The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
DFD
doubt about it. Now, according to the Bible they frequently murdered
Prophets and Apostles. Are they the Christ Killers? Well, when
Christ's coming was eminent, the Jews murdered their own children to
prevent his birth! European Peace Keeping Forces (The Roman Army)
watched in horror the atrocity, helpless to interfere due to the usual
‘treaty of occupation'. The news reaching Rome and other capitals such
as Lutetia (Paris), Athens, Londinum and Cologne, was first
disbelieved, then came revulsion and abhorrence. But even Jewish
soldiers murdering their own children did not prevent Christ's birth,
so they ensnared Jesus, since for the Jews he is an enemy wanting to
extend God's mercy to the Gentiles. He detested them, just read about
his disgust with the hypocrisy of their faith. With obfuscations they
wanted to deceive Pontius Pilatus, who tried to get Jesus freed, but
the Jews were determined to kill Jesus. Pilatus hoped that at least in
public the Jews would have mercy on Jesus, who claimed no political
authority. But the Jews were merciless with Jesus. Yes, with Jesus the
Jews were merciless! Flabbergasted, Pilatus asked the Jews three
times, no difference: the Jews preferred a murderer instead of Jesus;
the Jews had neither mercy for Jesus nor did they pity him – and they
still practise the same Judaism, the religion that has no mercy for
Jesus Christ. Disgusted by those people our representative washed his
hands, and thus Europe's hands, of the affair. And these people
influence US politics and are America's primary allies, may God have
pity on America.
The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, ‘long time ago, etc. And
Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same dogmas,
the faith whose followers had Jesus murdered? By logic: if it is the
same Judaism, they'd do it again! Remember, the Jews voted publicly to
murder him – three times aloud! If their pretence of friendship with
us were remotely true, they would be Christians and not Jews, lest we
forget. And Judaism is the only religion with which Christianity has
arguments about Jesus Christ.
The Jews say that we, the Europeans/Romans did it. Not so! We were
forced by treaty/law to provide the trial and the executioners. They
pretend we were afraid of a new faith, utter rubbish. Within The
Empire we had over 8,000 religions, no Caesar thought himself above
Jupiter, Zeus, Wotan or whatever we called The Almighty. That he could
lead a rebellion against us? Here are Jesus' own words in reference to
us: "Render unto Caesar what…" That's not rebellion, that's exemplary.
Also, once a Centurion asked Jesus to heal his dying daughter. Jesus
said: "It is done." The Centurion said: "Thank you. May I take leave
of you and return to my duty?" Surprised, Jesus asked the Centurion if
he did not want to go home to his daughter. The Centurion replied that
he trusted Jesus and his command, therefore he had no need to go
absent; he added that when he gave orders to his troops, they too obey
his command with or without his presence. As to that Jesus said: "If
only 100 of my people had your faith, I could save them ALL!" We had
absolutely no reason to harm this man! NB: the implication is that
WITHOUT 100 Jews like our Centurion; Jesus will save NONE of them.
Should Americans ask their candidates if they recently came into
possession of thirty pieces of ‘lobby' silver?
Barney Fife
Dietma...@aol.com (DFD) wrote:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=tssiivg7clji08kv01jigmnk3k3m14qonf%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Jews Have Their Own Lobbyists in Congress - Themselves as Congress
People! R_0731
Message-ID: <tssiivg7clji08kv0...@4ax.com>
Date: 31 Jul 2003 19:45:42 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=5rhktv483m9oofgqt8goir93o4pm08ht49%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: 3 Major Jewish Organizations Engage in Holocaust Denial...
Message-ID: <5rhktv483m9oofgqt...@4ax.com>
Date: 12 Dec 2003 22:57:48 GMT
If Jews are allowed to call a historic event a "Holocaust" based on Jews being
tortured, imprisoned, and executed by Nazis then why can't Christians claim Jews
had "Holocausts" against non-Jews/Christians seeing how the 1st Century
Pharisees and the 20th Century Jewish led Bolshevists tortured, imprisoned, and
executed Christians/non-Jews. Jews also deny these other "Holocausts" so going
by their standards they are "Holocaust Deniers" and should be prosecuted for
Holocaust Denial"and "Minimalizing the Holocaust[s])" as well!
