The suffering servant of isaiah 53

[Ben Masada]

THE SUFFERING SERVANT OF ISAIAH 53

The whole chapter 53 of Isaiah is about the dramatic epic of two Messiahs: Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David. The drama that culminated in the "death" of Messiah ben Joseph for the sins of Messiah ben David. Properly speaking, Messiah ben Joseph is Ephraim or Israel, the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom. And Messiah ben David is Judah, the Southern Kingdom.

The sins of Judah had filled the Divine cup, and in God's judgment, the day had arrived for the removal of Judah. (Isa. 9:8) But according to I Kings 11:36, God had promised David that Judah, whose Tribe he had come from, would stay forever as a Lamp in Jerusalem. Therefore, according to Isaiah 9:8, the final judgment that was supposed to come to Judah fell upon Israel instead, and Messiah ben Joseph had to go instead of Judah.

But Isaiah says in 53:9 that the Suffering Servant was without guile, and sinless. That's exactly what Israel was: Pure of the sins he died for, since they were the sins of Judah and not his. Messiah ben Joseph therefore, did not die for his sins but for the sins of Messiah ben David. Therefore, Israel was removed because of the sins of another. He was pierced so to speak, by the sins of Judah. The sacrifice of Israel or Messiah ben Joseph meant the salvation of Judah or Messiah ben David. That's why Zechariah in 12:10 says that they (Judah) shall look upon him (Israel) whom they (Judah) had pierced with their sins, and mourn for him (Israel).

Now, let me explain by way of an analogy how Israel or Messiah ben Joseph who is the Suffering Servant died innocently of the sins of Judah or Messiah ben David:
"A" and "B". "A" has committed a crime punishable with death, and "B", by mistake was condemned for that crime. It doesn't matter how evil is "B" in his life or how bad are his sins. The point is that he was condemned to die for the crime of "A". Therefore "B" was killed innocent and pure of the crimes and sins of "A". "A" got saved by the death of "B". So, "B" was the Suffering Servant that brought salvation to "A". Now matching the analogy to reality, "A" was Judah that pierced "B" with his crimes and sins.

Now, with the removal of Messiah ben Joseph, Messiah be David occupied the place of the Suffering Servant with reference to the rest of Mankind because of God's promise to Noah that humanity would never be destroyed again in an universal manner. (Gen. 8:21) The People-redeemer was the pledge and on his way in the near future with the choice of Abraham through Isaac. That's what sustains the world and allows it to keep going.

Ben )(

 

[InGodWeTrust]

You make this nice synopsis of this prophetic teaching of Isaiah, then you end the post with a cryptic message about a "people- redeemer". I always enjoy learning some historical background to parts of the Bible. Your post seems to contradict my understanding of the situation between these two kingdoms. I always thought it was Ahab and those other kings of Israel who were the bad people. They also built their own temple, in opposition to the one in Jerusalem.
There is something that I find rather appealing to your theme. I have been trying to understand the concept of a propitiation. As in how does it apply, like how can it deflect the anger of God. I agree with you that we exist today because there was a propitiation.
Abraham desired to see its day and he did and was glad. That was what Jesus said. Abraham was ready to kill Isaac and God turned His attention to the animal caught in the thicket and it died in the place of the child. Is that what Jesus meant? When Abraham saw that ram, or whatever, in the bush, did he see Jesus, in a figurative way? You tell me. or not, but it is something I have been struggling to understand. I am sick to death of listening to that saying being thrown around in a trivial way, to twist around to prove their ridiculous un-provable cherished little beliefs that belong back in the dark ages. What I mean is it would be a great relief to me, to be able to say, yes Jesus was not puffing himself up but was teaching an important concept of salvation, one that the Pharisees did not allow to sink in because they were so quick to jump to their own prejudices. Same thing the so-called religious people of today do.

