No Robots

The caste of experts is apeish imitation of the authentic master/pupil relationship, the latter being the most sacred thing we have outside of marriage.

sotto voce

What are we learning here? To know right from wrong? Or to play the violin?

You'd go to a Jew for one of those.

No Robots

For both, you should go to a renegade Jew.

sotto voce

The devil plays the violin, eh.

No Robots

Yep, and so does his grandmother.

sotto voce

It's not an easy word to translate into English, because of the ambiguity of the words 'teacher' and 'master' in English. There is nothing wrong with having or being a teacher, if what is taught is on behalf of a society, large or small. The Bible itself approves teachers in that sense. Likewise, a civil master or ruler is legitimate, and also approved in the Bible. It is the sense of 'teacher' or 'master' as mentor, or guru, that is indicated by rabbi. So perhaps rabbi is best translated 'great one' in English.

Merely because 'rabbis' made a variety of interpretations, allowing punters to shop around for versions that suited their own predilections, the phenomenon was obviously not one to be approved. But what was implied in contemporary Judaism, that Jesus condemned, was the idea of personal greatness that 'rabbi' implied. This was approaching putting a sinner in loco Dei. But, just as Abraham had no human mentor, but communed with God directly, neither did any Israelite rightly have a human mentor. The intention was very, very different from the absurd squabbling over idiotic minutiae that Jewish rabbis presented to the world. The Israelites had been intended to be a 'holy nation of priests', i.e. each individual was to be personal witness to the holy laws of YHWH, as king-priests, with absolutely no-one on earth to tell them what was permitted and what was not. This principle is made clear in the New Testament as being the modus operandi of the church, that the 'old church' of Moses could not attain.

JoeWallack

JW:
"Mark" is the original Gospel so who gives a shit what "Matthew's" Jesus said about Rabbis. "Mark's" Jesus takes the Peter ('s "Rabbi") like a son of man just like he does in "John" 13:27. Your Christian religion gets the award for creating a hierarchy of Priests and unlike the Rabbis who would only argue with you if you didn't listen to them, these Priests would kill you.

The only thing I don't understand about your posts is why they aren't flagged for proselytizing. This forum is for scientific and serious scholarship. If you want to make up shit go to Tweeb where there is virtually no scholarship and attitude is a substitute for research. Alternatively, we have a very nice room here where you can go and talk to Jugdish, Mohammet and Lonny. I'm sure you'll have lots to talk about.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Chili

Definately true but 'your Jesus' went back to Galilee, and proudly to suffer some more and likely for 40 years more to die there nonetheless, and so now you have some explaining to do.

Mark is a total disaster if you ask me, but he is clever enough to lead our most elite astray, and I suppose, that is how juicy plums are converted to prunes in the end.

Chili

I fully agreee with this in that Is-ra-el means 'one-with-God' and so is a nation without borders where eu-phrates rules as 'bright mind' and 'insight' is trump above all. It so means then that Israel should never be a nation except as a home for the deceived to rule with power in absense of insight and so kind of are a living testimony to their own error.

Our local [Canadian] Indians call this 'Aborginal Heritage' that is native to them also without borders that we as Canadians do not understand and have no 'equivalent' word for either. Just not dictionary material, that's all.

And then of course Moses was wrong by leading the Israelites 'as children' into the promised land by 'parting the water' instead walking on top that same water to arrive there and rightfully occupy that land. And so then, to part the water is to forcefully gain entree and occupy territory where they did not belong. So nothing is new, except that now we have migth when we say that we are right.

sotto voce

It uses rabbi on four occasions- the same as 'Matthew'; though 'John' uses it eight times. Only 'Luke' fails to mention it. There is use of the nearest Greek equivalent in that work, though, which may well signify the use of rabbi on numerous occasions.

One cannot suppose that a hierarchy of priests is compatible with a religion that is called christianity, because a christ is defined as one who makes priesthood redundant— if priesthood ever had validity.