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=1i7810p7itigphaaq...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Post-Soviet Religion (What Communists did to Christians) V2.0a S_0125
Message-ID: <1i7810p7itigphaaq...@4ax.com>
Date: 25 Jan 2004 19:53:30 GMT
How First Century Christianity Was Treated by Jews:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=m1p5nv4es86j78p5dr5pe41l8pi3vfcst0%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: UPDATED The Most Heinous Murder Plot Ever Devised (For Your Archives &
Research) V2.5 R_0925
Message-ID: <m1p5nv4es86j78p5d...@4ax.com>
Date: 25 Sep 2003 13:23:49 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=k11ucvc1j4hl6s7av6qpr9882esa96oaav%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Babylon the Great - Religious Persecution, Torture, Harassment R_0524
Message-ID: <k11ucvc1j4hl6s7av...@4ax.com>
Date: 24 May 2003 05:30:17 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=i31ucv4nvr6ehh6r2jgq8d7orrpfhm3j09%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: The Apostle Paul on Judaized Jews R_0524
Message-ID: <i31ucv4nvr6ehh6r2...@4ax.com>
Date: 24 May 2003 05:30:25 GMT
The first "Holocaust" was not Gentiles (Nazis) Against Jews
BUT was Jews (Communists) Against Christian Kulaks!!!
How Later Christianity was/is treated by Jews:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=upe9kvor1pdvm2ifa8sfa0qfboa6ull055%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Comparing Israel's "Anti-Christ Activism" to Other Middle East Nations
is NOT a Valid Comparison V2.5 R_0821
Message-ID: <upe9kvor1pdvm2ifa...@4ax.com>
Date: 21 Aug 2003 12:22:34 GMT
Jewish Led Bolsheviks Scalped & Crucified Christians by Philippa Fletcher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=34c17d0f.1410012285%40news.smart1.net&rnum=7
Subject: Bolsheviks Scalped and Crucified Christians -
Date: 1998/01/18
Message-ID: <34c17d0f....@news.smart1.net>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=1i7810p7itigphaaq...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Post-Soviet Religion (What Communists did to Christians) V2.0a S_0125
Message-ID: <1i7810p7itigphaaq...@4ax.com>
Date: 25 Jan 2004 19:53:30 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=u626vv814v0dt9raqv17ede0h4536l51ag%404ax.com&rnum=10&filter=0
Subject: V3.0e Forefathers of the Soviet State and Anti-Christ Communism R_1231
Message-ID: <u626vv814v0dt9raq...@4ax.com>
Date: 31 Dec 2003 17:34:02 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=ncu5gvoc1nga0k933sgt0sbtglrv1nlb4e%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Communist Holocaust Has Killed Over 100 Million People
Message-ID: <ncu5gvoc1nga0k933...@4ax.com>
Date: 2 Jul 2003 15:33:38 GMT
Holocausts Jews have waged against non-Jews and Jewish denial of their
Holocausts against Christians/non-Jews:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=5rhktv483m9oofgqt8goir93o4pm08ht49%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: UPDATED: 3 Major Jewish Organizations Engage in Holocaust Denial in
Addition to Their anti-Christic Christ Denial anti-Christism
Message-ID: <5rhktv483m9oofgqt...@4ax.com>
Date: 12 Dec 2003 22:57:48 GMT
ooo oooooooooo ooooo ooo ooo ooooo
ooo oooooooooo ooooooo ooo ooo oooooooo
ooo oooooooooo ooooooooo ooo ooo ooooooooo
ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo
ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo
ooo ooooooooo ooooooo ooo ooo ooooooo
ooo ooooooooo oooooooo ooo ooo oooooooo
ooo ooooooooo ooooooo ooo ooo ooooooo
ooo ooo oooo ooo ooo oooo
ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo
ooo ooo ooo oooo ooo oooo ooo oooo ooo
oooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo ooooooooo oooooooooo
oooooo oooooooooo oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo
oooo oooooooooo oooo ooooo oooo
Tavish
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Barney Fife
**X##############X***
XX########################XX
*X################################X*
*######################################*
X###########XX* **XX###########X
X##########X* ## *X##########X
*##########* X### *X#########*
X###########X X##### *########X
###############* *####### *########
*#######X*########* X######### *########
*#######X X#######X *####X*##### X#######
#######* *########* *####X *##### *#######
#######* XXXXXXX########X#####XXXX######XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX**#######
*######X X#############################################* X######*
####### X#####XXX#########XXXXXXXX#######XXXXX######* #######
X###### X####* *########* X####X X####* ######X
######* X####* ########X X####X X####* X######
###### X####* ########### X####* X####X ######
X###### ##################* X####X####X ######
####### ########* X#######X X#######X ######X
######X ######* *######## ####### X######
######* ###### *######## *#####* X######
####### ######## X#######X *#######* ######X
X###### ########## *######## *#########* ######
###### #####* ##### *############# ##### ######
######* #####* ##### X########## ##### *######
X###### X####* ##### *######## #####* ######X
######* X#####XXXXXX######XXXXXXX#########XXXX###### #######
X######* X############################################# *######X
#######* ###########XX#########X################X##XX##X*#######
*#######* *####X #####*######## #######
*#######* *####X #####* ########* *#######*
*#######* *#########* X#######X X#######*
*######## X####### *#######X########
#########* X#####* #############X
X#########* X###* ###########X
##########X* ##X XX#########X
*X###########X** ***###########X
*X################XXXXXX################X*
*##################################*
*X##########################X*
**X################X**
********
Just Say No to Phariseeism
Joebruno
> America's most influential people and primary allies are the Jews, no
> doubt about it.
