Judaism No Longer Exists

[Systematic]

Christianity most definitely destroyed paganism. 30 years after the death of Jesus, all of the temples at Rome were abandoned by decree. And that was just the beginning of the onslaught.

However, Christianity was not just destructive to paganism. (I'm not pointing the finger here; maybe it was a coincidence of its popularity.)
Judaism as it existed 2000 years ago, is dead. There is no country where Judaism still exists in its integrity.

And, I would like to add, Judaism did not stop forming with the law of Moses. That is just the first five books of the Old Testament.

Of particular interest to me is Solomon (i.e. a genius of human sociology and psychology). But that is just one aspect of the diversity of ideas posed by ancient Judaism. A tradition that no longer exists.

And that's my take on the other side of Nietzsche's philological philosophy.

[gaffo]

Christianity most definitely destroyed paganism. 30 years after the death of Jesus, all of the temples at Rome were abandoned by decree. And that was just the beginning of the onslaught.

However, Christianity was not just destructive to paganism. (I'm not pointing the finger here; maybe it was a coincidence of its popularity.)
Judaism as it existed 2000 years ago, is dead. There is no country where Judaism still exists in its integrity.

And, I would like to add, Judaism did not stop forming with the law of Moses. That is just the first five books of the Old Testament.

Of particular interest to me is Solomon (i.e. a genius of human sociology and psychology). But that is just one aspect of the diversity of ideas posed by ancient Judaism. A tradition that no longer exists.

And that's my take on the other side of Nietzsche's philological philosophy.

Paganism only died in Western Hemisphere - via the Spanish conquest of the New World, and via the Western Wold via Christianity, but Panganism is alive and well in the East - ask any of the 1.5 billion Hindus.

Per Judiasm, it used to be Polytheistic, but post the 2nd exile - 587 BC - reformed into a Monothiestic view.

and no Judaism is not dead, its been on life support since 587 - up to today.

2 million or so are Jews today.

[Systematic]

and no Judaism is not dead, its been on life support since 587 - up to today.

2 million or so are Jews today.

I'm more referring to the spread of the Jews throughout Europe and the tendency for them to not want to upset the Europeans with their Jewish traditions. I think that being in Europe brought change not just from the Jews to the other Europeans but vice versa as well.

Before Jesus came along, the Jewish religion itself was very personal to the Jews. Spreading it out, would, in my conjecture, change it fundamentally.

To borrow from Aesop, There was a dog that passed over a bridge with a piece of meat in his own mouth. Seeing his own reflection in the river, he thought it was a dog with an even bigger piece of meat, but he lost his own meat jumping in after it.

I think that Jesus envied the Romans. At least that is the impression given by the book of Matthew.

I feel like, to be forthright, I should say that I am just hypothetically and tentatively holding this argument.

[Systematic]

The extreme genius of Judaism is eclipsed by the futility of trying to convert the pagans.

[gaffo]

and no Judaism is not dead, its been on life support since 587 - up to today.

2 million or so are Jews today.

I've read your below, and welcome more on your views, i do not agree with them, but interested in your perspective nontheless.

I'm more referring to the spread of the Jews throughout Europe and the tendency for them to not want to upset the Europeans with their Jewish traditions. I think that being in Europe brought change not just from the Jews to the other Europeans but vice versa as well.

Disagree, post Diaspora, the Jews were insolar, and had no influence upon the rest of the folks living in Europe.

nor vise versa (and why Judaism is not an extinct Religion today)........unlike say Zoroastian (which is not technically extinct - 20,00 or os left) - but near so after Muslim rule of Persia for 1300 yrs.

Before Jesus came along, the Jewish religion itself was very personal to the Jews. Spreading it out, would, in my conjecture, change it fundamentally.

not so!

Judaism prior and after Roman rule - prior to 79 AD and the destruction of the 2nd temple and Jerusalem - Judaism was very much a part of the Great Commission.

Read the Minor Prophets works in the OT - all prior to Jesus, most of them championed the universality of man and god - same god for all folks,

Jonah for example, or Job even.

and Amos for that matter.

