To hate Jews is to hate God

by Greatest I am Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

To hate Jews is to hate God.

If you believe in the sacrifice of Jesus, then you must believe that God planned for it and set the conditions even before the earth was formed. If as most believe, the Jews were the cause of the sacrifice, then one must believe that God put the notion and desire to kill Jesus in the Jewish hearts. Jews then were God’s tools in carrying out God’s plan. Jews then should be venerated just as Jesus is because Jesus and Jews were required and caused by God to participate in the sacrifice. They were all doing God’s will and not their own.

Jesus was a Jew and to hate Jews means that Jesus is also hated. The church has historically persecuted Jews and only repented for their actions in 2011 with the pope acknowledging that not all Jews should be hated. Just those directly involved in the sacrifice of Jesus. Ignoring of course that they were charged directly by God to be and do what God wanted.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jews-not-responsible-for-death-of-christ-pope-says-49267/

Why then have Christians historically hated Jews, and by inference, hate the Jew part of God/Jesus the Jew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

The weird twist to this history is that the Christian right who hates Jews the most, is now the ones pushing for funding of the Jewish homeland to fulfill prophesy.

Most Jews do not believe that Jesus was the messiah. Is the Christian right just funding Jews to help drive them to destruction at the hands of God?

Jews tend not to read the O. T. the way Christians do. Are Christian interpretations of Jewish text superior or inferior to the Jewish interpretation of their own myths?

Regards
DL

by Shirina Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:13 pm

No, the reason we are in the present predicament is because thousands of people who could work, will not work and those willing to work are put in difficult circumstances

I guess you haven't noticed the job shortage ...

And what "present perdicament" are you referring to?

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:14 pm

".... thousands of people who could work, will not work and those willing to work are put in difficult circumstances. Most of the kids running feral have parents themselves running feral, drug users, alchoholics, child beaters and the totally unconcerned just to name a few."

Apart from that, what do you think about Government Policy, polyglide.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:24 pm

Tosh, why do you not use the information you have gleaned in a proper and intelligent manner, instead of persistantly indicating that you have not the ability to do so.

It is up to you to demonstrate I do not have the ability, you do this by putting forward a logical rebuttal, you seem to have forgot to attach it to your personal insult.

Anytime you are ready, prove to me our current predicament had nothing to do with feral banks.

by polyglide Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:20 pm

North Korea, where I have actually been, Iraque, Afganistan, Syria, and many other parts of the world that are in conflict have nothing to do with any bank. All pose a threat to mankind as a whole.

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:33 pm

North Korea, where I have actually been, Iraque, Afganistan, Syria, and many other parts of the world that are in conflict have nothing to do with any bank. All pose a threat to mankind as a whole.

Their predicament has nothing to do with feral children or our predicament.

Next ?

by polyglide Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:34 pm

They have everything, being part of it, to do with the world as a whole, you talk in isolation, the banks are only responsible for the financial state of many countries, the personal position of many including children is the fault of those in power who make all the decisions

When I talk about the state of the world I think everything in it has to be considered and not pick and choose.

by Tosh Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:56 pm

They have everything, being part of it, to do with the world as a whole, you talk in isolation, the banks are only responsible for the financial state of many countries, the personal position of many including children is the fault of those in power who make all the decisions

People in power need money to feed humans, banks have all the money and they lost a lot at a casino one night, now hungry children are feral children trying to feed themselves.

by polyglide Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:48 pm

The loss of money does not mean that there is any less food in the short term.

You cannot eat money.

What is wrong is the inability of those with money to utilise it in a proper manner.

At the present time they are protecting their assets in a manner not in the best interests of the people but their own.

Banks have not got all the money, banks have a lot of other peoples money.

There is enough food in the world even at the present time to feed all on the planet, what is lacking is the will to deploy it in a proper and human manner.

by snowyflake Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:18 pm

You talk alot about the 'proper manner' of doing things and seem to think that if everyone adopted this 'proper manner' the world would be ok. Just what exactly is this 'proper manner' you keep referring to that will solve all the worlds ills? Please, I really want to know.

by Tosh Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:34 pm

Banks have not got all the money, banks have a lot of other peoples money.

Banks print all the money and loan it out to people, its called fractional lending.

by trevorw2539 Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:41 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
snowyflake wrote:
Well in hebrew to english Y=J.

I don't see that as much of a difference. It's still refers to the same thing whether or not it's pronouncable doesn't really matter does it?

