Davka

Do you even know what the word "sentiment" means as used in this fashion?

sen-ti-ment
n.

1) an attitude, thought, or judgment prompted by feeling : predilection

2) the emotional significance of a passage or expression as distinguished from its verbal context

Here's a hint: "the exact same sentiments" does not equal "the exact same words in the same order."

The sentiments in question are the ones expressed in the NT passages you quoted: That the Jewish religious leaders are dishonest, hypocritical, callous, engaged in ungodly and immoral activities, far from God, untrustworthy, and so on. These exact same sentiments are to be found throughout the OT. That you are unable to see this (or unwilling to admit it) says much about you, but nothing whatsoever about your spurious claims regarding NT authorship or the origins of Christianity.

Indeed, your arguments on this thread serve to expose your ignorance, not only of the Bible but of logic, rational debate, and the English language.

And you still haven't answered the question about "damnation" and the word "woe." Nor have you told us why you insist on using the least accurate of all English translations.

You, sir, have not even the merest shred of credibility left.

Davka

It depends to some degree on who wrote the NT, and when. The inclusion of astrological ideas in early Gnostic teachings is well documented, and the story in G. Matt. about "magi" coming from the East because they saw "his star" in the heavens certainly seems to throw some Zoroastrian ideas into the mix.

Here's a thought: The combination of OT prophecies, astrological predictions, and various mystical teachings led a number of people to believe that the Messiah was due some time in the first century CE. Then the Temple was destroyed, and all those who believed the above drek were deeply confused, because Messiah could not arrive with no Temple - so what happened?

The answer? Messiah already came, but we missed him! Next step, search the various stories of iconoclastic prophetic teachers to see if any of them might have been Messiah. Construct a story from these fragments to fit your certainty that Messiah has already come.

We see this sort of thinking all the time among True Believers. The JWs did it when 1914 failed to produce the Second Coming, and have continued to do it numerous times since then. The Chabad sect did it when Menachim Schneerson died without ushering in the Messianic Age. Post-hoc retrofitting of events to match a failed prophecy seems to be the norm.

outhouse

I understand the astrological ideas within the NT and OT, I dont dismiss them as not being there. I agree with these ideas.

We just have no tie to this as a foundation within either religion. It is an aspect, not a foundation nor origin, nor is it a "basis" as RT posits

outhouse

Nope, not much at all.

That is actually a parallel to Augustus coin minted just before jesus birth, in which Augustus witnessed a comet and claimed it was his father Caesar being resurrected.


There are many parallels to the living Emperor in the NT as "son of god"



Exactly and we have a track record of these mistakes, and historical reconstruction tries to not make the same mistakes.


These poor bastards had is so rough under Roman oppression, and they were stubborn as hell, and would rather fight and die as suicide, then go with the flow. They desperately wanted a saviour to help them in their time of need like previous Jewish heros of the past. Christianity is about the division of Hellenistic Judaism from traditional Judaism, and with Traditional Judaism being flushed down the toilet due to how stubborn they were. We dont need some Celestial bull crap to figure out why Hellensitic people wanted away from Judaism.

Because they were not really real Jews anyway, they had no problem perverting the theology and mythology of Judaism, which as time went by they seprated themselves completely with Judaism as their mythology grew.


Anyone [not you] that doesnt address the evolution in steps, has no business in this thread positing ideas inanely. Genral descriptions such as "celestial" are not explaining the origin of anything. Only describing part of the theology out of context.

aa5874

You don't know what EXACT means.

There is difference between EXACT and SIMILAR.

Davka

Indeed there is.

And the exact same sentiment can be expressed using different words.

For example, the sentiment that someone is stubborn, ignorant, and only marginally literate could also be expressed by saying that they are inflexible, unschooled, and in desperate need of basic language skills. It is the exact same sentiment, using different words.

See how that works?

Davka

Can we go back to the issues you are dodging now? You know, the one about your apparent conflation of "woe" with "damned, and the other one about why you insist on using the worst possible translation of the Bible when so many others are available?

aa5874

Please, again. You are now confirming that you did not know the difference between EXACT SAME SENTIMENTS and SIMILAR SENTIMENTS.

1. There is NO EXACT SAME sentiment about Jesus of Nazareth in the OT. There is NO Jesus of Nazareth in the OT.

2. There is NO EXACT SAME sentiment about Pharisees in the OT. No Pharisees are mentioned in the OT.

2. There is NO EXACT SAME sentiment in the OT that the Jews were of their Father the Devil who was a Murderer. In the OT there is no claim whatsoever that the Father of the Jews was the Devil.

Duvduv

And why did the author of GMatthew in Chapter 5:20 like the Pharisees more than in the rest of the text??!!
Then we find this in Matthew 23:
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

It is so bizarre. How could a group of people sitting in Moses' seat be considered so negatively?? The author was quite confused even in his own premise. Especially since under halacha there is no particular significance to having wide boxes of tefillin or long strings of the tzitzit. In fact there is no evidence in any Jewish halachic source at all that the size of the tefillin or length of the strings had anything to do with one being considered a greater person or smarter person. Nowhere that I know of. Not in a mishnah, not in a tosefta, not in a midrash. Not in the gemara. Nowhere. And yet this is deemed a negative treat for those sitting IN MOSES' SEAT!

And of course the author has Jesus tell his followers to do what the Pharisees TEACH but not what they DO. Here are those in Moses seat who teach the people what to do which is different than what they do themselves. It's so strange.
They would not be considered bonafide teachers of the law if they fulfilled the negative maxim of "Maykel al atzmo ve-machmir al-acherim" (Being lenient with oneself while requiring others to be stringent.). Indeed, the very accusation is not of leniency in the law, but of extra stringencies.......

Duvduv

On the other hand, the Talmud discusses distinctions between fake Pharisees and real ones, fake ones being those who practice false piety.
The authors of the gospels must have been familiar with some of these ideas.
See this link in the tractate of Sotah in English, starting from page 21b through 22b.
http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Sotah.pdf