Namaste.
Can’t sleep, clown will eat me
And, simply because nomenclature fascinates me, a bit about the difference between the (now commonly accepted) denotations of the words Messiah and Moshiach.
Linkity link link
So, strictly, speaking of him as anointed wouldn’t be all that much of a problem, except I wouldn’t consider him to have been the King of the Jews 
It’s the later meaning which got attatched to the word which is the real problem for me. I just can’t wrap my mind around the concept that he was the harbinger of the Messianic Age because, well… this sure aint heaven :D. (Yes yes, Kether is in Malkuth and Malkuth is in Kether, but that’s the way it’s always been since the Demiurge plunged us into physicality, and it’s best not to mix mysticism/gnosticism with traditional Judaism. But I digress…)
And, of course, there’re the Essenes, of whom he was most likely a member, and who have some striking similarities to Gnosticism… But that’s probably a tangent for another thread.
And now I return to my bed in an attempt to get some rest.
(I know, I know. No rest for the wicked. So maybe I’ll just nap? 
)
The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth having any connection to the Essenes is extremely tenuous (and most of that has been invented in the past 30 years). There was a lot of excitement (not among scholars) when the Qumran scrolls refering to the “Teacher of Righteousness” were discovered, but those scrolls were written well before the birth of Jesus and describe a situation in which the Essenes were in institutional opposition to the specific Temple priesthood as it was then constituted during the Hasmonean period, not the sort of general opposition to hypocrisy among religious leaders that is described in narratives of the teachings of Jesus.
Upon doing more research, I find that you are correct. I retract my claim as factually incorrect.
The issue is that you don’t write clearly enough for anyone to know what the hell you’re talking about. Speak standard English without all the cryptic new age bullshit and your stance might be made known to your audience.
Have you considered making a distinction between being human (in nature) and christian (in belief)? Have you considered that most people on this planet believe your faith to be nothing more than fantasy? Are you so self-centered as to believe that christianity has even an inkling of impact on the world outside your bubble? You wanna be a christian? Fine. You want to believe that the only person who was ever a role model was Christ? Have at it. Most of the good people I know are good because they had good families who taught them right from wrong. Not because they worship an icon.
Does someone have a handy link to the compilations of the Mishna, Gemara, commentaries, etc.
And, while in interfaith discussions I’ll use Y’shua bar Mariam as a courtesy, may I suggest a usage that will offend neither Christians nor Jews: “Jesus called Christ”? Or just plain “Jesus”: nobody’s likely to be mistaking the guy the Gospels are about for a Mexican gardener named Jesus Gonzalez or Jesus bar-Kochba in these discussions.
It seems I am a murderer bigot. How is that bad?
I believe we are not supposed to discuss personal e mails on this board without the e mailees approval.
Well, since jinwicked is, indeed, the e malee, I think we’ll accept that the permission was there.
(If you meant the e mailor, then you should have been more clear. OTOH, if we’re considering board etiquette, how about the notion that stirring up hostility that had died down three and a half days ago is generally considered bad form?)
Wanna run that one by me again, sport? I don’t quite follow your meaning.
I’m glad you said something…I was beginning to think I’d lost a portion of the thread.
On second thought…we all might be better off just wondering…
Well, clearly, GoodEgg is prejudiced against murderers and believes that being a murderer is an immutable characteristic, making him a bigot against murderers.
Now, why GoodEgg believes that murdering people is an immutable characteristic*, I couldn’t say, other than it appears to be a way to rationalize hatred of some other groups while deflecting criticism for that bigotry.
- This is not how I would define bigotry, but it works within the context of this discussion.
Thanks. I’ve never heard it phrased that way and I couldn’t make heads or tails of it.
However, I was right before…I think we would have been better off wondering…
To be honest… that strikes me as incorrect phrasing. Unless I am mistaken the Jewish custom has been to trace descent through the maternal line, but to take names from the paternal. I would suspect that Yoshua Bar Mariam is used because of the doctrine of Virgin Birth, (do I have the name right?) and as a result, his father isn’t considered his true father under your system of beliefs. Am I correct on that assumption?
If that is indeed the paradigm that phrase comes from, I wouldn’t agree. I believe that he was a mortal man, born of mortal parents, and that it was custom to take one’s father’s name as your surname. I don’t have a problem with you calling him Jesus, or Christ, or what have you… but I would prefer, in my own text, to use terms which represent the paradigm of his mortal and non-divine nature.
To put a finer point on it, I’m not offended or upset at all, I just grok that the paradigm is wrong. I personaly would prefer not to call him Jesus because that’s the first half of Jesus Christ, and I do not believe he was the Christ. If, however, my phrasing upsets you I will be happy to refer to him as J.
Is this acceptable?
Yeah, so sorry to introduce obnoxiousness to the conversation, “you fuck.”
Or, more relevant to the thread: Go to hell.
“Son of Mary” is found at least once in the Bible (Mark 6:3); it is also found in at least one Christian song (“Away in a Manger” – “the babe, the son of Mary”). Matthew 13:55 also makes mention of the mother, without reference to the father.
My feeling is that the phrase “son of Mary” was in fairly common use when referring to the fellow in question, likely because of suspicions of illegitimacy. Jesus does not strike me as the sort of man who would have been ashamed to be referred to as the son of his mother – I find him remarkably lacking in misogyny (especially for the time period) when I read words attested to him. I would not be surprised if he accepted that phrasing of his name with a smile, despite its connotations.
(Jesus is also referred to as the son of Joseph in John 1:45; the phrase “son of God” appears in a lot more places.)
But all those books are not part of the Tanakh. As such, they’re really not something I’d consider.
Given that Jesus is not mentioned at all in the Tanakh, as it rather predates his birth, I’m not sure why you would look to it for references on what to call the guy.
Because I’m a Jew, and I’m not going to accept Christian nomenclature if it violates my sensibilities. You are free to call him whatever you wish, I wouldn’t think of objecting to your own religious sensibilities. But by the same token, I feel uncomfortable refering to him, in most cases, as anything other than Yeshua Ben Yoseph.
But as I’ve stated, if this is a sticking point, I can refer to him as J. easily enough.