One can choose to make that substitution. The “Y-J” substitution appears to make no difference in Y’shua to Joshua/Jesus. However, the last syllable “us” in Jesus fails to convey the meaning of the last syllable in Y’shua; for that reason, I personally prefer Joshua over Jesus.
.
YHVH is an entirely different matter. YHVH is never pronounced; in fact, Jews with whom I interact, Conservative and Reform, do not even write the name YHVH, as they feel that “the name” should be “pronounced” by neither mouth nor pen to paper. Jehovah, conversely, is meant to be and almost always pronounced. There are even hymns featuring Jehovah in their titles. To me, such use of Jehovah as if it were equivalent to YHVH obliterates inherent meanings of YHVH, so I shy away from participation in such use whenever possible.

snowyflake wrote:
I thought all ancient written hebrew was without vowels.

Insofar as I know, that’s true. As mentioned in my previous message, I’ve been taught by Hebrew speakers/scholars that vowel pronunciations heard in the 21st Century have been verbally transmitted by an unbroken string of Hebrew speakers from at least 1400-1600 BC until now.

Vowels in Hebrew writing were interpolated by Rabbi's after the expulsion from Israel by the Romans. Previously the meaning of a sentence was by its content and context.

by Guest Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:33 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
Vowels in Hebrew writing were interpolated by Rabbi's after the expulsion from Israel by the Romans. Previously the meaning of a sentence was by its content and context.

Trevor,

Just yesterday, it’s been reconfirmed to me by a Conservative Jew who studies Biblical Hebrew that all Hebrew vowel sounds were transmitted verbally prior to bring added to written text well after the diaspora. Specifically mentioned was YHVH, which he calls by the Hebrew letters. Once again, he has reconfirmed that (a) there is no “J” equivalent in Hebrew, (b) there have never been verbalized vowel sounds in YHVH, and (c) “Jehovah” is not found in the Biblical Hebrew text.

This Hebrew scholar criticizes “Jehovah” on three grounds; (1) the initial “J”, (2) the inclusion of vowels “e”, “o”, and “a”, and (3), its rendition as an initial-letter-capitalized single-word proper noun.

by snowyflake Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:53 am

Hi Rock

In practical terms, Jehovah = YHVH. They are the same thing. Also, it should be remembered that your conservative Jewish scholar represents just one opinion and may not be interpreting reality but presenting his own 'truth'. In which case, he ought to be using cautious language. Smile

by Guest Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:04 am

by oftenwrong Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:40 am

A large component of contemporary Israel is the so-called Ultra-orthodox, Haredi Jews, who actually do not support the idea of Israel as an autonomous State, believing its creation should have awaited the coming of The Messiah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_Judaism

It's amusing to speculate what they might have contributed to this thread.

by Tosh Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:50 pm

I don't care what you call it, it does not exist until you prove it exists.

by snowyflake Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:05 pm

I don’t like the term “Jehovah”, and that’s an opinion. In a few days, I will worship with a significant number of people who like the term just fine, and I’m okay with that.

I don't see the difference between YHVH and Jehovah. They are one and the same as far as believers are concerned. What's a couple of vowels between Gods eh?

Rock, it is still down to interpretation. No matter how brilliant a scholar or historian is, they are still just offering up an opinion on what they think the Hebrew or Greek actually meant. And just because the manuscript is old does not endow it with mystical properties or prove that there is a God.

It is just such an obvious thing to me that humans created God/gods/god to answer questions about their own existence. Natural phenomena was explained as 'God'. Death created the legend which gets embellished at every telling. If you look at the gospels, even the accounts of Jesus resurrection are embellished over time. Mark says that a young man in a white robe was seen at the tomb, Luke says that two men in brillant white robes suddenly appeared and finally Matthew says there was a violent earthquake, an angel of the Lord descending from heaven rolling the stone away from the tomb, his face like lightening, his robe white as snow.

So, which one is truth and which one embellishment (sometimes called a porkie in England)

by Guest Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:12 am

by Guest Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:36 am

by snowyflake Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:54 am

Once you explain to me how these three differences are not differences, I’ll understand how you don’t see a difference between YHVH and “Jehovah.”

They're the same thing, Rock. They refer to God. Whether they have vowels or not, are an acronym is immaterial. Jehovah is just a translation of YHVH. There is no difference. Please show me in the Hebrew bible that YHVH does not equate to Jehovah.

When Biblical Hebrew scholars exposit Biblical Hebrew, no interpretation occurs.

Every scholar of any ilk is offering up interpretations of their studies. An exposition is an interpretation. Translating ancient words to modern English will always require interpretation by their very nature.

When one “blank slates” one’s mind and allows things to impinge thereon, one might see things that were there all along. For instance, one might see that, in all accounts of Y’shua’s resurrection, no stone could hold Y’shua captive, no stone could entomb Y’shua’s teachings. Then one might look around the English countryside and view the many stone edifices wherein men attempt to hold Y’shua captive and entomb Y’shua’s teachings. Then one might say to oneself, “Eureka!”

I find it amazing that you expect such high precision with words, spelling, grammar, definitions yet you can completely discount the obvious differences and embellishment of the gospels.

by Guest Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:30 am

by Tosh Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:25 am

Let’s start with three obvious differences.