I will doubt it until you prove it. They comprise less than 3% of the
voters.
Now, according to the Bible they frequently murdered
> Prophets and Apostles.
Cite the passage.
Are they the Christ Killers? Well, when
> Christ's coming was eminent, the Jews murdered their own children to
> prevent his birth!
PROOF??????????????????????
How can Jews living today be held responsible for something that
happened 2,000 years ago? Have you ever seen anyone convicted of a
crime that happened before he was born? If so, please cite the court
case.
European Peace Keeping Forces (The Roman Army)
Peace keeping?HAHAHAHA. The Romans conquered Judea and killed anyone
who posed a threat to their occupation. That's why they crucified
Jesus-he had lots of followers and they were afraid he would lead a
revolt against their rule.
Agamemnon
"Joebruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:bf3896a1.04013...@posting.google.com...
That is simply not true.
Gibson Asked to Add Note To Film
Jewish leader requests a postcript to `The Passion of the Christ.'
By TIM RUTTEN
The Los Angeles Times
The leader of one of two Jewish organizations that condemned Mel Gibson's
forthcoming film, "The Passion of the Christ," as an incitement to
antiSemitism said last week that his organization is preparing an 11th-hour
appeal for a cinematic postscript to the movie.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in
an interview that he has all but given up hope Gibson's final cut of the
film will omit problematic material from the Gospels. Some Catholic and
Protestant scholars believe some material, particularly quotations and
chronologies drawn from the Gospel attributed to Matthew, is not only
inaccurate but also a provocation to hatred of Jews.
Gibson was baptized a Catholic, but now belongs to a schismatic congregation
that rejects most of the practices and teachings adopted by the church over
the past 40 years.
Foxman said he is preparing a letter asking the filmmaker, who self-financed
the $25-million "Passion," to append a personal statement to the version
scheduled for release Ash Wednesday (Feb. 25) in which Gibson would condemn
any bigoted interpretation of his Passion narrative.
"Mel Gibson, like all of us, has a right to freely express himself," Foxman
said. "As an artist, let him have the film he wants to have. But, given the
film he has made, I would like to see him do a postscript. Let him say, `I
did this film because I believe I was inspired by the Holy Ghost. I believe
that Jesus suffered for all mankind. Some people want to put the blame for
his death on the Jews. Don't do that. I've said I wanted to make a `Passion'
of love. Blaming Jews for Christ's death would make this a `Passion' of
hate.' "
Conversations between the ADL and Gibson broke off some time ago over the
organization's early expressions of anxiety over the movie's content. "But I
haven't given up," Foxman said.
A call to Gibson spokesman Alan Nierob seeking comment on the ADL proposal
was not returned.
Foxman -- who like other ADL officials has been barred by Gibson from
screenings of "The Passion" -- finally managed to see a version last week by
surreptitiously entering a gathering of Protestant ministers in Orlando,
where it was being shown by the filmmaker.
Foxman and Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, the ADL's interfaith consultant,
registered as pastors with the fictitious "Church of Truth" in Brooklyn,
N.Y. After the film, Foxman said the film's portrayal of Jews was "painful
to watch."
What Foxman saw, he said, "was a film that portrayed Jews as blood-thirsty
and unambiguously responsible for the death of Christ. I now understand why
Mr. Gibson didn't want us to see it."
A statement from Gibson's company accused the two men of "deceit." John
Maxwell, chairman of the Global Pastors Network that sponsored the
convention, said, "I am disappointed they lied to get in."
Foxman said he had no choice but to lie. "I am sorry we had to engage in
stealth tactics, but only because he (Gibson) forced us to," he told the
Orlando Sentinel.
Other Jewish leaders who saw the film last week said they went in openly.
David Elcott, interfaith director for the American Jewish Committee, saw the
film in Chicago and said he was "completely upfront" about his affiliation
and was welcomed warmly.
