To hate Jews is to hate God

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

To hate Jews is to hate Jesus, we know few facts about Jesus but we know he was Jewish and he preached the Torah.

The religion of Jesus became the religion about Jesus, pity.

Tosh wrote:To hate Jews is to hate Jesus, we know few facts about Jesus but we know he was Jewish and he preached the Torah.

The religion of Jesus became the religion about Jesus, pity.

20/20 on this.

The hero of a thousand faces.

Regards
DL

Hello everyone. Polyglide and other believers in fairy stories....was Jesus even a real person and how do we know? Do believers even question or investigate the existence of Jesus? And if we don't know for certain that he even existed why believe it at all? Wouldn't your faith be a mockery if it were discovered once and for all that Jesus was no more a real person than Superman?

The Christian faith (as are all other faiths) is a mishmash of hyperbolic nonsense, myth, folklore, superstition and legend. And blindly believing something for no good reason makes no sense. At least, have a good reason supported by solid evidence...like evolution, for example.

QUOTE: a mishmash of hyperbolic nonsense, myth, folklore, superstition and legend.

You left out brainwashing/spin/propaganda and Control Games.

Well well....a familiar voice from my distant past, how you doing Snowy ?

Hello Tosh. I'm well thank you. How are you? Nice to see you here and I love your avatar Quite Darwinian. I don't hang out here much these days but it's good to see you found your way here and ready to kick some believer-butt with reason and science.

Take care and hope to see you here again. x

Circumstances may alter cases.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9502690/Rachel-Corrie-death-Israel-rejects-all-blame.html

Snowflake, my little flower of many that God created.

Of course there is ample evidence that Jesus existed, what planet are you on.

You may dispute, erroniously, that he was not the son of God but he did exist and of that few intelligent people would dispute, if they considered the evidence.

To hate anyone is wrong and self destroying.

polyglide wrote:Snowflake, my little flower of many that God created.

Of course there is ample evidence that Jesus existed, what planet are you on.

You may dispute, erroniously, that he was not the son of God but he did exist and of that few intelligent people would dispute, if they considered the evidence.

Would you like to discuss his intelligence with me?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded



Regards
DL

Snowflake, my little flower of many that God created.

Stop it. You're making me blush. Polyglide, my little evolved flower that happened by chance....

Of course there is ample evidence that Jesus existed, what planet are you on.

Planet Earth. What planet are you on? Please provide this ample evidence for those of us who doubt his existence. Frankly, he could be a fairy story like Hercules or Harry Potter for all we know. I have no interest in your belief or faith that he existed. I want you to show us the ample evidence. Many thanks.

You may dispute, erroniously, that he was not the son of God but he did exist and of that few intelligent people would dispute, if they considered the evidence.

LOL. You will not be able to provide the evidence for Jesus' mere earthly existence. I await the convoluted mental acrobatics you must go through in providing evidence that he was the son of God.

I'll just file my nails while I wait, poly.

polyglide is acually oftenwrong, there is no way this is a real person.

Keep on digging!

Keep on digging!.

Keep up starting threads about me, I am an attention whore.

Thank you.

Whoever would've guessed...?

Whoever would've guessed...?

It was hardly the best kept secret on MSN or any message forum, I thought you knew that.

Did the Jews con their con man Western masters and win the God Wars?

Modern scholarship has identified that Rome manipulated the Jews into rewriting their scriptures and turn their militant God into a pacifist God. The Jews, being brighter than Rome, now the Western world, were loath to do so but recognizing that they had no choice and decided to build doubt into the Jesus myth.

Jewish scribes used a number of writing tricks to advance their God and not the Western version. They duplicated some parts of their myth beginning in Eden with two creation myths and carried that process to Noah and the flood with two flood myths. They built contradictions and double entendre to create ambiguity and thus insure that their book of myths was filled with many arguable points and thus insure that the population would maintain interest in their God. Seeking God and not finding God is what has kept the idea of a God alive. That is why they will not name their God. Almost. They did put a master key in the Bible though in having Moses name God and going against convention while putting yet another point of debate and argument.

This is why the Bible has been the greatest book that the world has ever known and why more critiques of it have been written without any real consensus or conclusions being reached. They knew that the world loved a mystery and gave them one that would insure that Jews were always required and protected by those in power in order to make any adjustments to their God; since they, of course, were the authorized writers and interpreters of their God regardless of his being usurped by Christianity who quickly created even more ambiguity and doubt by reversing some of the moral lessons in the Jewish Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

Depending on how your read the Bible, you will either come out of it with the most benevolent God possible, or the most evil God the world could possibly imagine. In other word, the Jews wrote a masterpiece of literature and myth and conned the world into believing it was a book that held truth while it was full of lies.