 

[Ben Masada]

You make this nice synopsis of this prophetic teaching of Isaiah, then you end the post with a cryptic message about a "people- redeemer". I always enjoy learning some historical background to parts of the Bible. Your post seems to contradict my understanding of the situation between these two kingdoms. I always thought it was Ahab and those other kings of Israel who were the bad people. They also built their own temple, in opposition to the one in Jerusalem.
There is something that I find rather appealing to your theme. I have been trying to understand the concept of a propitiation. As in how does it apply, like how can it deflect the anger of God. I agree with you that we exist today because there was a propitiation.
Abraham desired to see its day and he did and was glad. That was what Jesus said. Abraham was ready to kill Isaac and God turned His attention to the animal caught in the thicket and it died in the place of the child. Is that what Jesus meant? When Abraham saw that ram, or whatever, in the bush, did he see Jesus, in a figurative way? You tell me. or not, but it is something I have been struggling to understand. I am sick to death of listening to that saying being thrown around in a trivial way, to twist around to prove their ridiculous un-provable cherished little beliefs that belong back in the dark ages. What I mean is it would be a great relief to me, to be able to say, yes Jesus was not puffing himself up but was teaching an important concept of salvation, one that the Pharisees did not allow to sink in because they were so quick to jump to their own prejudices. Same thing the so-called religious people of today do.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In God we Trust, Shalom.

That's what Isaiah is all about: A people redeemer. And he leaves it very clear in the first verse of his first chapter: All a vision about Judah, the People Redeemer.

About the concept of Propitiation, you will understand it much easier when you read
my next topic still in preparation whose title will be, "The Place of Israel in the Counsel of God."

The day Abraham desired to see, he saw it in a vision. If you have read my topic about "A Personal View about Visions," I explain in there all about it. And even in a vision the experiment was meant to be only "Aquedah," the biding of Isaac and not the actual sacrifice. And there is nothing in the experiment which we could relate to Jesus. The sheep caught on the bush was the type to point to the archtype of the People-Redeemer. The animal for the individual and the People for the world.

Jesus was not teaching anything new, but interpreting the mystery of the People Redeemer whom he was part of. And don't let yourself be taken too fast by Paul's bickerings against the Pharisees. There was never anything hostile between Jesus
and the Pharisees. The whole thing was between the Pharisees and Paul. This all
his life kept a grudge against the Pharisees for having never allowed him to plant
a church in the whole of Israel's soil. He had churches throughout Asia Minor; but
in Israel he was never allowed a branch. And the Pharisees were his barrier. That's
why he built that hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees.

Ben :rainbow1:

 

[Heneni]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In God we Trust, Shalom.

That's what Isaiah is all about: A people redeemer. And he leaves it very clear in the first verse of his first chapter: All a vision about Judah, the People Redeemer.

About the concept of Propitiation, you will understand it much easier when you read
my next topic still in preparation whose title will be, "The Place of Israel in the Counsel of God."

The day Abraham desired to see, he saw it in a vision. If you have read my topic about "A Personal View about Visions," I explain in there all about it. And even in a vision the experiment was meant to be only "Aquedah," the biding of Isaac and not the actual sacrifice. And there is nothing in the experiment which we could relate to Jesus. The sheep caught on the bush was the type to point to the archtype of the People-Redeemer. The animal for the individual and the People for the world.

Jesus was not teaching anything new, but interpreting the mystery of the People Redeemer whom he was part of. And don't let yourself be taken too fast by Paul's bickerings against the Pharisees. There was never anything hostile between Jesus
and the Pharisees. The whole thing was between the Pharisees and Paul. This all
his life kept a grudge against the Pharisees for having never allowed him to plant
a church in the whole of Israel's soil. He had churches throughout Asia Minor; but
in Israel he was never allowed a branch. And the Pharisees were his barrier. That's
why he built that hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees.

Ben :rainbow1:

It was interesting up to the point where you involved paul and the pharisees. Since paul was a suffering servant too, i can hardly see why he would have less issues with the pharisees than the suffering servant Jesus did.

But besides that. For the rest of us, who are not familiar with the terms you use like

messiah be joseph and
messiah be david...would you mind clarifying that a bit.

I suppose the jews see jesus as the messiah be joseph and the messiah to come (their messiah) as messiah be david?

 

[InGodWeTrust]

Ben Masada,
OK, I am reading an article on the Aquedah. Thanks for the info on that.
I guess I need to search your other topics so I can comment. I suppose I need to read this stuff because you have a way of turning around conventional thinking on these topics. I guess you are looking at these topics from a totally different perspective than I do.
As for the Pharisees, Jesus spent a lot of time in their houses and he argued with them as an equal. Jesus told people to follow their teachings because they sat in the seat of Moses. A lot of them became followers of his movement, The Poor.
I am a little suspicious of the inclusion of the Pharisees with the group who conspired with Judas to betray Jesus. It does not seem to fit, that they would align themselves with the Temple rulers.
Paul claimed to be a Pharisee, according to the story about him in Acts. I would imagine that he would have faced the same opposition that he formerly had against the Christians.