Elcott, too, noted the film's revival of anti-Semitic stereotypes and drew
particular attention to Gibson's decision to include Matthew 27:25, in which
the group of Jews present when the Roman governor Pontius Pilate condemned
Jesus to death is supposed to have said, "His blood be upon us and upon our
children."
According to sources involved in Catholic-Jewish dialogue in the United
States, Gibson's inclusion of such material in what is essentially a
contemporary Passion play has become a growing concern among some American
prelates. They have begun informal conversations about the advisability of
taking some sort of action in advance of this film's theatrical release, the
sources say.
One possible step would be to draw Catholics' attention to the fact that
their church has a formal set of "Criteria for the Evaluation of
Dramatizations of the Passion."
Those guidelines were adopted by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
in 1988 and specifically warn against inclusion of several points Gibson has
incorporated into versions of his movie now being screened.
For example, in the matter of that verse from Matthew -which appears in none
of the other Gospels -- the bishops' guidelines warn that it can be used in
a manner "clearly implying a `blood guilt' on all Jews in all times in
violation of (the Second Vatican Council's) dictum that `what happened in
his Passion cannot be blamed on all the Jews then living without distinction
nor upon Jews today.' "
Since his youth, Foxman has enjoyed an unusually close relationship with the
Catholic Church. As a Jewish child in wartime Poland, he was separated from
his parents and saved by his nanny, who had him baptized and raised him as a
Catholic. After the war, he was reunited with his parents and returned to
Judaism.
"I have," he said, "a tremendous love and respect for the church that gave
me life again. Forty years ago, we in the ADL helped the bishops to write
those guidelines that permit artists to be honest about their faith without
being hateful in their work. What Mel Gibson is doing is as much an attack
on the Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council as it is anything
else."
Material from Religion News Service was included in this story.
Last modified: January 31. 2004 12:00AM
Dorian West
news:bvi4eq$95c$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
WRT the last paragraph. Why is what Mel Gibson doing "an attack
on the Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council as it is anything
else."? Why can't these Jews face up to reality and realise that they are
Christ Killing SOBs who have been cursed by God to endless persecutions.
Their behaviour with this shows them for the accursed dogs that they are.
Instead of being murderous and confrontational they should repent and
ask for forgiveness.
Agamemnon
"Dorian West" <westd...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:401cb391$0$15138$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:bvi4eq$95c$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Joebruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
> > news:bf3896a1.04013...@posting.google.com...
> > > Dietma...@aol.com (DFD) wrote in message
> > news:<9bfc4929.04013...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > America's most influential people and primary allies are the Jews,
no
> > > > doubt about it.
> > Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said
> in
> >
> > "I have," he said, "a tremendous love and respect for the church that
gave
> > me life again. Forty years ago, we in the ADL helped the bishops to
write
> > those guidelines that permit artists to be honest about their faith
> without
> > being hateful in their work. What Mel Gibson is doing is as much an
attack
> > on the Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council as it is anything
> > else."
> >
>
> WRT the last paragraph. Why is what Mel Gibson doing "an attack
> on the Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council as it is anything
> else."? Why can't these Jews face up to reality and realise that they are
> Christ Killing SOBs who have been cursed by God to endless persecutions.
> Their behaviour with this shows them for the accursed dogs that they are.
> Instead of being murderous and confrontational they should repent and
> ask for forgiveness.
>
The racist hypocrisy and double standards that is coming out from these
people is astonishing.
When the Anti-Defamation League funds films, books and newspaper articles
defaming all Germans as Jew killers and blaming them for the crimes of their
forefathers which Germany has already acknowledged and sought forgiveness
for you don't hear a word of criticism or complaint. But when the shoe is on
the other foot and Mel Gibson brings to everyone's attention the undisputed
fact that the Jews ancestors killed Christ the Jews sharpen their knives.
When are these people going to do the honourable thing like Germany did
after WW2 and recognise the fact that they did bad things in the past and
when are they going to educate their people that what they did was wrong so
that it can never happen again. Not only did the Jews kill Christ but they
also massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent Greek civilians in Cyrene
and Cyprus in the 135 AD rebellion.
Why is it that no Jewish organisation has ever criticized the Jewish
slaughter of the Palestinians. Jesus was right when he said they are all
hypocrites and have become a nest of vipers.
