IamJoseph

Of cource. If Israel does not agree to be wiped out by serial 2-states till there was none - its very zionist right wing.

spin

I know one tends to give drivel for drivel with IAmJoseph, but this stuff "Is-Ra-El" you know is rubbish. False etymologies aren't worth anyone's effort here. The biblical data, which is a primary source here, disagrees with your etymology and as you have no evidence based reason for supporting Is-Ra-El, you're wasting your breath if you expect it to be taken seriously. You must consider how one can check such claims and you should find that that which you claim is unverifiable, while the Hebrew indications are coherent with what we know about the language, as in the form of verb + El - and there are lots of examples. What does your alternative have going for it as to its form? (Yup: nada.)


spin

semiopen

Yet they agree that the Palestinians are also original inhabitants, and moreover mostly former Jews.

The bottom line is that an extreme militant position here isn't justified, and will inevitably result in another catastrophe.

There is no historical basis for an exclusive Askenazai/Sephardic right to the land that excludes Palestinians.

storytime

Drivel for Drivel? I would have to conclude that the name "Is-ra-el" came by way of the many gods worshiped. I would think Isis, RA, Baal - sometimes in name of "El" or "Beel" and even "Baalezebub" or "Beelezebub"to be a trinity of godly sorting. Whatever. The point is that all those people worshiped many gods and eventually decided they wanted only one god to represent them. If you think the Hebrew god was not constructed from those many gods, then that is your opinion. I think human nature proves otherwise in its superstious manner. IAJ wants to seat his god on a pedestal of truth and all others as liars, of which he cannot possibly do, due to the many other gods being worshiped in those ancient times. Other peoples believed that their own gods were truth. If you want to defend Joseph's rubbish then have at it, but don't expect me to agree with such "rubbish" as Is-Ra-El not being the name derived from a trinity of existing gods.

The so-called "biblical data" is written by biased men who sought every means to validate their stories for their people, the Israelites/Jews . This does not mean that their account is truth. Far from it. Other people also had their own "truth" and their own non-Israelite gods. Also, civilized order and laws did not come through the sons of Jacob alone, but from a more distant and ancient non Israelite/Hebrew past. The Israelites simply built upon what was already in existence. And so, the "bible" became their own record. There is an abundance of information about all this stuff. Feel free to check my claims of many gods against Joseph's "drivel" and "rubbish".

storytime

The only real threat I see to the existence of the Jewish state Israel is John Hagee. Hagee wants to change the identity of the Jew to Gentile[Christian]. And he's willing to pay big money to do it. In the meanwhile Joseph is wandering around in Europe mindless as zombie or something.

Rick Sumner

Huh. Yet my copy has this, where Collins voices his conclusion:

I guess he means the other text that is frequently called "The Son of God text." Except, of course, as you know full well there isn't one.

Let me try a guess. You didn't have the book handy. You plugged "4Q246" as a search term in Amazon's "Search through this book." That was the only result for that term in that range of pages. You decided that was good enough.

Tell you what spin, take the quote I just gave. Put that in Amazon. That'll give you page 167. I invite any reader to do the same.

For anyone unsure, the edition up on Amazon's page (check the copyright page) is the 1995 Hardcover. The same edition spin professes to have in front of him.

I should be able to expect better, spin.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

ETA
Anyone wishing to check the veracity of spin's claim may do so at the following link:

http://www.amazon.com/Scepter-Star-A...5474571#reader

bacht

Under George Bush Jr I had nightmares about the Christian fringe orchestrating Armageddon in Israel. The Israelis play a dangerous game with evangelicals: they welcome the political and material support it brings, but downplay the racist angle whereby the apocalypticists designate Jews as second-class pawns setting the stage for the final conflagration.

spin

All you needed to do, rather than the histrionics, was to say that Collins refers to 4Q246 then. Perhaps, it doesn't dawn on you that I don't spend all my time in one thing or another but find myself dealing with all sorts of religious aspects, dealing with Paul and Galatians, Tertullian, Tacitus, Josephus and Hebrew bible. If you want me to be a mind-reader, you can forget it. An explanation of what exactly you wanted me to read the specific passage would have saved all your rubbish.

