a point", you still don't get the point of ProfBenTziyyon's post. The accepted order is Kohen, Levi, Yisrael, not Kohen, Levi, Shomroni. Is there an equivalent story in Judaism? I have done a google on it, but I haven't found it. UriYosef: That parable is a slam against the Pharisees and promotes the non-Jewish Samaritans no matter which way you cut it or how much spin you put on it. Then why is the nationality of the saved man in parable not mentioned? Then why does Jsus tell his non-idol worshipping followers-- I do mean only god should be worshipped in the english but not biblical sense, to go do likewise? It is a slam against the saducees who didn't trust God about the afterlife. Not a Pharisee is mentioned; and why not more Samaritans? Why stop at one, if this was to promote as thou wordest (I want to emphasize the verb) "the non-Jewish Samaritans no matter which way you cut it or how much spin you put on it." Do you really think pilate didn't punish the Samaritans also? Nevertheless, I agree that I don't have to "spin" it. Last Edited By: UriYosef 09/24/09 23:01:40. Edited 1 times.
ProfBenTziyyon		#48	[-]
Posts: 2427 (09/24/09 22:22:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	weboh wrote: ....why should I believe the Talmud? If you don't believe the Talmuds, you can't refer to "THE messiah" because that expression (with the definite article "the") is ONLY found in them; you won't find it anywhere in the Scriptures. http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
weboh		#49	[-]
Posts: 43 (09/25/09 01:43:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	ProfBenTziyyon wrote: weboh wrote: ....why should I believe the Talmud? If you don't believe the Talmuds, you can't refer to "THE messiah" because that expression (with the definite article "the") is ONLY found in them; you won't find it anywhere in the Scriptures. Interesting.
Sophiee1		#50	[-]
Posts: 12675 (09/25/09 06:29:05) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Weboh -- if you say Herod "was a Jew" and that he was "from the tribe of Judah" supply some PROOF. The Herod of the GT was the product of non-Jews (his father and grandfather supposedly converted to Judaism -- but they married non-Jews which would have made their children non-Jews). Herod was appointed governor of Galilee at the age of 25 BY ROME and was made "King of the Jews" by the Roman senate in approximately 40 BCE. Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (XIV) tells us that Herod wasn't a Jew. You discard Josephus and yet you give NO HISTORICAL let alone contemporary proof to support your contention that he was not only Jewish but of the tribe of Judah! I suggest you do a little search on the internet of Herod and "not Jewish" and see what you come up with. While you're at it do a search on "Kohein, Levi and Yisrael". "The division of Jews into Kohen, Levi and Israel can be traced back to the period of the First Temple built by Kong Soloman in Jerusalem " Link This is just silly. It is as if you were arguing that "Tom, Dick and Iranian" is a logical progression in a story rather than "Tom, Dick and Harry." You simply are ignorant of all the facts -- from everyone being of the tribe of Yehudah down to Herod and then the distinction in Judaism of Kohein, Levi and Yisrael. (During services a kohein is called up for the first aliyah, a Levi second and a Yisrael the third). Weboh I suggest you ask more questions and drop the chip on your shoulder attitude making declarative statements that are totally false. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
ProfBenTziyyon		#51	[-]
Posts: 2429 (09/25/09 07:53:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	All these posts by "weboh", and others, unfortunately just go to show how well Yoshke's spiteful story has fulfilled its task. By the way, what happened to Aad? He/she seems to have gone VERY quiet.... http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
weboh		#52	[-]
Posts: 46 (10/01/09 16:05:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	But you haven't proven anything spiteful about the story.
tyolilums		#53	[-]
Posts: 527 (10/01/09 20:06:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	If this sequence "Kohén, Lévi, Yisraél" really is fundamental to Judaism, to the point the author knew and wanted you to expect 'Israel' to be said....it's actually an excellent way to make a point. You expect Yisrael to be the next one mentioned, but instead it's a Samaritan. Maybe the author thought Samaritans should be a legitimate part of Israel. Maybe it's another jab at trying to enlarge the criteria of who qualifies as a Jew. Certainly there was a move by some to start focusing on spiritual Jews versus actual Jews. Not saying this is right or wrong. But obviously this is the direction Paul and Christianity went. But I still think the main point was suppose to be that no matter how high up you feel you are on the totem pole, you should stop and help someone in serious need. That's the message I always took from it. Unfortunately there has to be bad guys in order to point out the good guy. The problem is there must be some element of truth to a Kohen and Levi not stopping to help a near dead person on the side of the road. Otherwise the story never would have worked.
Netanel		#54	[-]
Posts: 1796 (10/01/09 20:06:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	That is precisely what has been proven. You refuse to accept it, but Mordochai has detailed exactly in which way it is spiteful.
sarasmiles	If they are going to practice Idolatry, they could at least pick someone remotely holy....Eliyahu, Moshe Rabeinu....Maybe Hashem..even...	#55	[-]
Posts: 2 (10/01/09 20:44:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I thought Yoshke Pundrick was pretty base when I read about how he cursed a fig tree because it had no fruit, and supposedly killed it. When it wasn't even supposed to be the season for figs yet. And that is is their own words..in their own stories of this man. Why would you make a god out of someone like that? So, but we do that in America all the time. We are always holding up this one or that one to be worshipped for a little while. And then destroy them when we figure out they aren't gods. Well, the goyim have come from worshipping the stars and the sun, different animals and things from other dimensions all the way to people worship....it shouldn't be long before they figure out about Hashem, huh?