DFD
snipped
Usual obfuscation trying to white wash
The answers to your "arguments" are within my post, here it is again,
in case you thought I was wrtiting something else:
America's most influential people and primary allies are the Jews, no
doubt about it. Now, according to the Bible they frequently murdered
Prophets and Apostles. Are they the Christ Killers? Well, when
Christ's coming was eminent, the Jews murdered their own children to
Eb Dawson
<401cb391$0$15138$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au> "Dorian West"
<westd...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>WRT the last paragraph. Why is what Mel Gibson doing "an attack
>on the Catholic Church and the Second Vatican Council as it is anything
>else."? Why can't these Jews face up to reality and realise that they are
>Christ Killing SOBs who have been cursed by God to endless persecutions.
>Their behaviour with this shows them for the accursed dogs that they are.
>Instead of being murderous and confrontational they should repent and
>ask for forgiveness.
Amen Bro Amen!!!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=5rhktv483m9oofgqt8goir93o4pm08ht49%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: 3 Major Jewish Organizations Engage in Holocaust Denial...
Message-ID: <5rhktv483m9oofgqt...@4ax.com>
Date: 12 Dec 2003 22:57:48 GMT
If Jews are allowed to call a historic event a "Holocaust" based on Jews being
tortured, imprisoned, and executed by Nazis then why can't Christians claim Jews
had "Holocausts" against non-Jews/Christians seeing how the 1st Century
Pharisees and the 20th Century Jewish led Bolshevists tortured, imprisoned, and
executed Christians/non-Jews. Jews also deny these other "Holocausts" so going
by their standards they are "Holocaust Deniers" and should be prosecuted for
Holocaust Denial"and "Minimalizing the Holocaust[s])" as well!
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=1i7810p7itigphaaq...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Post-Soviet Religion (What Communists did to Christians) V2.0a S_0125
Message-ID: <1i7810p7itigphaaq...@4ax.com>
Date: 25 Jan 2004 19:53:30 GMT
Tavish
Ajay
http://www.word4life.com/passion.html
Ajay
8Man
"Ajay" <aja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99e77b18.04022...@posting.google.com...
> Wanted to share a perspective on Mel Gibson's movie 'Passion of the
Christ'.
>
> http://www.word4life.com/passion.html > > Ajay
.. for another perspective on who killed Christ, see the last line at:
http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/arabs.htm
Steven Mock
> br...@indystart.com (Joebruno) wrote in message news:<bf3896a1.04013...@posting.google.com>...
>
> snipped
>
> Usual obfuscation trying to white wash
> The answers to your "arguments" are within my post, here it is again,
> in case you thought I was wrtiting something else:
Then why is it you ignore me every time I answer this re-posted rant,
you sorry little hate-monkey?
> America's most influential people and primary allies are the Jews, no
> doubt about it. Now, according to the Bible they frequently murdered
> Prophets and Apostles. Are they the Christ Killers? Well, when
> Christ's coming was eminent, the Jews murdered their own children to
> prevent his birth! European Peace Keeping Forces (The Roman Army)
> watched in horror the atrocity, helpless to interfere due to the usual
> ?treaty of occupation'. The news reaching Rome and other capitals such
> as Lutetia (Paris), Athens, Londinum and Cologne, was first
> disbelieved, then came revulsion and abhorrence. But even Jewish
> soldiers murdering their own children did not prevent Christ's birth,
Just out of curiousity, what sources exactly are you distorting to
manufacture this moronic claim? Still no answer?
<snip>
> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, 'long time ago, etc. And
> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same dogmas,
> the faith whose followers had Jesus murdered?
Absolutely not. I suggest you learn a bit of history before spouting
such ignorant tripe. Even if one takes the NT as literally true, it
is clear that the empowered Jews who collaborated in and advocated the
death of Jesus were the Temple authorities of the Sadducean sect which
had long since lost the allegiance of the vast majority of the
population and whose interpretation of Judaism essentially died out
when the Temple was destroyed. They were placed in their positions by
the Romans and their continued power and authority in the face of
popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the maintenance
of Roman power.
If Jesus was a threat to them, he was a threat to the Romans. If he
was a threat to the Romans, he was a threat to them.
> By logic: if it is the
> same Judaism, they'd do it again! Remember, the Jews voted publicly to
> murder him - three times aloud! If their pretence of friendship with
> us were remotely true, they would be Christians and not Jews, lest we
> forget.
Right. So in the final analysis, your bigotry stems not from any
actual crime or fault, but from the mere fact that they are different
- that they continue to believe and practice different things than
you. Typical.
> And Judaism is the only religion with which Christianity has
> arguments about Jesus Christ.
