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 snowyflake Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:02 pm

My exposition of YHWH and Jehovah is not “semantics”; my exposition of YHWH and Jehovah is exposition

Your exposition is about the semantics of YHWH and Jehovah.

Semantics (from Ancient Greek: σημαντικός sēmantikós)[1][2] is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, like words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotation.
Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used for understanding human expression through language. Other forms of semantics include the semantics of programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics.
The word semantics itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language for denoting a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal enquiries, over a long period of time, most notably in the field of formal semantics. In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols used in agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts.[3] Within this view, sounds, facial expressions, body language, and proxemics have semantic (meaningful) content, and each comprises several branches of study. In written language, things like paragraph structure and punctuation bear semantic content; other forms of language bear other semantic content.[3]
The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including lexicology, syntax, pragmatics, etymology and others, although semantics is a well-defined field in its own right, often with synthetic properties.[4] In philosophy of language, semantics and reference are closely connected. Further related fields include philology, communication, and semiotics. The formal study of semantics is therefore complex.
Semantics contrasts with syntax, the study of the combinatorics of units of a language (without reference to their meaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationships between the symbols of a language, their meaning, and the users of the language.[5]

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

by Guest Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:13 pm

by snowyflake Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:20 pm

My exposition shows that “Jehovah” is not YHWH

It didn't. As far as translation is concerned, Jehovah=YHWH. There is no difference between the two. And I will take that a step further, as far as belief goes God=Jehovah=YHWH. They are equal in meaning.

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:12 am

Tosh wrote:We lost a thread because a troll called ftnwrng kept posting guff, I propose he should be forced to post without using vowels in future.

*MG./ J*st/ @s/ th*s/ thr*@d/ w@s/ st@rt*ng/ t*/ m@k*/ s*ns*,/ s*m*/ c*nt/ h@s/ t*/ *ntr*d*c*/ @/ n*w/ bl**dy/ r*l*./! H*lp!!

How m@ny points is th@t worth in Scr@bble? Very Happy

by Shirina Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:26 am

How m@ny points is th@t worth in Scr@bble?

Good question, especially since I've never drawn an asterisk or "at" symbol tile while playing Scrabble. Surely they would be worth a lorry load of points if placed on a double or triple letter score space. Unless, of course, you're playing Scrabble with no vowels and all we can do is pray for a Y, a W, and two H's. Asterisks and "at" symbols would be too easy, like wild cards used in place of any vowel. They would only be worth 1 point, I would think.

Cool

by Guest Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:33 am

by Shirina Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:48 am

A rose by any other name ... and so forth. I think we all know the drill by now. No matter what you call God, be it Jehovah, YHWH, just plain God, or my cousin Vinny, we're all referring to the same entity, the one referenced in the Bible. All of this nitpicking is a pointless distraction, a non-sequitur, and a red herring all rolled into the same package.

by Guest Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:54 am

Shirina wrote:
A rose by any other name…

Neither YHVH nor “Jehovah” is a rose.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:52 am

God=Jehovah=YHWH

Arguing that one is different from the other is semantics. As far as this forum is concerned we are discussing the God of the Abrahamic faiths and in Rock's case, the God of the Hebrew, Greek and King James bible.

If there is any difference other than spelling (for crying out loud!), can we continue the debate assuming that we are talking about the same thing (or non thing as it were).

by Guest Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:09 am

by Shirina Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:54 am

Neither YHVH nor “Jehovah” is a rose.

You gotta be kidding me ... Rolling Eyes

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:52 pm

You gotta be kidding me

No, he is deadly serious, Texas takes great delight in making precise statements that also have a general meaning, he intentionally conceals what he actually means and then sits back while you all play 20 guesses, he thinks he is a scholar teaching pupils to pay attention to every word he utters. Fundamentalists are obsessed with the fundamental meaning of words, the importance of words is not lost on a biblical literalist.

Texas does not consider YHWH the same as Jehovah on theological grounds, YHWH is Hebrew and Jehovah is its Latinized equivalent, and to a literalist the difference is more than just language its about meaning, ergo THE TRUTH.
Texas does not equate his god of Hebrew and Greek to the god of Latin and English because they are theologically different.

Now he could tell you all this in plain English but Texas likes to pretend his precision is scholarly, so he leads you on a merry dance like a man who knows the answer to the riddle.

So when he says it is not semantics to him he is being serious, because as a literalist the truth and theology of YHWH is all in the meaning of words, they are one and the same, semantics is his theology and his theology is semantics.

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:08 pm

The god of Texas is defined in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek New Testament, he doesn't care if people think there is no difference to say the Latin god ( e.g. Catholic etc ), he knows the truth, and the truth is truth.

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:23 pm

The problem with literalism is it invents the starting point, a point that he uses as a datum to establish truth, the Hebrew bible is not the starting point.
Just like every other scripture it evolved from earlier oral traditions that historians have identified and just like every other Scripture it was amended over time.