Not too shabby at all for a tribe who, in their beginning, have been described as a nomadic tribe of killers.

They have managed to have their God become the supreme God of this world and the most powerful religious and political force known. Let us hope my friends that the Abrahamic cults never unite otherwise the world will regress to a total dictatorship under the vilest God the world can ever create.

Socrates indicated that the most powerful of men would be those who were evil and could fool the people into thinking they were good. He seems to have been right as that is what the Jews wrote their God into being and thus, in a sense, through the Noble Lie, have made fools out of all peoples of the West as well as those of the Abrahamic Eastern cults.

The West had better learn to not put Jews up against the wall because it seems that evolution has made them a lot brighter than the rest of us poor manipulated dummies.

To honor God is to honor Jews. Who would have known?

The question I would like to ask is this. Who put the idea of rewriting the Bible to suit Rome and the Abrahamic cults of Christianity and Islam? Was it Rome who manipulated the Jews or was it the Jews who manipulated Rome?

Are we a mentally enslaved species or a species of free men and women?

Regards
DL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrMtRm3b8MU&feature=autoplay&list=PLCBF574D134B912A5&playnext=1

".... their book of myths was filled with many arguable points ...."

Hardly a surprise when the "book" has several hundred authors writing over a couple of thousand years in at least a dozen different languages.

There is also a hiatus between the creation of Christianity, its suppression for a few hundred years and then resurrection by the Roman Emperor Constantine, requiring some rather rapid re-invention of a "lost tradition".

Call me a cynic but I find this theory of GIA's a tad far-fetched and fanciful. Where is the evidence for this idea? The bible was written by many authors, translated over centuries many times through many different languages. We don't even know if what is written now is really what was written originally or even if it means the same thing now as it did then. The suggestion that the Jews knew what they were doing in terms of writing the bible implies they knew what was going to happen in the future.

Allah, Jehovah and the Christian God is one god for the 3 Abrahamic religions. Can you see the Jews, Christians and Muslims getting together on anything apart from destroying each other because each has a different interpretation of what they think their God is?

Sorry. I don't buy it. Never mind that I don't believe in the existence of a God let alone think the Jews are his chosen people so the whole story line sounds like bollox to me anyway. Religion is the controller of the masses and that is its sole purpose

oftenwrong wrote:".... their book of myths was filled with many arguable points ...."

Hardly a surprise when the "book" has several hundred authors writing over a couple of thousand years in at least a dozen different languages.

There is also a hiatus between the creation of Christianity, its suppression for a few hundred years and then resurrection by the Roman Emperor Constantine, requiring some rather rapid re-invention of a "lost tradition".

No argument for sure.

Regards
DL

snowyflake wrote:Call me a cynic but I find this theory of GIA's a tad far-fetched and fanciful. Where is the evidence for this idea? The bible was written by many authors, translated over centuries many times through many different languages. We don't even know if what is written now is really what was written originally or even if it means the same thing now as it did then. The suggestion that the Jews knew what they were doing in terms of writing the bible implies they knew what was going to happen in the future.

Allah, Jehovah and the Christian God is one god for the 3 Abrahamic religions. Can you see the Jews, Christians and Muslims getting together on anything apart from destroying each other because each has a different interpretation of what they think their God is?

Sorry. I don't buy it. Never mind that I don't believe in the existence of a God let alone think the Jews are his chosen people so the whole story line sounds like bollox to me anyway. Religion is the controller of the masses and that is its sole purpose

Exactly. And the masses are controlled by governments that have had the bible written to suit their needs.
Even as we have clear evidence of Constantine forcing a vote to have Jesus declared a part of the Trinity. Yet you don't believe government wrote the bible.

Regards
DL

You're saying the Jews wrote the bible in such a way as to manipulate the masses towards their God and that method was lassoed by governments who use religion as a controller of the masses? Ok, I can get behind that governments use this idea. King James, when he was creating his version of the bible, did exactly that. Many texts were removed and replaced to give Kings/Queens divine rights and to 'prove' to the masses that they were ordained by God and therefore must be obeyed and supported. I don't agree that the Jews knew what they were doing when they wrote the bible.

snowyflake wrote:You're saying the Jews wrote the bible in such a way as to manipulate the masses towards their God and that method was lassoed by governments who use religion as a controller of the masses? Ok, I can get behind that governments use this idea. King James, when he was creating his version of the bible, did exactly that. Many texts were removed and replaced to give Kings/Queens divine rights and to 'prove' to the masses that they were ordained by God and therefore must be obeyed and supported. I don't agree that the Jews knew what they were doing when they wrote the bible.