 

[Ben Masada]

It was interesting up to the point where you involved paul and the pharisees. Since paul was a suffering servant too, i can hardly see why he would have less issues with the pharisees than the suffering servant Jesus did.

But besides that. For the rest of us, who are not familiar with the terms you use like

messiah be joseph and
messiah be david...would you mind clarifying that a bit.

I suppose the jews see jesus as the messiah be joseph and the messiah to come (their messiah) as messiah be david?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hang on there my dear friend!

Paul ceased to be part of the Suffering Servant since he quit Judaism to found Christianity. I am not an adept of the view that once born Jew one is a Jew forever.
The etnicity Jew doesn't score too high with me. Even born of both Jewish parents does not guarantee one is Jewish. Who could be more "Jewish" than being born of Isaac and Rebeca? Nevertheless, Esau was born a Gentile. On the same breath, I do not agree with an individual reference to Jesus as "the" Suffering Servant. Jesus yes, was part of the Suffering Servant, but not the one per se. Jesus did confirm Judaism to the letter. (Mat. 5:17-19)

All discussions between Jesus and Pharisees were over minor issues of observances.
In fact, Jesus in degrees of observance was very closely related to the Pharisees. Perhaps he was a Pharisee himself.

The "Jews" you suppose see Jesus as Messiah ben Joseph, and at his coming as Messiah ben David, must be of those who like Paul quit Judaism for the things of Christianity and insist on being identified as Jews. Just like the "Jews-for-Baal" of the time of Elijah who practised the Pagan rituals and insisted on being identified as Jews. (I Kings 18:21)

Now, regarding some extra linformation about Messiah ben Joseph vs. Messiah ben David, I don't know how much I can add more than you already have from my topic about the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.

While the two branches, Israel and Judah were in existence, Israel was the Suffering Servant, who would have to die in Judah's instead because of God's promise to spare Judah on behalf of David. (I Kings 11:36) The range of being Israel the Suffering Servant was with regards to Judah. When Israel was gone, Judah, Messiah ben David, became the Suffering Servant with regards to Mankind at large. That's the original plan in the Counsel of God when He promised Noah that Mankind would never be destroyed again. The guarantee or pledge was in the People on the way to come from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Now, the topic about the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 will complete anything else you need to know.

Ben :clap

 

[Heneni]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hang on there my dear friend!

Paul ceased to be part of the Suffering Servant since he quit Judaism to found Christianity. I am not an adept of the view that once born Jew one is a Jew forever.
The etnicity Jew doesn't score too high with me. Even born of both Jewish parents does not guarantee one is Jewish. Who could be more "Jewish" than being born of Isaac and Rebeca? Nevertheless, Esau was born a Gentile. On the same breath, I do not agree with an individual reference to Jesus as "the" Suffering Servant. Jesus yes, was part of the Suffering Servant, but the one per se. Jesus did confirm Judaism to the letter. (Mat. 5:17-19)

All discussions between Jesus and Pharisees were over minor issues of observances.
In fact, Jesus in degrees of observance was very closely related to the Pharisees. Perhaps he was a Pharisee himself.

The "Jews" you suppose see Jesus as Messiah ben Joseph, and at his coming as Messiah ben David, must be of those who like Paul quit Judaism for the things of Christianity and insist on being identified as Jews. Just like the "Jews-for-Baal" of the time of Elijah who practised the Pagan rituals and insisted on being identified as Jews. (I Kings 18:21)

Now, regarding some extra linformation about Messiah ben Joseph vs. Messiah ben David, I don't how much I can add more than you already have in my topic about the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.

While the two branches, Israel and Judah were in existence, Israel was the Suffering Servant, who would have to die in Judah's instead because of God's promise to spare Judah on behalf of David. (I Kings 11:36) The range of being Israel the Suffering Servant was with regards to Judah. When Israel was gone, Judah, Messiah ben David, became the Suffering Servant with regards to Mankind at large. That's the original plan in the Counsel of God when He promised Noah that Mankind would never be destroyed again. The guarantee or pledge was in the People on the way to come from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Now, the topic about the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 will complete anything else you need to know.