So his truth is based on the premise that YHWH and the Hebrew Genesis 1:1 is the original beginning, but no historian agrees with this premise.

It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the 'God of Abraham'... If El was the high god of Abraham - Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh - Asherah was his wife, and there are archeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect 'divorced' in the context of emerging Judaism of the 7th century BCE. (See 2 Kings 23:15)".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28god%29

by polyglide Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:39 pm

It is a good job Tosh is not a doctor or we would all be dead.

He is incapable of any kind of realism and deals in self indulgent nonsense.

by polyglide Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:43 pm

Juust explain how any part of history can affect the possibility and probability that the nuclear bomb will not be used, that more detremental diseases will not be created and that man will ever learn by the past?.

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:47 pm

Juust explain how any part of history can affect the possibility and probability that the nuclear bomb will not be used, that more detremental diseases will not be created and that man will ever learn by the past?.

Does my explanation have to include butterflies you complete bampot, what are you babbling on about ?

by polyglide Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:55 pm

The trees and all other forms of life, including the butterfly, were all created to play a part in life, that part decided by God.

If we had not decided we knew better there would have been no problems, healthwise or anything else.

Diseases, viruses and all other problems have been as a result of the above.

So far as humans are concerned and going as far back in history as you like I will tell you a little joke.

A person who could throw his voice and change it to what one could feel an animals voice may sound like visited a farmer friend.

He took the farmer to where the horses were and said to the horse how does the farmer treat you, he repliad on behalf of the horse, he is the very best, he did the same to several other animals.

The farmer was very, very impressed.

Just as they were returning to the farm house they passed a sheep pen, the sheep had a funny look on it's face, the farmers face went red and he said do not talk to that sheep it tells lies.

by polyglide Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:59 pm

I say history has no relevance to the state of the world today.

I know, I know it is too complicated for you, Tosh Get back to the under 10
parties who may laugh at your continued juvanile attempts at wit you nit.

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:08 pm

I say history has no relevance to the state of the world today.

Does this include Genesis you utter fool ?

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:10 pm

I want to see your medical history, something must explain the state of your mind, it is full of mince.

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:13 pm

The trees and all other forms of life, including the butterfly, were all created to play a part in life, that part decided by God.

Go into your kitchen and take an ice pick from a drawer, insert it just above your right eye and push hard, then come back and we will have a chat, they say lobotomy works wonders for the mentally deranged.

by polyglide Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:23 pm

Tosh, just get someone with at least a little common sense to explain what is actually written and not what you like to make of it.

You will soon need the assistance of a vet., I doubt if any doctor could help you.

Genesis has nothing whatsoever to do with the state the world is in.

If you think it has explain?

Or for that matter any other historic event.

The present state of the world is because those presently in it, have brought it to it's present state, not because of any actions by previous generations but by their actions and if they decide to use the weapons etc; available it will not be decided on any historic event

by polyglide Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:25 pm

Then you know exactly what you have to do to become a more reasonable animal Tossh.

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:20 pm

Genesis has nothing whatsoever to do with the state the world is in.

So we can forget all the nonsense about Satan, sin and eating apples, excellent.

by polyglide Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:26 pm

All that about Satan has nothing to do with the present state of the world.

God will deal with everything before the birth of Jesus and it has nothing to do with the present mankind.

Satan is still around and causing as many problems as he can.

He obviously sees where the weak minded and easily fooled are and I could point a few out myself.

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:31 pm

Sorry, Tosh, but threats of violence are prohibited even in jest.

This is one of our absolutes.

Therefore, your post has been removed.

by Shirina Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:27 pm

Juust explain how any part of history can affect the possibility and probability that the nuclear bomb will not be used

Why certainly.

Let's take a look at the dropping of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some of today's moralists condemn these two attacks, but I lay claim that this action saved humanity. The two A-bombs dropped on Japan were relatively weak and, more importantly, America only ever had three of them, one which was used in testing. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were lessons humanity had to learn and learn the hard way. There was no other choice, for without the empirical knowledge of just how destructive these weapons were, including the fallout and radiation, we may not have stayed our hand later on when thermo-nuclear weapons were hundreds of times more powerful and existing in far greater numbers. Without the lessons learned in Japan, America or the USSR may not have showed the restraint both nations did during the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Operation Able Archer debacle in 1983.

Today, everyone knows just what it means to use nuclear weapons, which is why they have never been used since 1945. Russia could have used nukes against Chechnya. America could have used nukes against Iraq, North Vietnam, or North Korea. China could have used nukes against Tibet. Britain could have used nukes against Argentina. Yet, despite the nuclear-capable nations having the power to end a war decisively with a mushroom cloud, and despite the target nations not having nukes of their own to hit back with, none of the nuclear nations has ever used one outside of WWII.

Nuclear weapons today are nothing more than badges - useless in and of themselves but do grant a certain status and prestige to nations who have them. Nukes are no longer weapons of war but weapons of politics and they will never be used by an organized government against another nation.