Judaism became insular - not due to its nature as a Religion - but due to the Roman's razing the 2nd Temple after the 1st Jewish Revolt, and also after the second revolt 50 yrs later.

by 150 AD any "openly Jew" would have a mark on his head to be killed by a roman. lol.

so ya post Diaspora Judiasm evolved - to survive - into an insular Religion.

- so would Christianity if not for Constitene. there is nothing inherently different about the nature of Christianity vs Judaism - (the only thing they differ in is the nature of Jesus).

Suffle the history cards and we could all be a world of majorty Judaic and Christians would make up 2 million folks living insular lives.

To borrow from Aesop, There was a dog that passed over a bridge with a piece of meat in his own mouth. Seeing his own reflection in the river, he thought it was a dog with an even bigger piece of meat, but he lost his own meat jumping in after it.

love Aesop, Fox and Grapes, and esp Ant/Grasshopper.

I think that Jesus envied the Romans. At least that is the impression given by the book of Matthew.

I read matt years ago, did not see that, but welcome your views of how you did see this.

I feel like, to be forthright, I should say that I am just hypothetically and tentatively holding this argument.

of course, thanks for your forthrightness.

[Systematic]

I think that Jesus envied the Romans. At least that is the impression given by the book of Matthew.

I read matt years ago, did not see that, but welcome your views of how you did see this.

Of the Four Gospels (i.e. the one's in canon) Matthew seems to me to be the one written to the Jews. It has the most reference to how Jesus was the Messiah, not due to his miracles, but due to the prophecy of the Torah. It also has a complete genealogy from Adam through notably Abraham and also notably King David (as was prophesied in the Torah). The Greeks and Romans, I'm guessing, didn't care.

Thence it showed a slight progression from complete dependence on the Torah through to independence from the Jewish religious leaders and finally unto dependence on Roman culture complete with social ranking, working for a "dominus", navigating the legal system, reference to diurnal responsibilities, reference to hours of the day and night, etc.

Matthew, it seems, was concerned much less than Paul with grafting the pagans into the Jewish tradition; contrarily he seemed to welcome the idea of grafting the Jews into the Roman tradition. Some of the parables, to me at least, seem far less to have a finite answer, and they seem to be rather like the Roman system of education which involved more play than the modern technique of simply telling you the correct answer.

Somehow Matthew got the idea to write like that, and I think he got it from Jesus himself. But that's just a guess.

[gaffo]

I think that Jesus envied the Romans. At least that is the impression given by the book of Matthew.

I read matt years ago, did not see that, but welcome your views of how you did see this.




thanks for reply sir!

Of the Four Gospels (i.e. the one's in canon)

yes i know of a couple of others - there even more - but i know of Gosp of Thomas, and Gosp of Peter (only one extant 3/4's remnant via Nag Hamadi?) - not read the latter, but did the former 15 yrs ago or so.

Matthew seems to me to be the one written to the Jews. It has the most reference to how Jesus was the Messiah, not due to his miracles, but due to the prophecy of the Torah.

yes I agree, but per "prophecy of the Torah" no, the Torah was written when Israel was on top as a nation (not underdog/under occupation) - i.e. the Torah has no mentality of a Messiah.

Matt's philosophy of a Judaic Messiah calls to works of the Minor Prophets/ and of course Isiah (the latter work was written (the first 2/3rd of at least - when Israel was not an underdog - so an outlier per the "Messiah mentality" (I do not think that work relates to a messiah at all, but a king - Matt just reinterpreted it IMO).......Isiah is a work of 3 folks, the first majority dates to just after Amos (650 or so), then we have 2 additions centuries later.


YES some of the minor prophets affirm the mentality of a Judiac Messiah (but not Isiah/nor the Torah) - so Matt fulls from some legit sources, and fudges some too via reinterpretation.

It also has a complete genealogy from Adam through notably Abraham and also notably King David (as was prophesied in the Torah).

did not know this, thanks for the education.