Sophiee1		#56	[-]
Posts: 12721 (10/01/09 21:02:31) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	tyolilums wrote: there must be some element of truth to a Kohen and Levi not stopping to help a near dead person on the side of the road. Otherwise the story never would have worked. That is a very prejudiced and insulting comment. Is there an "element of truth" to the fact that all Italians are drunks? How about the Irish? Is there an "element of truth" that African Americans are good at sports but not very smart? Really surprised at your comment Ty. I suggest you change the words "kohein and levi" to Catholic and Protestant. "there must be some element of truth to a Catholic and Protestant not stopping to help a near dead person on the side of the road. Otherwise the story never would have worked." Now if the story were about a Catholic and Protestant (instead of kohein and levi) how would you feel if the hero of the story was a Muslim from Al Quieda? Would you STILL think there had to be some element of truth in the story? There are those who think Mohammed Atta (who flew a jet into the World Trade Center) is a HERO. I take it you've never been the victim of prejudice? סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12 Last Edited By: Sophiee1 10/01/09 21:13:27. Edited 1 times.
tyolilums		#57	[-]
Posts: 528 (10/01/09 21:38:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	For the record I was referring to it being forbidden to come in contact with dead bodies. That's the element built upon. So I'm going to ignore your comments and simply regret weighing in. Sometimes it's not worth having to tip toe around so much in fear of insulting. If you looked to be insulted you WILL always find something to be insulted about.
weboh		#58	[-]
Posts: 47 (10/01/09 22:23:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Netanel wrote: That is precisely what has been proven. You refuse to accept it, but Mordochai has detailed exactly in which way it is spiteful. No, he has detailed what he thinks is spiteful, or rather full of hate. So far, I have seen nothing but innuendo.
UriYosef		#59	[-]
Posts: 1964 (10/01/09 23:07:34) Director of Education Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	tyolilums wrote: The problem is there must be some element of truth to a Kohen and Levi not stopping to help a near dead person on the side of the road. Otherwise the story never would have worked. Given the track record of the Gospel authors as it concerns the knowledge of Judaism and Jewish customs, I find it difficult to associate an element of truth with this story. For example, a Kohen may not be defiled by a dead person (by contact or just by presence near one), except for immediate relatives (see Leviticus 21:1-3). This prohibition does not apply to a Levi. So, if this is "the element of truth" on which the writer based his story, then he was wrong. If the author thought that Samaritans should be a legitimate part of Israel, then he was also mistaken. You may recall that Cuthean settlers were brought into the conquered territory of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by Sargon, the King of Assyria, after the indigenous population was deported - these people became the Samaritans. During that time, the land had become overrun by lions, and these settlers took that as a sign of wrath by the local deity, so they decided to become Jews after some instruction (see 2 Kings 17:24-30), but continued some of their heathen practices, and made changes to the Torah. Therefore, the Sanhedrin had ruled that Samaritans were not legitimate Jews and declared them as heretics. UriYosef Our raison d'être: WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a) The fruits of our effort: The battle against spiritual terrorism is being won, one soul at a time!!! Last Edited By: UriYosef 10/01/09 23:17:21. Edited 3 times.
Sophiee1		#60	[-]
Posts: 12724 (10/02/09 07:48:15) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	tyolilums wrote: For the record I was referring to it being forbidden to come in contact with dead bodies. That's the element built upon. So I'm going to ignore your comments and simply regret weighing in. Sometimes it's not worth having to tip toe around so much in fear of insulting. If you looked to be insulted you WILL always find something to be insulted about. That is totally illogical. The story doesn't say the man was dead, but that he was beaten and "half-dead." In reality Jewish law holds that the saving of a life is the #1 priority and over comes ALL other Jewish law. Far from the story being built on the prohibition of a kohein coming in contact with dead bodies it ignores that a Jew has a DUTY to help those in needs, particularly those in fear for their lives. Again it is a prejudiced story, but that was not the point I made to you in your last post. Your last post was one of prejudice -- as I showed by replacing the words "kohein and levi" with Catholic and Protestant. You would never believe in evil Chrstians walking past a man beaten by others and then helped by a Muslim terrorist, and yet you insist there must be some truth in the lie found only in Luke. Ty, your comments speak for themselves. Prejudiced people never see themselves as such. If you actually could see the truth in what was written to you it would be a great step in spiritual growth. Getting defensive and ignoring the obvious prejudice in your statement is denial. Do I think you are an awful person? No. Do I think you are evil? You may be naive or you may not see the inherent hatred in this and so many other stories in the GT. As I wrote earlier, it is pretty obvious you've never been the victim of prejudice. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12 Last Edited By: Sophiee1 10/02/09 07:55:07. Edited 1 times.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Yoshke's spitefulness

Quick Reply