And you keep making a fool of yourself with this "same edition spin professes to have in front of him". If you used half a braincell you'd see from what I've already said about it that I had it. It's just that I didn't deal with your sloppiness.

So, anyone sent to pages 163-170 this book who looked for references to 4Q246 would only find one, the one I cited. (Do feel free to check. Even you, Rick.)

Once you realize this has been just one big theatric, you can face the fact that you have nothing definite for your claim that there was a different type of Jewish messiah from one that was there as a fulfillment of god's designs on earth, both bringing about the millennium and then ruling over it. So far, no lollipop.


spin

gurugeorge

Well, I'll wave my little flag here: the difference is that the earliest Christians view the Messiah as already having been and done his work. IOW, initially, the Christian thing wasn't about some particular Messiah claimant, but a "revaluation of values" of the Messiah concept itself.

The whole tenor of the Messiah idea is that he is "one to come", right? It's a future-oriented, hope-based expectation. Here and there, actual claimants arise, but they all seem to fail. This is bound to arouse suspicion in inquiring minds. Some will throw the whole idea over and just think of it as rubbish. Others may try and "save appearances" - keep some aspects of the idea and ditch others.

The Christian "twist" on the Messiah idea looks like a variant among "saving appearances" explanations for the non-appearance of a Messiah now. This variant says that the Messiah is not one to come, but one who has been, and that his victory was wholly spiritual. That's why the word "gospel" is used - good news of a victory already won.

IOW, instead of the "jam tomorrow" promised by the normal Messiah idea, the Christian version of the Messiah idea offers "jam today", only it's a more spiritual kind of jam.

Of course, you have to have ears and eyes for it - or as we might say today, a nose for it. The world still looks pretty shitty, but that might be because the spiritual consequences haven't worked through to the visible world yet (and at some point, we expect they willl, and Roman rule will fail catastrophically). However, you can tune into the spiritual aspect right now.

Rick Sumner

I believe I did refer you to a specific passage. 7 pages of it. A 7 page discussion on the Danielic Messiah before Christianity. I referred you to a "fuller discussion." "Discussion," spin, implies that perhaps you should read the cited portion to see what's in store.

I couldnt' possibly have been any clearer as to what I expected you to read. There was nothing vague about it.

To hear your theatrics one would think I told you to read the book, or vaguely referenced "Neusner's book on Messianism," or some other reference that you couldn't possibly be expected to find. It was a specific reference to a specific discussion in the book. I'm sorry that "fuller discussion" isn't restricted to a paragraph or two. I'm sure that would be more convenient. It's not the way it is.

Your failure to read it reflects on your sloppiness, not mine.

No need to be a mind reader, spin. Just read what's cited. If you don't have it, say so. I'll see what I can do to provide it.

If you had it one must wonder why you couldn't read the 7 cited pages. There's even a few headers in there. It probably works out to more like 5 1/2 pages.

If you used "half a braincell" you'd realize that telling me you have it but apparently not being able to read it doesn't tell me much about your competency.

How about anyone who feels so inclined take a look at pages 163-170 to find a fuller discussion of the use of Daniel in 4Q246. I promise you won't be disappointed.

You won't find the term "4Q246," you'll find all kinds of references to it. Just not the catalog number. Should I conclude from now on that 1QS is only being discussed if I see that term, and that "Community Rule" isn't a reference to it going forward?

The suggestion that you won't find a "reference to it" is nonsense. I just gave you one such reference to it on p.167.

To recap: I referenced a 7 page passage. You assured me you'd read it, but it didn't say what I claimed it did. I called bullshit. You implied again that you had read the section. I called bullshit again.

Now you didn't read, you skimmed for the term "4Q246." My how the tune has changed.

My guess? You still haven't read it.

I thought you declared I shouldn't bother, while you were taking your toys and going home rather than dealing with the cited reference, presumably beacuse you either can't access it or can't be bothered.

Has that changed? Try and keep me up to date. I can't be expected to address your latest whim without having it expressed to me first.

Regards,
Rick Sumner