Ask Zardoz Anything...

[Shermana]

Sorry for not making a reply sooner, but I didn't see this post.

I'm only vaguely aware of Acts of Peter and Shepherd of Hermas, but from what I remember of what little I read, I fail to see what relevance they are to Messianic Judaism. In fact, I remember that Irenaeus approved of them, and since he was the most vocal enemy to early Messianic Jews, anything he approved of I'd find suspicious.

Iraneus certainly was a heretic and an enemy to the Lawful, but he also approved of the Book of John (which I believe was written by Cerinthus as did Gaius and the "Alogi") and Enoch. That's hardly a criteria to rule out the Shepherd.

For instance, a very interesting passage that relates to Philo's idea of the Logos.

"First of all, sir," I said, "explain this to me: What is the meaning of the rock and the gate?" "This rock," he answered, "and this gate are the Son of God." "How, sir?" I said; "the rock is old, and the gate is new." "Listen," he said, "and understand, O ignorant man. The Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a fellow-councillor with the Father in His work of creation: for this reason is He old

The Shepherd is very valuable for reinforcing such concepts as earthly punishment for earthly sin, a time limit for atonement, and keeping one's heart pure. It is a worthy read from a Messianic viewpoint just as Enoch is.

The Acts of Peter was in circulation with a wide base with an earlier history, far from just Iraneus' approval. As was the Apocalypse of Peter.

 

[Zardoz]

Iraneus certainly was a heretic and an enemy to the Lawful, but he also approved of the Book of John ... That's hardly a criteria to rule out the Shepherd. ...

Well, you know I reject John, so that fits. I don't necessarily rule out anything that might shed light on early followers, but more in a historic way.

 

[Shermana]

Well, you know I reject John, so that fits. I don't necessarily rule out anything that might shed light on early followers, but more in a historic way.

On what basis do you reject the book of John? Because of the way the Trinitarians read it? It should read "And a god was the word", just like how angels are called gods, just like how Philo called the Logos the Highest of the Angels.

I will say that the ending, starting around 20:18, is forged, and was discluded from the Diatesseron for good reason.

 

[Zardoz]

On what basis do you reject the book of John? Because of the way the Trinitarians read it?...

Exactly. I refuse to even give the appearance that I'm a trinitarian, nor do I wish to debate it with them. Most are gentile, and that's fine for them as they are allowed to have an intermediary, unlike the Jew. I'd rather just shut down all trinity debate by refusing to accept the whole book rather than argue the meaning of the text with them. Rejecting John sends a clear message to my fellow Jew as well, which is much more important than whatever the gentile might think of me. With John, I'm not missing much by rejecting it IMO.

 

[Shermana]

Exactly. I refuse to even give the appearance that I'm a trinitarian, nor do I wish to debate it with them. Most are gentile, and that's fine for them as they are allowed to have an intermediary, unlike the Jew. I'd rather just shut down all trinity debate by refusing to accept the whole book rather than argue the meaning of the text with them. Rejecting John sends a clear message to my fellow Jew as well, which is much more important than whatever the gentile might think of me. With John, I'm not missing much by rejecting it IMO.

Well, like I said, I take the position of Gaius in that it was written by Cerinthus and heavily modified, and that its current from is the work of the Church of Rome circa Iraneus, with the ending forged by groups who were in direct opposition to the Trinity doctrine. I believe Tatian was aware of the debate and specifically discluded the ending from John because he knew it was forged. But there are insights to be gained in a perspective that matches the Moshiach when read in mind of this.

 

[SimoneQuinn]

I sat and read the entire thread, thank you, so very edifying. Zardoz, it looks as though I have views quite similar to yours. I have enjoyed meeting HR folks online and became very good friends with a good number of them, but I think I can tend to make them uncomfortable. I think I am a little too Hebrew even for the Hebrew Roots folk.
I often question Paul or point out issues with him, and that brings all of them running with sticks. In fact I wonder about the NT as a overall rule. I reject the trinity.
I had always believed in the Bible. This past year has really opened my eyes to a great many things. So much is changing for me.

I would love to add questions as they come to me, I have so very many.

 

[Zardoz]

...
I often question Paul or point out issues with him, and that brings all of them running with sticks. In fact I wonder about the NT as a overall rule. I reject the trinity...

Thanks! This was of course written over a fairly long period of time, I'm glad you found value in my posts. I've already posted in your other thread, so I will be brief.

The NT is a mixed bag. Personally, I toss out everything of John and Paul and of the rest... I listen to the words of Yeshua and try to understand what he was actually saying.