* kicks away chair *

I do not conform to what “believers” might or might not believe are one and the same. I actually don’t care. I’m the one that must ensure the truth of what I speak; I’m the one that must ensure my own integrity.

* mirror mirror on the wall *

Priceless delusion. Very Happy

by snowyflake Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:07 pm

Nope. Let’s start again with three obvious differences.

Rock, repeating yourself does not further the discussion. It is quite clear to me that you give no quarter or even recognise that you might be mistaken. Your dogmatic and repetitious approach to any discussion is not enjoyable for me any longer. You cannot and will not concede on any topic no matter what evidence is placed before you. This, I've come to realise, is not discussion or debate or even exposition. It is just you defending your faith, in spite of the evidence, in spite of reason, in spite of common sense and is based solely and purely of blind stubborness.

I'm sorry but I won't be continuing this discussion any longer. There is no point. You haven't got the will to understand any one else's point of view.

by Tosh Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:05 pm

Snowy,

I think the penny has finally dropped, you now realize that our good friend Texas is only interested in semantic evasion, and the reason is obvious, despite his scholarly claims his case is not based on anything that resembles reason.

The plain reality is it doesn't matter what you call a deity or what properties you attach to it, there is no evidence to support the claim. His whole argument is bogus and laughable, the only person who takes this utter guff seriously is the man who invented it.

I actually find his intellectual pretense bordering on a mental illness, and if this chap has been within a country mile of any scholar of any subject then I will eat my very large hat.

This poor soul thinks his belief is more authentic because he thinks he understands ancient Hebrew, and this enables him to conclude the truth.
Rather odd since he denounces the validity of conclusions drawn in science, so his conclusions are the truth and any conclusion that disagrees is invalid on some imaginary grounds.

by Tosh Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:22 pm

If yo-yo brains was really interested in discussion he would define his deity and define his belief, but he doesn't want to do that, he prefers wasting everyone's time telling them what he doesn't believe and why.

He just doesn't want to give any ammo to his opponents because he knows I would jam it down his throat, creationism is intellectually indefensible and this troll knows it.

We are not allowed to look at broad concepts in context, God cannot be viewed as a whole, the Bible cannot be viewed as a whole, the evidence for evolution cannot be viewed as a whole, and he does this in order to escape from the obvious conclusions.

by Guest Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:17 am

by polyglide Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:49 am

The proper manner would be for all countries to work together for the common good of all.

Instead of having soldiers to fight each other, they should have them to work together for the common good.

Using only a fraction of the number of soldiers in every nation, food could be distributed, [thousands of tons of food is wasted in the so called civilised world] and no one need starve.

Those in need of fresh water could have wells supplied within a very short time.

Children who are presently starving to death are a sad reflection on society as a whole and more so because it could be stopped.

by snowyflake Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:13 pm

The proper manner would be for all countries to work together for the common good of all.

You mean like Communism?

Instead of having soldiers to fight each other, they should have them to work together for the common good.

You mean like Marxism?

Using only a fraction of the number of soldiers in every nation, food could be distributed, [thousands of tons of food is wasted in the so called civilised world] and no one need starve.

Like a Social Democracy maybe?

Those in need of fresh water could have wells supplied within a very short time.

If there is water there to drill into, if there is the money and the materials to provide the supplies and equipment.

Children who are presently starving to death are a sad reflection on society as a whole and more so because it could be stopped.

Yes. Perhaps, you should speak to all of the churches, synogogues, temples, mosques, cathedrals, gospel halls, evangelical churches and ask them to donate all of their art, gold, silver, land, bronze, antiques, buildings and other assets that they accumulate for the good of the whole world and not their own specific brand of believer. Perhaps all of that wealth ought to be given to the poor as Jesus intended. Perhaps every building that stands empty most of the week could be used to house the poor and disenfranchised. Instead of pews there could be beds. Instead of collection plates they could be dinner plates. Instead of preaching there could be more doing.

Why don't you get right on that, polyglide. Let us know how you get on.

by oftenwrong Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:37 pm

"The proper manner would be for all countries to work together for the common good of all."

Simply brilliant ! and brilliantly simple. No more refugees.

by Tosh Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:57 am

polyglide,

I am rather uncomfortable with compulsory altruism, if I sacrifice my interests for the interests of others then that decision should be mine and mine alone. I do not believe anyone has the right to force me to live a life of sacrifice, although I accept there is a place for reciprocation and cooperation for the common good out of common interest.

The problems of the 3rd world are cultural, we have primitive hunter-gatherer cultures that are incompatible with urban socialization, and they must change at their own pace.

I refuse to support obviously inferior cultures, cultures that are simply not fit for purpose, cultures that do not even comprehend the meaning of the words reciprocation and cooperation outwith their familiar group.