The irony is that the only real threat of a nuclear weapon release comes from religious fundamentalists and death cults that wish to usher in the Apolcalypse so Christ or Allah or whomever can finally return. It is YOUR side of the fence, polyglide, that poses the greatest danger because primitive barbarity all too often wins over civilization, and your cult is the one I fear having access to nukes.

There, I explained it. Thanks for playing.

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:28 pm

Shooting in the face is sometimes taken to be prima facie evidence of a lost argument.

by Shirina Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:34 pm

I say history has no relevance to the state of the world today.

And yet you're over there on another thread claiming there are more STDs among children than "ever before."

Ever before WHAT, exactly? If history is irrelevant, then comparing today with yesterday is also irrelevant, so you have nothing with which to compare your data.

My advice: You need to stop pretending history is irrelevant because you keep using it to bolster your arguments whether you realize it or not.

Civilization does not suffer from Alzheimers, polyglide, but perhaps you do?

by Shirina Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:39 pm

not because of any actions by previous generations

Oh, I see.

So every invention, from fire to particle accelerators, were created today.

Every book ever written, every piece of music, every movie and every painting - all were created TODAY!

Every discovery from the North American continent to the human genome was made TODAY!

Every war ever fought, every religion ever created, every idea, every thought, every philosophy, every paradigm, every political and economic system, every last shred of knowledge occurred TODAY!

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:59 pm

Shooting in the face is sometimes taken to be prima facie evidence of a lost argument.

If I ever lose an argument with polyglide I will gladly shoot myself in the face.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:51 pm

I have previously posted truth regarding this. Truth challenged remains truth.

The problem, Rock, is you haven't posted truth. You have debated the spelling of words which in your literalist fashion is just a debate about spelling. You have not exposited the meaning of those words. It doesn't matter that they mean something different to you. To all intents and purposes God=YHWH=Jehovah=Allah=Elohim. They are all one and same. If you think the 'thing' in Genesis 1:1 is different to the 'thing' in the rest of the bible then you should just say so and then please explain what is the difference and why you think they are different. Otherwise, you are dealing in semantics.

Claiming truth without providing evidence is not truth. It's an assumption.

by Guest Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:01 pm

YHWH is a mis-transliteration which I have ceased using as I listen to and heed the teachings of Hebrew scholars. Jehovah is found nowhere in the Hebrew Bible or the Greek Bible.

Allah is the Arabic equivalent of Eloah, singular of Elohim. Both Allah and Elohim denote power; both Allah and Elohim connote immeasurable, incomprehensible power.

English translators use God as a substitution for Elohim. When God is used in this way, God exactly mirrors Elohim; thus, God used in this way demotes power and connotes immeasurable, incomprehensible power.

by Tosh Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:05 am

Texas, what are the theological differences between Elohim and Jehovah ?

by snowyflake Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:56 am

They are not “all one and the same.”

You haven't described any differences between God=Allah=Elohim=YHWH=Jehovah other than spelling and translation. For the purposes of this forum they are one and the same thing. When you say God, which you have been saying for years and then suddenly changed to the Hebrew words, it means the same thing. If it doesn't mean the same thing then please tell me what the differences are. So far it is just spelling. If you continue to be vague and discreet about what you mean then please discontinue the conversation.

Stating truth is not a subjective exercise. Stating truth requires evidence. You have not provided evidence to support your 'truth'. Therefore it is pure assumption.

by Guest Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:53 am

by polyglide Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:42 pm

Having lived in Japan for two and a half years I am well aware of what the atomic bomb did.

The present nuclear and noutron bombs are approximately a thousand times more powerful.

If you feel that the atom bomb saved the world I feel sorry for you, go and see the remaining results for yourself and come back and say the same.

There has never ever been a weapon that has not been used and when someone with the capabilities to use the most powerfuil available who is pushed into a corner they will most certainly use them.

History in that respect relevant.

by polyglide Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:44 pm

If Tosh has offered violence then he has lost all the little respect he had and proves he has lost all the plot and all the discussions.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:54 pm

God is a word that you use to denote “sky father”, or some such concept not found in the Hebrew Bible or the Greek Bible. YHWH is a mis-transliteration which I have ceased using as I listen to and heed the teachings of Hebrew scholars. Jehovah is found nowhere in the Hebrew Bible or the Greek Bible.

God is the word I use to denote the God of bible, be it hebrew, greek, latin or english. I call him many names but essentially it is the same thing that you believe exists as Elohim, YHWH or Allah. This nit picking about God's name is stupid, Rock. It's a stupid argument and personally I wish you'd just get over it.

Pretending Hebrew scholarship makes any difference is carrying the delusion a little far don't you think?

YHWH=Elohim=Jehovah=Allah=God=Thor=Zeus=EAsterBunny=SantaClaus=HarryPotter=X=any fictional character in a story book.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:55 pm

Truth requires evidence. Provide evidence that supports your claims otherwise it's just assumption. You assume a lot.

by Sponsored content