Forums | MacLife

jerwin wrote:

Interesting. The use of all caps is in deference to some alleged scribal method of preserving the exact wording, but  resedit merely provides us with a paraphrase. Consistency is overrated anyway.

Proverbs 1:7 wrote:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

(That's from the 1611 authorized version. Not my favorite, but it is online)

How about this paraphrase:

The fear of ABSOLUTISM is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Changes the entire message, but significant to those who question the history and antiquity of religious 'absolutism.'

It's interesting to read the earlier posts concerning the 'divine' or immaculate conception of Jesus. The Jews, of course, don't accept it or that Jesus is the Christ. One might inquire as to why that is. I would like to hear that from an orthodox Jew who has made a study about it.

Anyway, back in those historical days, and centuries before that time, it was 'common' to place divinity and divine birth on heads of state, e.g. the Caesars, the Pharaohs and the Greeks among others. All were sons of the god(s), conceived in god's image. Alexander, for example, was considered a son of Zeus even tho' he was known to have a biological father. (BTW, change the 'Z' to 'J' and the name is Jeus or Jesus, which was a common name in those days)

What better way to 'certify' a King of the Jews than to place that divine connotation on the person who came to save the Jews (Christ) from Roman domination? That is something the Roman pagans and others would understand and think about. Anyway, Paul, who was a Roman citizen, knew that and used the connotation in his message to convert the gentiles. The message has legs today in spite of all we know about conception.

mackerm wrote:

Here's one answer to your question (which I neither endorse nor refute): http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm#Jesus

I'll neither endorse nor refute, but I am leery on putting them up as legit. i.e:

Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable)

Er... okay. The latter could be debatable. The former? notsomuch.

On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kochba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, but brutal warlord.

Right, because successful militarily = brutality. Please.

Just for clarity... I didn't say that.

Wait, I can't.