The Greeks and Romans, I'm guessing, didn't care.

sure!

why would they?

Thence it showed a slight progression from complete dependence on the Torah through to independence from the Jewish religious leaders and finally unto dependence on Roman culture complete with social ranking, working for a "dominus", navigating the legal system, reference to diurnal responsibilities, reference to hours of the day and night, etc.

WOW! know you are talking my language (I'm an Athiest BTW) - Religions evolve over centuries, i do not know latin so your wording above is beyond me, but if you are saying in effect the author of Matt via his work, Gospel of Matt, is somehow affirming Roman social ranking as?.................what?

you got me now - I'm all ears - and welcome a good schooling, esp if you can provide a "chap/verse" (this forum is only as good as the folk here - and so welcome your education of me per this particualar).

Matthew, it seems, was concerned much less than Paul with grafting the pagans into the Jewish tradition; contrarily he seemed to welcome the idea of grafting the Jews into the Roman tradition.

HHHMMMMMMMM VERY interesting perspective, I share you former via Saul, but never conscived of the latter via Matt. I value the idea - since i it never occured to me, but also doubt it (since author of Matt is clearly a Jew and not a Roman - via his fixation upon Judiac prophecy - making links top the OT per Jesus.....seem to me if author of Matt was as you say "concerned with grafting the jews into roman tradition, he would write a work like Virgil (he the author of the Aniad(sp) - i.e some work glorifiy rome's foundation and eventual rule/etc....................I don't see it, and so do not affirm your view per the author of Matt WRT to jews being grafted into hellenism (but i welcome you convincing me otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!! and why i value this forum and why i am here Sir)

Some of the parables, to me at least, seem far less to have a finite answer, and they seem to be rather like the Roman system of education which involved more play than the modern technique of simply telling you the correct answer.

ok, interesting, i welcome more on this if you can offer.

Somehow Matthew got the idea to write like that, and I think he got it from Jesus himself. But that's just a guess.

?? write like what? i don't follow, but interested, you seem to have goodwill and a mind, and so welcome conversation understand of your views. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree as well.


thanks for your civil and intelligent reply to me, i do appreciate it.

[Systematic]

I read matt years ago, did not see that, but welcome your views of how you did see this.




thanks for reply sir!



yes i know of a couple of others - there even more - but i know of Gosp of Thomas, and Gosp of Peter (only one extant 3/4's remnant via Nag Hamadi?) - not read the latter, but did the former 15 yrs ago or so.



yes I agree, but per "prophecy of the Torah" no, the Torah was written when Israel was on top as a nation (not underdog/under occupation) - i.e. the Torah has no mentality of a Messiah.

Matt's philosophy of a Judaic Messiah calls to works of the Minor Prophets/ and of course Isiah (the latter work was written (the first 2/3rd of at least - when Israel was not an underdog - so an outlier per the "Messiah mentality" (I do not think that work relates to a messiah at all, but a king - Matt just reinterpreted it IMO).......Isiah is a work of 3 folks, the first majority dates to just after Amos (650 or so), then we have 2 additions centuries later.


YES some of the minor prophets affirm the mentality of a Judiac Messiah (but not Isiah/nor the Torah) - so Matt fulls from some legit sources, and fudges some too via reinterpretation.





did not know this, thanks for the education.




sure!

why would they?





WOW! know you are talking my language (I'm an Athiest BTW) - Religions evolve over centuries, i do not know latin so your wording above is beyond me, but if you are saying in effect the author of Matt via his work, Gospel of Matt, is somehow affirming Roman social ranking as?.................what?

you got me now - I'm all ears - and welcome a good schooling, esp if you can provide a "chap/verse" (this forum is only as good as the folk here - and so welcome your education of me per this particualar).