That would be your problem, not Judaism's. Jesus Christ is irrelevant
to Jewish tradition. Jews don't care what another people choose to
believe about him. It seems its only Christians (and by that I don't
mean all Christians, by any means, merely insecure Christians like
yourself) who seem to be so bothered by what another people thinks and
believes about him. Indeed, I can't think of another situation in
history in which one group of people based their religion on claims as
to how another group of people should interpret THEIR faith. Get over
it. Live and let live.
> The Jews say that we, the Europeans/Romans did it. Not so! We were
> forced by treaty/law to provide the trial and the executioners. They
> pretend we were afraid of a new faith, utter rubbish. Within The
> Empire we had over 8,000 religions, no Caesar thought himself above
> Jupiter, Zeus, Wotan or whatever we called The Almighty. That he could
> lead a rebellion against us? Here are Jesus' own words in reference to
> us: "Render unto Caesar what." That's not rebellion, that's exemplary.
I think you're buying into a lot of propaganda. In fact, the NT is
very conflicted about the extent of Jesus' political involvement as a
Jewish revolutionary, and most scholars view the quotes you are basing
your argument on as having been attributed to him centuries later when
Christians were living under very different political circumstances
vis a vis the Roman empire.
Keep in mind that the immediate event that led to Jesus' arrest was
his "cleansing" of the Temple, an act that would have been perceived
by the Romans as political sedition against the authorities they had
put in place there. Further, the mere claim to the throne of Israel
was an inherently political act from their perspective that would
inevitably lead to rebellion if it was believed. Do note that in
addition to the quotes you keep harping on, Jesus also said, "Do not
suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come
to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34, NIV)
Feel free to run away from these arguments a third time.
Steven Mock
Ron Jacobson
Steven Mock <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote:
(snip some)
>That would be your problem, not Judaism's. Jesus Christ is irrelevant
>to Jewish tradition. Jews don't care what another people choose to
>believe about him. It seems its only Christians (and by that I don't
>mean all Christians, by any means, merely insecure Christians like
>yourself) who seem to be so bothered by what another people thinks and
>believes about him. Indeed, I can't think of another situation in
>history in which one group of people based their religion on claims as
>to how another group of people should interpret THEIR faith. Get over
>it. Live and let live.
That is a very good point. Some people -- like the wacko you
were responding to -- must have an inferiority complex the size of
the sun, to be so troubled just because the Jews don't follow
Christianity. What's the big deal? Those who want, follow.
Those who don't want, don't follow. End of story. All attempts
to shove a religion down people's throats can only lead to the
death of that religion. Pity.
Cheers, RJ.
--
"our system of law and justice would benefit greatly from the
swinging of selected judges from lampposts." -- The Holocaust
revisionist "seneca", reaffirming his commitment to Nazi
ideology, 2/21/04.
Patrick Keenan
news:5c26ed28.04022...@posting.google.com...
It would also be false. Christianity also has had arguments with
Christianity about Jesus Christ. Not to mention just about every other
religion it's come into contact with.
-pk
Debunks2005
>From: sm...@nizkor.org (Steven Mock)
>Date: 2/26/2004 1:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <5c26ed28.04022...@posting.google.com>
>
>Dietma...@aol.com (DFD) wrote in message
>news:<9bfc4929.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>> br...@indystart.com (Joebruno) wrote in message
>news:<bf3896a1.04013...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> snipped
>>
>> Usual obfuscation trying to white wash
>> The answers to your "arguments" are within my post, here it is again,
>> in case you thought I was wrtiting something else:
>
>Then why is it you ignore me every time I answer this re-posted rant,
>you sorry little hate-monkey?
>
>> America's most influential people and primary allies are the Jews, no
>> doubt about it. Now, according to the Bible they frequently murdered
>> Prophets and Apostles. Are they the Christ Killers? Well, when
>> Christ's coming was eminent, the Jews murdered their own children to
>> prevent his birth! European Peace Keeping Forces (The Roman Army)
>> watched in horror the atrocity, helpless to interfere due to the usual
>> ?treaty of occupation'. The news reaching Rome and other capitals such
>> as Lutetia (Paris), Athens, Londinum and Cologne, was first
>> disbelieved, then came revulsion and abhorrence. But even Jewish
>> soldiers murdering their own children did not prevent Christ's birth,
>
>Just out of curiousity, what sources exactly are you distorting to
>manufacture this moronic claim? Still no answer?
>
><snip>
>
>> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, 'long time ago, etc. And
>> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
>> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same dogmas,
>> the faith whose followers had
>Jesus murdered?
>Absolutely not
Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder of Christ
lately, either.