I say this because, what's written is not what he said, it's what various translators think he said. Translations of translations really.

Feel free to PM me or post on my Visitor Messages in my profile any particular questions you may have.

Shalom

 

[Shermana]

Zardoz, do you think the "Epistles of John" are written by the same "John" of the Gospel? I find 1 John to be very Jewish.

 

[King_David_James]

"First of all, sir," I said, "explain this to me: What is the meaning of the rock and the gate?" "This rock," he answered, "and this gate are the Son of God." "How, sir?" I said; "the rock is old, and the gate is new." "Listen," he said, "and understand, O ignorant man. The Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a fellow-councillor with the Father in His work of creation: for this reason is He old

I know what that means, and it also explains why Jesus/Yeshua called Simon "Peter".

Chip of the Ol' Block Peter was.

Great site.

Zardoz, could/would thine recamend sources for the readings of the words of Yeshua?

 

[Zardoz]

I'm sorry Shermana, I don't read any of the epistles, I only read Yeshua's words. Just don't trust much in the so-called NT, and I only care about what Yeshua says...

I...Zardoz, could/would thine recamend sources for the readings of the words of Yeshua?

There's the rub, we have no unadulterated record of what he said. All we have is Greek translations or what he said in his native Aramaic. Then English speakers like me need to have that Greek translated. There are problems with this. Oh, ya, John 14:6 does NOT translate what he actually said, for example.

 

[King_David_James]

Thanks Master Zardoz, that's exactly what I find, time to brush up on my Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic.

I feel thine are correct, the NT Reads about worthless to I as well, that is to say most of it just does not "Ring True" when I Look at it. I try not to Read it, I do not like Bad Spells.

Dos tho mind if I use the title Master Zordoz, thine seems wise to I. With I, all get a title or "Nick Name". I can Read thost from here, Master seem to fit, not that thine are my Master, rather a Master of knowledge.

Would thine by chance have a Masters Degree?

Ye did say, ask anything.

What does Zardoz think about the Word/Spell "Jew", that is to ask, does it bother the Sons of Judea to be referred to as "Jew"?

I do not raelly like it, nor do I like using it. It has become one of "those words" that is more like a slur, however as a Man of sum Irish and American blood, it does not bother I a bit when some refer to I as Cheaf or Mick. I am a Cheaf and a Mick.

Cheaf is a title of Respect, I'm not sure what a Mick is, I take it to mean like Michael "Mick" Collins, so I don't mind being called that at all.

I do ask some outlandish question, humor I.

 

[Zardoz]

Outlandish, no not really. A post of titles.

I never did seek a title, that edifies or glorifies. Rather a title that reminds one of a true status, an honest station. I do not mind the title of Jew, as it's used to label one Israel. But Israel isn't anymore, there are not twelve tribes. I'm not of the tribe of Yehuda anyways, I would be of Levi, specifically Aaron, a Cohen. Except it seems I'm a failed priest, disqualified and broken. But I cannot change my heart, the heart of a priest, I still hear the world cry... but I am powerless to help. I have no title, at least no title that I would not feel shame for so no title is best to wear publicly but I'm all too aware of my true title before G-d

 

[King_David_James]

How can one be a failed Priest, failure is giving up. Tho I do not understand the ins and outs of Church/Synagog.

It is difacult to be a Man of Faith on this "Earth", for Faith, unlike belief requires action. I understand what it is to be called to a task far greater than self, and then be blocked at every turn of it. That is the struggle for Man of Faith, to continue in the face of all odds,or to relent and accept defeat.

If it is any consolation, the World is Israel, that is the Name of it, not "Earth". Earth is ground, dry land, that's not even how "Errth" is Spelled. Just like this "Bible" is not how Bibel is Spelled. Ear-th is a mythical "Planet" not the Rael World, for on Ear-th hearing is believing, and in the Rael World, seeing is believing.

Seeing is not looking, seeing is about all ones senses, all of them. When we just look at something, we do not raelly see it, we hear it. Like I might say,"That shirt it loud", to some one with a bright shirt on.

Just like Reading is not looking/memorizing/repeating or fallowing "directions". Most think they know how to Read, yet they do not. Reading is like one might Read a Palm or a Tarot Card, or I might say,"I Read it in his eyes". Reading is not just about seeing what is thaer, it is about Reading what is Not thaer, and seeing everything that is, not just what one has been directed to See or do.

Then thare is Spelling, and what is a "Spell", why it is Magic. All know, all know, a Spell is Magic. Spelling is not just Writing, every word is a Spell, written or spoken, as well as every gesture.