HHHMMMMMMMM VERY interesting perspective, I share you former via Saul, but never conscived of the latter via Matt. I value the idea - since i it never occured to me, but also doubt it (since author of Matt is clearly a Jew and not a Roman - via his fixation upon Judiac prophecy - making links top the OT per Jesus.....seem to me if author of Matt was as you say "concerned with grafting the jews into roman tradition, he would write a work like Virgil (he the author of the Aniad(sp) - i.e some work glorifiy rome's foundation and eventual rule/etc....................I don't see it, and so do not affirm your view per the author of Matt WRT to jews being grafted into hellenism (but i welcome you convincing me otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!! and why i value this forum and why i am here Sir)







ok, interesting, i welcome more on this if you can offer.





?? write like what? i don't follow, but interested, you seem to have goodwill and a mind, and so welcome conversation understand of your views. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree as well.


thanks for your civil and intelligent reply to me, i do appreciate it.

OK gaffo; I'm going to need a recess if I am to provide evidence of my conjecture. I don't exactly remember chapter and verse for everything. Also, like you said, Matthew was presumably raised in the Jewish tradition; therefore, if Jesus truly wanted the Jews to be part of the Roman tradition, that doesn't necessarily mean that Matthew completely agreed with that proposition. But I will look in my Bible, and take note of any Roman ideals that I recognize in Matthew's Gospel, and I will get back to this thread.

Also, I would like to reiterate that I am hypothesizing.

[Systematic]

Wanted some insight into the Gospel of Matthew.

OK gaffo; I'm going to need a recess if I am to provide evidence of my conjecture. I don't exactly remember chapter and verse for everything. Also, like you said, Matthew was presumably raised in the Jewish tradition; therefore, if Jesus truly wanted the Jews to be part of the Roman tradition, that doesn't necessarily mean that Matthew completely agreed with that proposition. But I will look in my Bible, and take note of any Roman ideals that I recognize in Matthew's Gospel, and I will get back to this thread.

Also, I would like to reiterate that I am hypothesizing.


Alright, recess over.

On further reading of the Gospel of Matthew, I did come up with some possible insight:

The Gospel of Matthew was definitely written with the Jews as intended readers. Jesus was in fact trying to use the Roman method of oratories on the Rostra. (for example, see the Parable of the Sower and the Parable of the weeds in Matthew 13.) I think that Jesus was trying to copy the method that the Romans used to communicate to the people, for his own ends. That much seems mostly clear. You (disciples) sow my seeds; they'll sow their seeds. When the people decide which method to follow, they will be discernible as sheep and goats. Day of wrath for the goats, et cetera.

What is not so clear, and what I am now posing as a hypothetical is this: What if Jesus didn't die as soon as he did?

He sent his disciples to "sow his seed". He said, "I'll come back at some random time 'like a thief in the night' to make sure that you are doing a proper job of it." So perhaps, he was thinking, not that he would come back in some miraculous way after he had died; but rather, he's just going to go around Israel in his lifetime, making sure that they are still "feeding his sheep".

What if Jesus didn't know that he was about to be tortured and crucified, and he was actually trying to run Israel as a Utopia during his lifetime?

[gaffo]

Wanted some insight into the Gospel of Matthew.

OK gaffo; I'm going to need a recess if I am to provide evidence of my conjecture. I don't exactly remember chapter and verse for everything. Also, like you said, Matthew was presumably raised in the Jewish tradition; therefore, if Jesus truly wanted the Jews to be part of the Roman tradition, that doesn't necessarily mean that Matthew completely agreed with that proposition. But I will look in my Bible, and take note of any Roman ideals that I recognize in Matthew's Gospel, and I will get back to this thread.

Also, I would like to reiterate that I am hypothesizing.


Alright, recess over.

On further reading of the Gospel of Matthew, I did come up with some possible insight:

The Gospel of Matthew was definitely written with the Jews as intended readers. Jesus was in fact trying to use the Roman method of oratories on the Rostra. (for example, see the Parable of the Sower and the Parable of the weeds in Matthew 13.) I think that Jesus was trying to copy the method that the Romans used to communicate to the people, for his own ends. That much seems mostly clear. You (disciples) sow my seeds; they'll sow their seeds. When the people decide which method to follow, they will be discernible as sheep and goats. Day of wrath for the goats, et cetera.