>I suggest you learn a bit of history before spouting
>such ignorant tripe. Even if one takes the NT as literally true, it
>is clear that the empowered Jews who collaborated in and advocated the
>death of Jesus were the Temple authorities of the Sadducean sect which
>had long since lost the allegiance of the vast majority of the
>population and whose interpretation of Judaism essentially died out
>when the Temple was destroyed.
Is that so? They did not induce Pilate and threaten him if he did not accede
to their demands to put the Messiah to death? What is your excuse for the
authors and codifiers of the Talmud and all their hateful comments relating to
Jesus and His Mother? Did the Romans force them to include those too?
>They were placed in their positions by
>the Romans and their continued power and authority in the face of
>popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the maintenance
>of Roman power.
Blah blah. The red herring won't withstand detailed investigation.
>If Jesus was a threat to them, he was a threat to the Romans.
He was NO threat to the Romans. Was St. stephen also a threat to the Romans?
St. James?
>If he
>was a threat to the Romans, he was a threat to them.
NONSENSE> The Romans were the most tolerant of all ancient societies when it
came to freedom of worship, and bent over backwards to cater to Jewish
sensitivities. That is why Pilate allowed himself to be pressured into
executing the Messiah at the behest of the High Priests. They 'had no King but
Caesar," remember?
> By logic: if it is the
>> same Judaism, they'd do it again! Remember, the Jews voted publicly to
>> murder him - three times aloud! If their pretence of friendship with
>> us were remotely true, they would be Christians and not Jews, lest we
>> forget.
>Right. So in the final analysis, your bigotry stems
Forget HIS alleged 'bigotry' - let's talk about the bigotry inherent in
Talmudic Judaism, Steve.
>not from any
>actual crime or fault, but from the mere fact that they are different
>- that they continue to believe and practice different things than
>you. Typical.
Their being 'different' has no bearing on this subject. Everyone is
'different' in some way or another.
>> And Judaism is the only religion with which Christianity has
>> arguments about Jesus Christ.
>
>That would be your problem, not Judaism's.
No, the problem is Talmudic Judaism, not 'true' Judaism, which was fulfilled
with the death and resurrection of the Messiah.
> Jesus Christ is irrelevant
>to Jewish tradition.
See? There he goes and proves the point succinctly.
> Jews don't care what another people choose to
>believe about him.
Apparently the DO:
http://www.supportmelgibson.com/gallery.htm
>It seems its only Christians (and by that I don't
>mean all Christians, by any means, merely insecure Christians like
>yourself) who seem to be so bothered by what another people thinks and
>believes about him.
LOL! Why don't you send that message off to Abe Foxman and co, only
substituting Talmudists for 'Christians'?
>Indeed, I can't think of another situation in
>history in which one group of people based their religion on claims as
>to how another group of people should interpret THEIR faith. Get over
>it. Live and let live.
OUR Gospels instructs us to preach the Gospel to all people everywhere. The
fact is, the Talmudists need to restrain themselves from this constant urge of
theirs to meddle in everyone else's affairs...to control, direct, and dominate
them, even to the point of demanding the 'right' to reinterpret and censor OUR
Scriptures for us.
>> The Jews say that we, the Europeans/Romans did it. Not so! We were
>> forced by treaty/law to provide the trial and the executioners. They
>> pretend we were afraid of a new faith, utter rubbish. Within The
>> Empire we had over 8,000 religions, no Caesar thought himself above
> Jupiter, Zeus, Wotan or whatever we called The Almighty. That he could
>> lead a rebellion against us? Here are Jesus' own words in reference to
>> us: "Render unto Caesar what." That's not rebellion, that's
>exemplary.
>I think you're buying into a lot of propaganda.
Clearly not yours.
>In fact, the NT is
>very conflicted about the extent of Jesus' political involvement as a
>Jewish revolutionary,
No, it isn't 'conflicted' on this point at all. Another one of your scarecrow
diversions.
>and most scholars
Those dime store pocket scholars of yours again. Talmudic shills. Judaizers.
>view the quotes you are basing
>your argument on as having been attributed to him centuries later when
>Christians were living under very different political circumstances
>vis a vis the Roman empire.
Well reality is not going to be remolded in your image or fantasies, Steve.
>Keep in mind that the immediate event that led to Jesus' arrest was
>his "cleansing" of the Temple,
They had LONG been seeking a pretext to have him arrested and murdered. It did
not by any means begin just with the cleansing of the Temple money grubbers.
>an act that would have been perceived
>by the Romans as political sedition
The Romans perceived NOTHING, as they were not allowed to enter the precincts
of the Temple, friend.