And don't forget the Spell/Magic/Tricking. Like Ear-th and Holy Bible, one looks at these an sees what one has been trained to see. Holee Babble, as in it is not all thare and it's all Babbled up, as to make it near imposable for any to Read it. Like all the Languages of Babylon. I'll do my Reading from the Good Book, others can have The Babyl.

It is a Magical World, Moses and Jesus were the Most powerful Magicians ever. They knew how to tap into the powers of the Universe/God Almighty. It just takes belief and Faith, however these things are not Blind, one must build ones Belief on Factual things and practice ones Craft.

One can forget using Rael Magic for Evil, won't work. Magic comes form God. Tho evil ones can and do use Magic Tricks and they work, only because others do not know the Tricks, for once one knows the Trick, one is not fooled.

Pope of Rome, Big arse Wizard, or a Warlock, depends on how one looks at it. Note the Hat, the Robes, the Staff, and all the other Dress. Singing and Chanting latin, the language of the Gods. Tho I highly doubt he knows any Rael Magic, just Magic Tricks.

Thare are Rules to Rael Magic, just like anything else. We all know the Rules, we have just forgotten that they matter.

Manners and Matters of Honor. However, I will not elaborate unless someone asks, I bore with repeating myself to Nimrods, they may not have the capacity to understand the Truth when they Read it, they'll SEE the Truth when Kind David carries the Stick of Emporium in one Hand and the Sword of the Righteous Hand of God Almighty in the other, clipping down all the enemies of Israel and a Just and Righteous God. All will know, all will know.....

Go ye forth and rejoice, for David the King of Israel has Returned to bring Justice back to the World.

 

[SimoneQuinn]

Thanks! This was of course written over a fairly long period of time, I'm glad you found value in my posts. I've already posted in your other thread, so I will be brief.

The NT is a mixed bag. Personally, I toss out everything of John and Paul and of the rest... I listen to the words of Yeshua and try to understand what he was actually saying.

I say this because, what's written is not what he said, it's what various translators think he said. Translations of translations really.

Feel free to PM me or post on my Visitor Messages in my profile any particular questions you may have.

Shalom

Thank you Zardoz, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to send questions your way. Many good threads here that have helped already with some of my wonderings.


I have spent a great deal of study time lately, trying to understand the history of the oral and rabbinical law. I think I am getting there.

Do you feel that any portion of Oral law was originally and Divinely given at Sinai?

Or do you feel that the entirety of oral law is tradition and rulings by men? That the Written Torah is only Divinely given?


Thanks!

 

[Zardoz]

...I do ask some outlandish question, humor I.

Yup, you sure do!

...Do you feel that any portion of Oral law was originally and Divinely given at Sinai?

Or do you feel that the entirety of oral law is tradition and rulings by men? That the Written Torah is only Divinely given?

That's a very complex issue, one that I'm not entirely qualified to answer.

There's parts of Oral Law which are clearly Divinely given, explaining details of the Written Law that simply are too complex to write down, or else it would be The 500 Books of Moses! The Written Torah itself explains this, where I can't remember ATM I'm at lunch and have no access to my resources (and tonight is Shabbat)

Then again, there's Oral LAw which is clearly Law of Man (or Society, or Culture take your pick).

A mix of both?

 

[SimoneQuinn]

That's a very complex issue, one that I'm not entirely qualified to answer.

There's parts of Oral Law which are clearly Divinely given, explaining details of the Written Law that simply are too complex to write down, or else it would be The 500 Books of Moses! The Written Torah itself explains this, where I can't remember ATM I'm at lunch and have no access to my resources (and tonight is Shabbat)

Then again, there's Oral LAw which is clearly Law of Man (or Society, or Culture take your pick).

A mix of both?

Thank you, that actually answers me perfectly.

That is exactly my understanding. I've caught a lot of flack for my view on that, but I am holding firm. Getting ready for shabbat here, it is a beautiful sun shining day in deep winter!
I would love to hear where it is written, later on, when you have access to your resources. Thank you!

 

[King_David_James]

Yup, you sure do!

Kindly do not try and turn I, into a "Uae/You".

It's Bad Manners to cast magic spells at the King.

 

[Zardoz]

...
I would love to hear where it is written, later on, when you have access to your resources. Thank you!

I will attempt to find it. The passage I had in mind went something like 'you shall perform this mitzvah as G-d taught Moses' but what G-d taught Moshe isn't explained in the written Torah. Problem is, I forget what the topic was where this is said. However, there are many other examples throughout the Torah were teachings not in the written Torah are referred to. Examples are practices of kosher slaughter of animals, where the actual methods are left unsaid; and Tefillin, where what Tefillin is and how it is to be worn are left unexplained.