What is not so clear, and what I am now posing as a hypothetical is this: What if Jesus didn't die as soon as he did?

He sent his disciples to "sow his seed". He said, "I'll come back at some random time 'like a thief in the night' to make sure that you are doing a proper job of it." So perhaps, he was thinking, not that he would come back in some miraculous way after he had died; but rather, he's just going to go around Israel in his lifetime, making sure that they are still "feeding his sheep".

What if Jesus didn't know that he was about to be tortured and crucified, and he was actually trying to run Israel as a Utopia during his lifetime?

Thanks for noting my prior post and looking to your bible per Matthew.

about me as a person that is interested in history and religion (esp the latter per the former) - though i do get glee over Dogma, and how it also changes over time (i.e. how Leviethen was originally Taimat, and only later equated with Satan/etc).

Per Jesus the person (I'm an Athiest, but affirm that there was a man whom the many - 20? or so works in the NT mentions - i.e. i assume the man must have existed, otherwise there would not be 20+ works written about him (IMO - yes it is possible he never existed, but not probable - i run on probability and so assume he actually existed - though left no 1st person record (it also probable that he was not literate per the general statistics of the population of Near East 2000 yrs ago - literacy was 10 percent - not saying he could not right nor that he did not - just saying per statistics he most likey could not - either way there is no written record from the man whom i beleive existed.

what we have are 20+ works about the man from folks that existed from 35 (Saul's letters) - 50 Mark - 65 Matt/Luke and 75 John/The Apocalypse/etc....years after Jesus' death.

per Matt we have Matt's story of a man that lived 65 yrs prior - is Matt recounting legends of that man? (I think he is - i think he had "q" and one other work (both lost to history), and Mark (the earliest surviving Gospel) to go by.

but BUT i thnk Matt had a personal philosphy about the man he wrote about also! and he included his philosophy in his work. namely in it "Jewsih centric" views - Matt goes out of his way to link OT works - i.e. like Isiah's prophecy about a future jewish leader being born from a young women (changing it to a Virgin.....why would he do so? to me - this seems kinda Roman to me, and maybe author of Matt was more Hellanized than he though he was when he wrote the work)

the conventional wisdom is that the author of Luke was more the Hellenized Jew than Matt (due to Luke not making an issue of linking the OT to the NT via prophetic writtings) - however maybe the author of Luke just did not have an interest in that? maybe his religious philosphy did not mandate the same mindset as the author of Matt?

For instance, Luke includes views of Heaven and Hell - about the one in Heaven wishing to give water to the one in Hell..........which reads more Judaic (more in line with Essene views than Matt) which may suggest Luke was no more Hellenize than Matt.

now per knowing a little about History, both authors were probably equal Jews and also equally partially Hellenized via being born in a land that had by their time been ruled by Rome for nearly and century.

BTW IMO (and my fav Gospel -and the most accurate per the man Jesus IMO - is Mark due to it being the oldest). and in it you will see more Jewish thought. for intsance, there is the account where Jesus is contending with Demons and the Demons (legion) say "We know who you are" - and before they can call out Jesus' "True Name" - Jesus commands their silence!!!!! This is all about the Tetragramaton. for if you know the "true name" of your opponent ( be it god or demons) - you will have power over them. This is why when Abraham asks for YHWH's name on Mount Siani, God refused to give it and instead say "I am" (i.e no I aint giving you my name fucker! - just know that i am your boss!!!!!).

also, we know that Saul and Mark are more accurate - IMO - than latter works, because they both do not affirm the virgin birth mythos.

Mark implies Jesus was just an good guy (the best guy that lived at the time) who was adopted as YHWH's Son for being the best good guy.