I don't think I would say that the Jews wanted to move people towards their God as they were creating a Jesus a la Rome but they had to make it look like they were. I think they wrote all the ambiguity and contradictions in just to further the debates and study of scriptures and to further the conversation and the seeking of God period. Not their God as they had many at that time. Note all the names they give God in their books.

I agree with you on the K J bible although I do not see many passages on the rights of kings other than give to Caesar etc.

Regards
DL

Hi Greatest I am

http://bible.cc/1_peter/2-13.htm

Lots of verses about submitting to the king, authority, governments etc. because it pleases the Lord.

I'm still not buying the idea that the Jews wrote the bible and created Jesus and were purposely and wifully ambiguous just to get people to debate and study scripture. I think they were wilfully ambiguous because they were talking shite. It's just a story with no historical veracity whatsoever. The only thing it has is age. Whether there is any truth to any of it is anyone's guess. So far there hasn't been much evidence to support anything that the bible says.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Hope you have a good time with family and friends.

snowyflake wrote:Hi Greatest I am

http://bible.cc/1_peter/2-13.htm

Lots of verses about submitting to the king, authority, governments etc. because it pleases the Lord.

I'm still not buying the idea that the Jews wrote the bible and created Jesus and were purposely and wifully ambiguous just to get people to debate and study scripture. I think they were wilfully ambiguous because they were talking shite. It's just a story with no historical veracity whatsoever. The only thing it has is age. Whether there is any truth to any of it is anyone's guess. So far there hasn't been much evidence to support anything that the bible says.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Hope you have a good time with family and friends.

I will put you down for partial agreement and thank you for the season's greeting and return that sentiment in kind.

Regards
DL

"So far there hasn't been much evidence to support anything that the bible says. "

....Although people living near the rivers of Britain this year are quite ready to believe in the Noah's Ark legend.

Hello Snowy and I am, there is a more sensible research that has shown by logical evidence not by the convectional logical methods or theorizing which demonstrates the bible is more likely written by both Jews (OT) and Romans (NT).
For example ; Did you know that the first saints were related to Caesar?
You are both right by this approach.

Intriguing nevertheless.


For now I wish you all a Merry Christmas and happy new-year.

Thanks for this.

The old Caesars were the only ones with the power to declare themselves to be as Gods.

Regards
DL

snowyflake wrote:You're saying the Jews wrote the bible in such a way as to manipulate the masses towards their God and that method was lassoed by governments who use religion as a controller of the masses? Ok, I can get behind that governments use this idea. King James, when he was creating his version of the bible, did exactly that. Many texts were removed and replaced to give Kings/Queens divine rights and to 'prove' to the masses that they were ordained by God and therefore must be obeyed and supported. I don't agree that the Jews knew what they were doing when they wrote the bible.

The Jews were never a proselytising nation or religion. They believed that God had chosen them, and separated them as special. They believed that God was present in the Temple in Jerusalem, and his influence was bounded by the borders of the land 'given them'. They did not want to die outside of the land, and if they did their bones were to be returned to Canaan to be buried. 1 Sam. 26. This belief began to change when they were subjected to the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles. During this they were not able to Sacrifice as the Temple had been destroyed. When the Persians allowed the rebuilding of the new Temple, sacrifices returned.
At this time many did not return to Palestine and accepted that, though they returned to Jerusalem to sacrifice, God was with them elsewhere.
They accepted proselytes under their conditions but did not specaially seek them unless it was to their advantage. Matt. 23.

Miamondes said that as all men were descended from Noah, if they, as non Jews, followed the 7 laws of Noah found in the 'Moses Torah' they would get to heaven.

7 Laws of Noah:


Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not worship false gods.
Do not be sexually immoral.
Do not eat a limb removed from a live animal.
Do not curse God.
Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.


The subject of the Bible, divine right of king, King James, previous Catholic doctrine. I'm not going to attempt.

Another point brought up was that the Bible was 'It's just a story with no historical veracity whatsoever. The only thing it has is age. Whether there is any truth to any of it is anyone's guess.

The Bible has a great deal of historical veracity. What it does not have is any Theological 'proof'.

Many of the 'physical' events recorded in it are verified by archaeological finds and ancient documents. Even back as far as 1000BC.