Ben :clap

That wasnt helpful, im not sure if the rest of the topic will clear anything up either. But i'll wait in anticipation.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben Masada,
OK, I am reading an article on the Aquedah. Thanks for the info on that.
I guess I need to search your other topics so I can comment. I suppose I need to read this stuff because you have a way of turning around conventional thinking on these topics. I guess you are looking at these topics from a totally different perspective than I do.
As for the Pharisees, Jesus spent a lot of time in their houses and he argued with them as an equal. Jesus told people to follow their teachings because they sat in the seat of Moses. A lot of them became followers of his movement, The Poor.
I am a little suspicious of the inclusion of the Pharisees with the group who conspired with Judas to betray Jesus. It does not seem to fit, that they would align themselves with the Temple rulers.
Paul claimed to be a Pharisee, according to the story about him in Acts. I would imagine that he would have faced the same opposition that he formerly had against the Christians.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Regarding the Pharisees, I agree with you that Jesus spent quite a time with them and argued as an equal with them. Jesus was very closely related to the Pharisees.
Perhaps he was a Pharisee himself. I still need to research more on that.

Your suspiction about Pharisees conspiring with Judas to betray Jesus is very well founded. The opposite is true that Pharisees would even advise Jesus to flee for his life whenever they were aware that Romans or Herod's soldiers were after him. The leaders who were interested in stopping Jesus were the Temple rulers called Sadducees. But not because they hated Jesus, but because they wanted to safeguard their jobs, that were endangered by people like Jesus. In fact, Jesus was not the only one they helped the Romans to catch. They did the same to many others trouble makers.

Paul was never a Pharisee. He was a Hellenistic Jew, and the Pharisees would never
allow a Hellenistic Jew to partake of their Sect. If you focus your mind on the occasions when he claimed to be a Pharisee, it's because he was trying to make trouble between Pharisees and Sadducees. He himself said that he could be anything anywhere: A Pharisee among the Pharisees. a Gentile among the Gentiles, a Roman
among the Romans, a Greek among the Greeks, etc.

And last but not least, he never had any opposition against Christians. One does not found a religion to oppose the adepts. His opposition was always against the Nazarenes since the Road to Damascus until his last station in Rome. And his main reason for the grudge against the Pharisees was because the Pharisees never allowed him to plant a church in Israeli soil. He had churches throughout Asia Minor, but in Israel, he never got the chance.

Ben :clap

 

[InGodWeTrust]

Ben Masada,
Is that why the church in Jerusalem had Paul sponsor the Nazarenes who were ending their vow? To show that he had some sort of truce with them?

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben Masada,
Is that why the church in Jerusalem had Paul sponsor the Nazarenes who were ending their vow? To show that he had some sort of truce with them?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Sponsor" is not the word. He was camuflaging himself in order to escape arrest. That was his second time in Jerusalem after 14 years that he had been away. The first time he had caused such a havoc in Jerusaem that the Jews were in an uproar to kill him for preaching the heresy that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. Now, James let him know that everyone was aware that
he was preaching to the Jews in the Diaspora to abandon Moses and against the Law and the customs of the Jews. (Acts 21:20,21) Since James knew that no one could hold Paul in, he advised him to join four other Jews who had taken a vow in the Temple so that his presence could not be detected. Or if he was found out, at least people could think that he also observed the Law. James was trying to prevent a problem to the Nazarenes, since Tertullus a Jewish Lawyer had already connected him with the Sect of the Nazarenes before Felix, the Governor. (Acts 24:1,5) But it didn't help. Some Jews from Asia were present and recognized him. He was arrested, but afraid to be turned to the Jews, appealed to Rome, where he stayed in house arrest till the end of his life.

Ben :shout

 

[Ben Masada]

That wasnt helpful, im not sure if the rest of the topic will clear anything up either. But i'll wait in anticipation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am preparing a topic for discussion about "The Place of Israel in the Counsel of God." I am sure you will have a more satisfying idea about the whole picture.
Ben

 

[Heneni]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am preparing a topic for discussion about "The Place of Israel in the Counsel of God." I am sure you will have a more satisfying idea about the whole picture.
Ben

LOL Ben, if at once you dont succeed....keep on banging. I'm on the edge of my seat....