Saul is less clear, Saul is more about talking (boasting) about himself than talking about Jesus, the only time he mentions Jesus is that "he was born via a young woman" - i do think that Saul did not equate Jesus the man with the post ressurected Jesus he worshiped. AFAI=can tell via his cryptic works - he does not explain his understanding of Jesus in any of his letters - is that he thought there was an angelic being that "entered Jesus" sometime around the latter's death, and it is this angelic being that he worshiped as the Son of God and defeating the Devil via the former's ressurection.

thanks for reply Sir.

[gaffo]

A little off topic (I don't know if you are a Christian or not - you may have told me prior and i forget).

do you have a favorite work and if so why so.

I have 3 favs, but if forced to 1 it would be Jonah, with Amos nearly tied.

and Job a close 3rd.

.........

then Mark.

- i like The Apocalypse too (5th place) - because i like Essene works, and this is clearly a work by an Essene converted to Christianity (the only work in the bible that mentions a deity that the essenes mention many times - Abbaddon).

[Systematic]

A little off topic (I don't know if you are a Christian or not - you may have told me prior and i forget).

do you have a favorite work and if so why so.

I have 3 favs, but if forced to 1 it would be Jonah, with Amos nearly tied.

and Job a close 3rd.

.........

then Mark.

- i like The Apocalypse too (5th place) - because i like Essene works, and this is clearly a work by an Essene converted to Christianity (the only work in the bible that mentions a deity that the essenes mention many times - Abbaddon).

I am not a christian, but I was raised in a christian home. I went to a christian school too until I was 13. Then my parents realized that they could not send me to christian school and meet their own financial obligations, so they sent me to the humanistic (basically atheistic with an emphasis on humanity's power to shape the future) public schools. Out of desperation to retain some of my christianity, I started reading the Bible instead of doing the extra school work that they delegated to be done at home.

I didn't have a particular book that I would call my favorite. My favorite concept, however is that of faith and works. I think that Paul/Saul was talking about how you can do anything if you believe you can, but only if you take real action that will cause the desired effect.

My favorite book, if I am taking it as good personal advice, rather than political ideals, is the Proverbs of Solomon. The basic concept there was if you do stupid things, you get stupid results. That's as a personal philosophy though, where that makes sense. As a political philosophy, it's actual tyranny. When Solomon says that laziness ends in slave labor, he meant it as a political consequence. But it really is a bad idea to be lazy, especially when it is not enforced.

I really think though, that Jesus was a real person. And, if he had lived longer, he would have become king of Judaea (Israel). He definitely seems to have a plan for doing that in the Gospel of Matthew. I think that the early Christians did the best they could with a bad situation (i.e. Jesus' execution). But the religion is based on Jesus' plan to take over Israel and turn it into a Utopia. I'm pretty sure that Jesus wasn't planning to die that day. And his plan for Judaea was cut short by his death, so the early christians inherited his kingdom--Paul especially. And Paul's teaching took up the void left after Jesus died, which Jesus himself was planning to do.

[Systematic]

I read matt years ago, did not see that, but welcome your views of how you did see this.

Another thing about Matthew is that in parts he seems to be talking about people by their Roman Zodiac sign. Sheep = Aries; Goat = Capricorn; Virgin = Virgo; The master who pays everyone the same wage = Libra. I don't know too much about the signs, but that could be something very Roman about that gospel.

[gaffo]

A little off topic (I don't know if you are a Christian or not - you may have told me prior and i forget).

do you have a favorite work and if so why so.

I have 3 favs, but if forced to 1 it would be Jonah, with Amos nearly tied.

and Job a close 3rd.

.........

then Mark.

- i like The Apocalypse too (5th place) - because i like Essene works, and this is clearly a work by an Essene converted to Christianity (the only work in the bible that mentions a deity that the essenes mention many times - Abbaddon).

I am not a christian, but I was raised in a christian home. I went to a christian school too until I was 13. Then my parents realized that they could not send me to christian school and meet their own financial obligations, so they sent me to the humanistic (basically atheistic with an emphasis on humanity's power to shape the future) public schools. Out of desperation to retain some of my christianity, I started reading the Bible instead of doing the extra school work that they delegated to be done at home.