1 example. Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah record the attack of Senacheribb - Assyrian king - on Jerusalem because Hezekiah would not pay tribute to him. It ended as a siege. This ended with Senacheribbs 'withdrawal'. The bible records is as God's victory. Senacheribb records the siege, but his withdrawal down to a receipt of tribute later. This is on a stone 'prism' now in the Oriental Institute of Chicago.
The historical event cannot be disputed, the outcome is down to each sides view.

This comparison of Bible events and Archaeological finds of inscriptions on stones, stela, prisms, palace walls etc verify many events. On top of that some cities known only in the Bible and considered by many 'mythical', ie Ur of the Chaldees have been found.

Did you know that the first saints were related to Caesar?

I didn't. And, with respect, I don't think anyone does.

In the days of the early church any Bishop could call a worthy person a 'Saint'.
How many bishops there were in the early church I doubt anyone knows. Consequently who their 'saints' were, and to whom they were related is again a matter in doubt.
The Early Church was so divided into different groups and sects.

The First council Nicea brought some agreement between 4 main branches of the Early Church, but there were others outside this.

If you take 'True' or 'considered' Canonisation - ie that given much time, thought and investigation into the person and their lives - that came into being around 1000AD in the Catholic church.
Personally I don't believe in Canonisation. I believe there are millions of ordinary 'good' people in the world who are just as worthy.

Trevorw

There are some real places and events in the bible, no doubt, but scholars do not agree with saying that the bible has historic veracity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP5LdELd_0o

If you believe the bible to be mostly true then you have a lot of talking animals and other miracles to explain and for those, there is no veracity at all.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:Trevorw

There are some real places and events in the bible, no doubt, but scholars do not agree with saying that the bible has historic veracity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP5LdELd_0o

If you believe the bible to be mostly true then you have a lot of talking animals and other miracles to explain and for those, there is no veracity at all.

Regards
DL

I do not believe in talking animals, though it is possible to teach some to imitate the human voice. I believe that much of the Bible
is filled with earlier stories and myths, and much is filled with the Jewish belief that they were a 'selected' nation, and the way it affected their 'Theological' thinking.

VERACITY Conformity to facts; accuracy: "the veracity of the story".

There are many 'factual' events recorded in the Bible that are accurate as they can be verified. The same does not apply to the Theology in the Bible. Neither Theology or myth can be called facts, for they cannot be proved. Therefore are not 'history'.

Of course it depends on your interpretation of the phrase 'Historic veracity'.

A study of the OT and its background, earlier civilisations etc allows us to understand the inter-relationship between civilisations.

There are other 'events' and 'facts' recorded in the Bible which are not proveable - at least not yet - but possible in the light of what we know about ancient Mesopotamian history.

Christian theology is mostly immoral, anti-love and unworkable rhetoric.

This statement can be proven through debate of morals if you wish to engage.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:Christian theology is mostly immoral, anti-love and unworkable rhetoric.

This statement can be proven through debate of morals if you wish to engage.

Regards
DL

Not really. I've read many of your posts in the past. What are 'Morals or Morality'.

Those who hold that that there is a universal code of conduct that all rational persons, under plausible specified conditions, would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents do not claim that any actual society has or has ever had such a guide to conduct. However, “Natural law” theories of morality claim that any rational person in any society, even one that has a defective morality, can know the general kinds of actions that morality prohibits, requires, discourages, encourages, and allows. In the theological version of natural law theories, such as that put forwards by Aquinas, this is because God implanted this knowledge in the reason of all persons. In the secular version of natural law theories, such as that put forward by Hobbes, natural reason is sufficient to allow all rational persons to know what morality prohibits, requires, etc. Natural law theorists also claim that morality applies to all of rational persons, not only those now living, but also those who lived in the past. These are not empirical claims about morality; they are claims about what is essential to morality, or about what is meant by “morality” when it is used normatively.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/#DesDefMor

No argument.

Natural law does seem to be better than biblical law.

I would likely call it universal for any thinking person.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Note that the first 5 main points of our majorities consensus works well with natural law and if we did not follow the first, then none of us would be here to chat about it.

Regards
DL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP5LdELd_0o

Watched this. Interesting when looked at from the athiest point of view. Much I agree with, some I don't.
He touched on archaeology briefly when 'proving' three gatehouses were not as first thought by archaeologists. He then ignores Archaeology for other matters, completely ignoring those dozens of artifacts verified as genuine in Museums, Universities, Libraries etc which give us accounts of battles and events also recorded in the Bible. Details may vary according to the combatants desire to claim victory. Very few ancient Emperors admit defeat.