Between all the marys, moses and the suffering servant, I am sure i'll be less satisfied about the whole picture. But you may just learn something if you stick around. Just remember, i consider the bible as a valid source of information. And you'll just about have to be Moses yourself, to make me think otherwise, but you can try.......

 

[Ben Masada]

LOL Ben, if at once you dont succeed....keep on banging. I'm on the edge of my seat....

Between all the marys, moses and the suffering servant, I am sure i'll be less satisfied about the whole picture. But you may just learn something if you stick around. Just remember, i consider the bible as a valid source of information. And you'll just about have to be Moses yourself, to make me think otherwise, but you can try.......

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, I wonder why missionaries get upset at me for not being easily persuaded to take their word for it. You guys can be stiff necked I can't. What you have said above, reminded me of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, when Jesus said
that even if one rose from the dead, you won't be persuaded of the Truth. (Luke 16:31) You believe that Jesus rose from the dead. You see? Even after that, you still won't be persuaded to listen to Moses. Jesus was right after all.
Ben

 

[Heneni]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, I wonder why missionaries get upset at me for not being easily persuaded to take their word for it. You guys can be stiff necked I can't. What you have said above, reminded me of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, when Jesus said
that even if one rose from the dead, you won't be persuaded of the Truth. (Luke 16:31) You believe that Jesus rose from the dead. You see? Even after that, you still won't be persuaded to listen to Moses. Jesus was right after all.
Ben

Jesus was right all along. Welcome to the program. Moses wasnt half bad either. But I never try to diss the one to lift up the other. That is something the NT (that part of the bible you dont agree with) makes clear. The isrealites were staring at their messiah and they could not recognise him. They didnt listen to moses either. So I dont see why the you'd be making such a fuss about moses. He went up the mountain and came down to find them building a calf. Now, which nation in today's world, will after they have seen the red sea split, after they have seen with their own eyes, the deliverance of god...go and forget him as quickly as the isrealites did? And then a few centuries later, they ironicly elevate moses to a 'status' they never voluntarily gave him. If I recall correctly they moaned and growned about his leadership.

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus was right all along. Welcome to the program. Moses wasnt half bad either. But I never try to diss the one to lift up the other. That is something the NT (that part of the bible you dont agree with) makes clear. The isrealites were staring at their messiah and they could not recognise him. They didnt listen to moses either. So I dont see why the you'd be making such a fuss about moses. He went up the mountain and came down to find them building a calf. Now, which nation in today's world, will after they have seen the red sea split, after they have seen with their own eyes, the deliverance of god...go and forget him as quickly as the isrealites did? And then a few centuries later, they ironicly elevate moses to a 'status' they never voluntarily gave him. If I recall correctly they moaned and growned about his leadership.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you have any idea about being slaves for 400 years and all of sudden see themselves free? But it doesn't matter how long is your list of the sins of Israel. God
of the other nations will make an end, but of the Israel He will only chastize as we deserve. Our sins are weighed in different scales, if you understand what I mean.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben Masada,
OK, I am reading an article on the Aquedah. Thanks for the info on that.
+++Ben: - When you finish reading it, please share with me the outcome of your understanding.

I guess I need to search your other topics so I can comment. I suppose I need to read this stuff because you have a way of turning around conventional thinking on these topics. I guess you are looking at these topics from a totally different perspective than I do.
+++Ben: - Well my friend, we all look at things differently from each other.

As for the Pharisees, Jesus spent a lot of time in their houses and he argued with them as an equal.
+++Ben: - I liked that. "as an equal". I always thought Jesus was somehow related to the Pharisees.

Jesus told people to follow their teachings because they sat in the seat of Moses. A lot of them became followers of his movement, The Poor.
I am a little suspicious of the inclusion of the Pharisees with the group who conspired with Judas to betray Jesus. It does not seem to fit, that they would align themselves with the Temple rulers.
+++Ben: - I think exactly the same as you do.

Paul claimed to be a Pharisee, according to the story about him in Acts. I would imagine that he would have faced the same opposition that he formerly had against the Christians.

+++Ben: - Here, we part. Indeed there was opposition between Paul and the Pharisees throughout the lives of each other. But against Christians, there was never any opposition, considering that Paul was the founder of Christianity. His opposition was aways against the Nazarenes.