I didn't have a particular book that I would call my favorite. My favorite concept, however is that of faith and works. I think that Paul/Saul was talking about how you can do anything if you believe you can, but only if you take real action that will cause the desired effect.

My favorite book, if I am taking it as good personal advice, rather than political ideals, is the Proverbs of Solomon. The basic concept there was if you do stupid things, you get stupid results. That's as a personal philosophy though, where that makes sense. As a political philosophy, it's actual tyranny. When Solomon says that laziness ends in slave labor, he meant it as a political consequence. But it really is a bad idea to be lazy, especially when it is not enforced.

WOW! thanks for your views Sir.

I've not read Proverbs of Solomon, looks like i need to take the time to read that work!

I really think though, that Jesus was a real person. And, if he had lived longer, he would have become king of Judaea (Israel). He definitely seems to have a plan for doing that in the Gospel of Matthew. I think that the early Christians did the best they could with a bad situation (i.e. Jesus' execution). But the religion is based on Jesus' plan to take over Israel and turn it into a Utopia. I'm pretty sure that Jesus wasn't planning to die that day. And his plan for Judaea was cut short by his death, so the early christians inherited his kingdom--Paul especially. And Paul's teaching took up the void left after Jesus died, which Jesus himself was planning to do.

fully agree with your mentality of Jesus the man and his early followers.

I sense you like Saul though - if you noted my many posts since here - 3 yrs? - i loathe him, i think he is a phony egotistical opportunist (not into mencing words, that is my view of the man - but i know he is dead, and to accuse the dead in effect denies them a defense to the accusation (in this life at least). and ya, i could be wrong about him, all i have to go by is the written record he left and has survived to today.

HOWEVER! seeing you like Saul and I don't, I'd like to understand your views of him and why you like his letter, not so that i may be convinced i'm wrong about him (though if so i welcome correction), but so as to understand your veiwpoint on the man Saul and his works.

thanks for the smart reply Sir!

[gaffo]

I read matt years ago, did not see that, but welcome your views of how you did see this.

Another thing about Matthew is that in parts he seems to be talking about people by their Roman Zodiac sign. Sheep = Aries; Goat = Capricorn; Virgin = Virgo; The master who pays everyone the same wage = Libra. I don't know too much about the signs, but that could be something very Roman about that gospel.

oh wow! interesting!.......damn now i have to find my King James Bible (its somewhere............only version i have and my preferred - not out of accuracy (though i do think it is technically accurate via translationed works (always loose a little in translation) - i think the KJB is an honest and good translated work) - i prefer it over the newer versions (which i assume are also good translations?) - simply because the "old english" reading seems more poetic to me personally than "common english" would for the same work.

but that's just me.

thanks for the perticualars above, now i will have to find my bible and read Matt............;-/. which requires mental effort/work and my nature is lazy, I shall try to overcome my nature and read matt again - eventually - being lazy (I know it will require another year or so to actually do so - but you planted your reply about the zodiacs (which i know nothing about either - though now much about The Zodiac killer - being a self absorbed fanatic about unsolved crimes and read the famous book by the San Fran cartoonist/and loved the movie by Fincher (top 10 of all time movies - and accurate) and no Author Allen was not the killer - though the cartoonist thought so - he was a "wannabe killer (and creep because he as a wannabe) - killed squirels as sport and got off on thinking folks though he was the Zodiac - lived off the real killer's coatails). the real killer will never be caught, and may be dead by now anyhow - the key to finding who he was (he being dead now for me is no biggie, I'd just like to know who he was - even if after the fact - for a mystery solved) is Riverside College, his first kill (Bates) was prob an aquatence - so that in and of itself narrows the field (and yes i do think the double stamp in the riverside letter is enough to assume its author was the latter Zodiac with his same said double stamp (OCD-type) years later, and yes i do think the underside desk "poem" was from the same killer of Bates/Zodiac, both the handwriing and the style are the same as the later handwritten letters.

got utterly off topic, sorry .