 

[Yahsaves01]

Hey Zardoz......kind of new here.....im a good friend of SimoneQuinn....she and i are on a bit of a journey.....so thanks for being here to answer our questions....

my question is this.....as you can see below i have posted Daniel 7. Rashi agrees this is talking about the Messiah but i see that when it is speaking of "man" it is being spoken of in like parabolic form like if u read Enoch......afterwards the true interpretation is given and it is then said that it is the high holy ones aka israel are who a. ctually inherit the kingdom. they are spoken of in other places as being one soul when they are gathered. so why then teach of a Messiah as one specific man (like Jesus and then u get worship of a man instead of the Creator) and instead teach the true interpretation that it is actually the nation?

Daniel 7
13.*I saw in the visions of the night, and behold with the clouds of the heaven, one like a man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was brought before Him.
14.*And He gave him dominion and glory and a kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and tongues shall serve him; his dominion is an eternal dominion, which will not be removed, and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.
15.*My spirit-I, Daniel-became troubled within its sheath, and the visions of my mind terrified me.
16.*I drew near to one of those standing [there], and I asked him the truth of all this, and he told it to me, and he let me know the interpretation of the matters.
17.*[He said] "These huge beasts, which are four, are four kingdoms, which will arise from the earth.
18.*And the high holy ones will receive the kingdom, and they will inherit the kingdom forever and to all eternity."
19.*Then I wished to determine the truth of the fourth beast, which was different from all of them- excessively dreadful; its teeth were of iron and its nails of copper; it ate and crushed to powder, and the rest it trampled with its feet.
20.*And concerning the ten horns that were on its head, and the other one that came up and [the] three [that] fell before it, and the horn that was like this and that had eyes and a mouth speaking arrogantly, and its appearance was greater than [that of] its companions.
21.*I looked and the horn that was like this waged war with the holy ones and overwhelmed them.
22.*Until the Ancient of Days came and gave revenge to the high holy ones, and the time arrived that the holy ones inherited the kingdom.
23.*So he said, "The fourth beast [represents] a fourth kingdom [that] will be on the earth, which will be different from all the kingdoms, and it will devour the whole land and trample it and crush it.
24.*And the ten horns that [sprout] from that kingdom [represent] ten kings [that] will rise, and the last one will rise after them, and he will be different from the first, and he will humble three kings.
25.*And he will speak words against the Most High, and he will oppress the high holy ones, and he will think to change the times and the law, and they will be delivered into his hand until a time, two times, and half a time.
26.*And the judgment shall be established, and they will remove his dominion to be destroyed and annihilated until the end.
27.*And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under all the heavens will be given to the people of the high holy ones; its kingdom is a perpetual kingdom, and all dominions will serve and obey [it]."

 

[Zardoz]

Hey Zardoz......kind of new here.....im a good friend of SimoneQuinn....she and i are on a bit of a journey.....so thanks for being here to answer our questions....

Happy to answer!

... so why then teach of a Messiah as one specific man (like Jesus and then u get worship of a man instead of the Creator) and instead teach the true interpretation that it is actually the nation?

The truth in the matter, IMHO, I have posted many times on this forum. Tis the nature of the forum system that one's thoughts soon get buried in the past, so I have no problem repeating myself, on this most important issue.

Israel

What do I mean when I say Israel? Do I mean Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel? Or do I mean Am Yisrael, the People of Israel? Or do I mean Yakov, Jacob, the man who's name G-d changed to Israel?

All three are equally and truly Israel, nu? The Land... The People... The man. Each comes from the other.

So it is with the Messiah. The Messiah is equally a man, who is the catalyst, the one individual who marks a point in time, as beginning, the beginning of an Age. This Age is equally Messiah, the Messianic Age has a beginning and an end, just like the man. Then there is the People, the Nation, who live in this Age and continue on the path that the man ushers in.

All three are equally and truly Messiah, nu? The Age... The People... The man. Each comes from the other.

Only, with Messiah, there are two. First comes Messiah ben Yosef, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. This Messiah sets the stage for the the second; Messiah ben David. One enables the other. The Age of Yosef leads to the Age of David, the People of Yosef becomes the People of David. Transformative change.

We live in the Age of Messiah ben Yosef, began at the crux of time when Edom, Rome, the spawn of Esau, replaces Jacob. We live in the Age of Galut Edom. The Exile of Rome. We await a man, a Messiah, who will usher in a new Age, an Age of Peace. Messiah ben David. A man, who leads his People into a new Age. May G-d hasten that day.