Ben

 

[Muffled]

+++Ben: - Here, we part. Indeed there was opposition between Paul and the Pharisees throughout the lives of each other. But against Christians, there was never any opposition, considering that Paul was the founder of Christianity. His opposition was aways against the Nazarenes.

Ben

I don't know where you get the idea that Paul founded Christianity. Christianity has existed from the time that Moses said that there would be another messenger like him who could also deliver the people of Israel.

You could say that Paul was the proponent for an ecclesiastically divided church based on whether the Law of Moses needed to be observed or not.

The term Christian was first employed by non-believers to refer to the church patrons there and that could have evolved from the preaching of Paul that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ). However since the Jewish arm of the church preached the same thing they could be considered Christians as well and they did not follow the teachings of Paul. It is doubtful that the church of Antioch followed the teachings of Paul since they had many good teachers although his influence must have been considerable. Of all the churches the one most likely to have been singularly influenced by Paul was the Roman Church.

 

[Ben Masada]

Muffled, Shalom.

I don't know where you get the idea that Paul founded Christianity. Christianity has existed from the time that Moses said that there would be another messenger like him who could also deliver the people of Israel.

+++Ben: - The idea comes from the book of Acts and all his Letter to the churches.
Take a look at Acts 11:26. The Synagogue of Antioch was Nazarene. Barnabas, an old friend of Paul's invited him over to help with the work and at the end of only one
year Paul had overturned the Nazarene Syagogue of Antioch into a Christian church.
Why? Because Paul would preach that Jesus was Christ. That's what being a Chrsitian
means. That's where Paul officially founded Christianity. If you don't believe me check the quotation. If you still don't believe it, I rest my case. You have been stung by the virus of faith.

You could say that Paul was the proponent for an ecclesiastically divided church based on whether the Law of Moses needed to be observed or not.

+++Ben: - No, I could not say that. I have a mind of my own, and I like to use it.

The term Christian was first employed by non-believers to refer to the church patrons there and that could have evolved from the preaching of Paul that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ).

+++Ben: - That's true. But the name stuck, and the Church of Paul became know as such.

However since the Jewish arm of the church preached the same thing they could be considered Christians as well and they did not follow the teachings of Paul.

+++Ben: - Now, you are mistaken. The Nazarenes never preached about Jesus as Christ. If they had done, the Synagogue of Antioch would have been Christian before Paul arrived there.

It is doubtful that the church of Antioch followed the teachings of Paul since they had many good teachers although his influence must have been considerable. Of all the churches the one most likely to have been singularly influenced by Paul was the Roman Church.

+++Ben: - There is no doubt about anything. The teaching of the other teachers was
completely different from the teachings of Paul. The Roman church became a church only after Paul did there what he had done in Antioch. The name before was the Roman Nazarene Synagogue.

Ben:clap

 

[Charity]

Muffled, Shalom.



+++Ben: - There is no doubt about anything. The teaching of the other teachers was
completely different from the teachings of Paul. The Roman church became a church only after Paul did there what he had done in Antioch. The name before was the Roman Nazarene Synagogue.

Ben:clap

Ben here we go again. Please show me any proof at all that any Synagogue was ever called Nazarene? I just do not understand this concept where does it come from? And Paul is not the founder of Christianity

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben here we go again. Please show me any proof at all that any Synagogue was ever called Nazarene? I just do not understand this concept where does it come from? And Paul is not the founder of Christianity

++++++++++++++++++++++++

About Paul being the founder of Christianity, I have given you the quotation of Acts
11:26. If you can't get it, it's because you just can't. That subject is closed and I rest my case.

Now, about the Nazarenes, I'll give you one more shot. When Ananias, the High Priest took Paul to Court presided by Felix, the Roman Governor, and taking along with him Tertullus, a Jewish Attorney, this accused Paul as a troublemaker who stirs up sedition among the Jews all over the world and with having connections as a rignleader of the Sect of the Nazarenes. That's in Acts 24:1-9. Please, read the quotation to understand.

The Sect of the Nazarenes was the Sect founded by the Apostles of Jesus whose chairmanship was taken by James, a brother of Jesus, according to a Jewish custom
of the time, that the closest relative of a religious founder was to be in charge even
as but a figure-head.

Ben