Realistically all things are in flux. It would only take another 'Dead Sea Scrolls' find in the Middle East of documents referring to Jesus, contemporary/or almost, with his life, to change things. Not necessarily as God, but as a real person.

Still, the video was interesting, giving anothers view.

trevorw2539 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP5LdELd_0o

Watched this. Interesting when looked at from the athiest point of view. Much I agree with, some I don't.
He touched on archaeology briefly when 'proving' three gatehouses were not as first thought by archaeologists. He then ignores Archaeology for other matters, completely ignoring those dozens of artifacts verified as genuine in Museums, Universities, Libraries etc which give us accounts of battles and events also recorded in the Bible. Details may vary according to the combatants desire to claim victory. Very few ancient Emperors admit defeat.

Realistically all things are in flux. It would only take another 'Dead Sea Scrolls' find in the Middle East of documents referring to Jesus, contemporary/or almost, with his life, to change things. Not necessarily as God, but as a real person.

The Nag Hamadi find did that but I do not see a big impact as yet.

This clip points to the problem of new finds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT0MrWLmhRM

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

trevorw2539 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP5LdELd_0o

Watched this. Interesting when looked at from the athiest point of view. Much I agree with, some I don't.
He touched on archaeology briefly when 'proving' three gatehouses were not as first thought by archaeologists. He then ignores Archaeology for other matters, completely ignoring those dozens of artifacts verified as genuine in Museums, Universities, Libraries etc which give us accounts of battles and events also recorded in the Bible. Details may vary according to the combatants desire to claim victory. Very few ancient Emperors admit defeat.

Realistically all things are in flux. It would only take another 'Dead Sea Scrolls' find in the Middle East of documents referring to Jesus, contemporary/or almost, with his life, to change things. Not necessarily as God, but as a real person.

The Nag Hamadi find did that but I do not see a big impact as yet.

This clip points to the problem of new finds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT0MrWLmhRM

Regards
DL

From Gnosticarchive website
'The discovery and translation of the Nag Hammadi library, completed in the 1970's, has provided impetus to a major re-evaluation of early Christian history and the nature of Gnosticism'.

We talk about Nag Hammadi but forget the earlier discovery of scraps of gospels found at Oxyrhynchus among many other manuscripts.
It is my opinion, and only mine, that the Nag Hammadi gospels were, at the time, partly responsible for the 1st Council of Nicaea. There were 4 main groups and many sects in the 'christianity' of the time, and they all had varying ideas etc. The proliferation of so many ideas was not helpful. There had to come a time to agree basics. Whilst only the 4 main groups are recorded as being present, the pressure of the need for agreement and a 'standard' doctrine was intense. From this the Church grew under and with Constantine's 'help'.

Perhaps the Nag Hammadi Gospels were effective in shaping things then and now?

There are always problems with new finds. Science today is usually capable of discerning between truth and falsity - but you will never get some people to agree if it goes against their thinking. The problem is mostly down to extravagant claims by discoverers before tests and verification is carried out.

No argument my friend.

I look to things like the mindset shown here to decide which is better. Religion or science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRLR9jhP_DM&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Regards
DL

Interesting if you can accept that a lot of our science/medicine derives from the ancients. Particularly the Egyptians 4000 years ago. Minor surgery, probably using opium as pain relief, setting of bones, remedies for illnesses (some effective, some not). Basic understanding that the body contained a circulatory system, pulse etc. allowing air, food and blood round the body.
The Greeks were adept at many procedures. Islam also had certain procedures.
Astronomy was a 'science' and some understanding of the universe is evident in ancient writings.

Too many people forget what we owe to these civilisations.

trevorw2539 wrote:Interesting if you can accept that a lot of our science/medicine derives from the ancients. Particularly the Egyptians 4000 years ago. Minor surgery, probably using opium as pain relief, setting of bones, remedies for illnesses (some effective, some not). Basic understanding that the body contained a circulatory system, pulse etc. allowing air, food and blood round the body.
The Greeks were adept at many procedures. Islam also had certain procedures.
Astronomy was a 'science' and some understanding of the universe is evident in ancient writings.

Too many people forget what we owe to these civilisations.

Yes.

We owe them quite a bit. They were the unfortunate Guiney pigs for much of what we know today and from what engineers are saying of their construction methods, even today we could not keep up with them and still cannot do some of the things they did.

Curches were even involved but more for the people drawing power and $$$$$ that invention would bring in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2HcjanNWFM&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrI1FsH4UH8&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7BHvN6rZZA

Regards
DL