I would withdraw all aid and within a few generations these cultures would adapt or become extinct, such is the nature of natural selection.

Sometimes its best in the long term if humans learn the hard way.

by snowyflake Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:07 pm

I am rather uncomfortable with my tax money going to fund corrupt regimes in Africa and Pakistan. The Tories sent £600M to Pakistan in aid money. For what? So the president can live in style while his people starve and blow each other up and hide the world's most wanted man for 6 years?

I'm very careful with which charities get my money and time. Britain is a very generous nation but how much is sucked up in administration costs? How much is actually used for the charity you're paying into.

As for foreign aid, there ought to be some pay back and actual production that meets the costs, that is transparent, before we just send money willy nilly across the globe.

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:28 pm

Has anyone researched the actual form which "Foreign Aid" takes?
It's not often cash in brown envelopes, so do you know what is actually being "given" by British taxpayers?

by snowyflake Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:39 pm

It says 'resources' which can mean anything. Would be good to find out where my money is going. I want to help but I'm not funding luxury living for the corrupt in other countries. I'm paying enough of my own money funding luxury living for the corrupt in my own country.

by Tosh Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:26 pm

Has anyone researched the actual form which "Foreign Aid" takes? It's not often cash in brown envelopes, so do you know what is actually being "given" by British taxpayers?

I thought for a minute you were going to tell us, I don't need you to tell me it wasn't cash in brown envelopes, what are you pretending to know that you think we do not know ?

Very weird commentary.

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:47 pm

You mustn't be so hard on yourself, Tosh. Different doesn't always mean weird.

by Tosh Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:41 pm

You mustn't be so hard on yourself, Tosh.

Not in my make up.

Different doesn't always mean weird.

You are certainly different.

by polyglide Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:40 pm

Yes, Tosh and you are bordering on the weird.

by polyglide Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:56 pm

It is no good blaming all the churches etc; for all the problems. I could give a far better case than you do for blaming everyone else but themselves for
all our problems.

It matters not who why are wherefore what matters is that nothing of any consequence is being done to solve the worlds problems.

Just another day, more murders, more children molested, it is a shock if there are not several cases reported daily.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, many of those involved would not understand religion, other than that based on drugs and alchohol.

Religion is used as a means of causing wars by those who would probably not be able to quote anything to do with religion.

Most wars and conflicts are based on fear, the means of obtaining that which is not theirs and to overcome their own problems within their own countries and nothing to do with religion and of course to defend themselves and their goods etc;

by Shirina Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:51 pm

Most wars and conflicts are based on fear, the means of obtaining that which is not theirs and to overcome their own problems within their own countries and nothing to do with religion and of course to defend themselves and their goods etc

Almost all of the violence taking place in the world today is happening within the borders of each nation - not one nation attacking another to gain resources and solve problems.

And most of THAT violence is caused by religion.

There will always be street crime, there will always be white collar crime.

But perhaps you can explain something for me, polyglide. You sit here and talk about solving the world's problems, but as a Christian, why bother? Nothing we do will matter. You are convinced that the world will continue going to hell in a handbasket and, in fact, you want it to as that marks the End Times and Jesus's imminent return. Even if we created a utopia tomorrow, a paradise on earth free of poverty, disease, war, and crime, Jesus is slated to stomp into the picture and muck it all up. We may as well just sit here and do nothing waiting for the rapture, shouldn't we? What's the point of lifting a finger if the end of our story is already prophesied in the Book of Revelations?

by Guest Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:28 pm

Colombian conflict (1964–present)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An ongoing asymmetric low-intensity armed conflict in Colombia began in approximately 1964 or 1966, between the Colombian government and peasant guerrillas such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and the National Liberation Army (ELN).

It is historically rooted in the conflict known as La Violencia, which was triggered by the 1948 assassination of populist political leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán,^[11] and in the aftermath of United States-backed military attacks on peasant communities in rural Colombia in the 1960s that led Liberal and Communist militants to re-organize into FARC.^[12]

The reasons for fighting vary from group to group. The FARC and other guerrilla movements claim to be fighting for the rights of the poor in Colombia to protect them from government violence and to provide social justice through socialism.^[13] The Colombian government claims to be fighting for order and stability, and seeking to protect the rights and interests of its citizens. The paramilitary groups, such as the AUC, claim to be reacting to perceived threats by guerrilla movements.^[14] Both guerrilla and paramilitary groups have been accused of engaging in drug trafficking and terrorism. All of the parties engaged in the conflict have been criticized for numerous human rights violations.

The fighting [u]has killed 250,000 individuals[/u]^[15] and displaced millions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_armed_conflict_(1964%E2%80%93present)

Violence within a nation’s borders documented above appears not to be caused by religion.

by Shirina Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:45 pm

Violence within a nation’s borders documented above appears not to be caused by religion.

That's why I said "most."

by Sponsored content