>against the authorities they had
>put in place there.
If by authorities you mean "Jews' then you are correct.
>Further, the mere claim to the throne of Israel
>was an inherently political act from their perspective that would
>inevitably lead to rebellion if it was believed.
"My Kingdom is not of this world"
>Do note that in
>addition to the quotes you keep harping on, Jesus also said, "Do not
>suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come
>to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34, NIV)
And you fail to understand what THAT means, too. He did not literally mean the
sword, but conflict between friends and family over the meaning of His ministry
and saving graces. He also referred to imminent persecution:
Mt 20: 23-
But Jesus made answer and said, You have no idea what you are requesting. Are
you able to take of the cup which I am about to take? 23
Debunks2005
>Date: 2/26/2004 2:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c1lqaa$run$1...@pcls4.std.com>
>
>In article <5c26ed28.04022...@posting.google.com>,
>Steven Mock <sm...@nizkor.org> wrote:
>
> (snip some)
>
>>That would be your problem, not Judaism's. Jesus Christ is irrelevant
>>to Jewish tradition. Jews don't care what another people choose to
>>believe about him. It seems its only Christians (and by that I don't
>>mean all Christians, by any means, merely insecure Christians like
>>yourself) who seem to be so bothered by what another people thinks and
>>believes about him. Indeed, I can't think of another situation in
>>history in which one group of people based their religion on claims as
>>to how another group of people should interpret THEIR faith. Get over
>>it. Live and let live.
>
> That is a very good point. Some people -- like the wacko you
>were responding to -- must have an inferiority complex the size of
>the sun, to be so troubled just because the Jews don't follow
>Christianity. What's the big deal? Those who want, follow.
>Those who don't want, don't follow. End of story. All attempts
>to shove a religion down people's throats can only lead to the
>death of that religion. Pity.
>
>Cheers, RJ.
Fine. Pass that message along to the Abe Foxmans of this world and tell them
to keep their noses out of our business.
Debunks2005
>Date: 2/26/2004 1:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <tWt%b.15557$Mo4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>
There is a world of difference between theological discussions about Christ
between Christians and utter rejection of Christ by Talmudists.
Patrick Keenan
news:20040226191056...@mb-m17.aol.com...
Are you saying that Gardnerians are also "Talmudists"? Taoists and Hindus,
too?
I suppose you will simply classify those followers of Christ who the early
church condemned as heretics as non-Christians as well, so that they don't
challenge your notions...
-pk
Debunks2005
>From: "Patrick Keenan" te...@dev.null
>Message-id: <V2w%b.16282$Mo4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Do they adhere to the Talmud? No. Ergo, I shall not be saying it.
>I suppose you will simply classify those followers of Christ who the early
>church condemned as heretics as non-Christians as well, so that they don't
>challenge your notions...
>
>-pk
I classify them as heretics and/or apostates. The talmudists are in a distinct
class by themselves.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20040226190931...@mb-m17.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 27 Feb 2004 00:09:31 GMT, debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote:
> > (snip some)
Free society, Joe. You get to play the little Hitler, and Jews get
to criticize Gibson's movie.
And until you take power and start to burn Jews, sucks to be you.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQD6qvDfbIykA6SysEQJKvQCgpLkB7N2/y1qFJuz7epF1IqarfXsAn0xC
7IF3yG9QlFn8Hjb18dW2e5s5
=Cyqf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gord McFee
Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
> I classify them as heretics and/or apostates. The talmudists are in
> a distinct class by themselves.
Of course. The Jews are special, right Joe? That's what it's all
about. They deserve "special" treatment, don't they Joe?
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Patrick Keenan
And yet, they are groups that reject Jesus Christ as either divine or
saviour.
>
> >I suppose you will simply classify those followers of Christ who the
early
> >church condemned as heretics as non-Christians as well, so that they
don't
> >challenge your notions...
> >
> >-pk
>
> I classify them as heretics and/or apostates. The talmudists are in a
distinct
> class by themselves.
By the way, Muslims don't accept Christ as divine, either. So why aren't
you attacking them?
-pk
Joebruno
> America's most influential people and primary allies are the Jews, no
> doubt about it.
Prove it.
Now, according to the Bible they frequently murdered
> Prophets and Apostles. Are they the Christ Killers? Well, when
> Christ's coming was eminent, the Jews murdered their own children to
> prevent his birth!
Proof??????????????
European Peace Keeping Forces (The Roman Army)
> watched in horror the atrocity, helpless to interfere due to the usual
> ?treaty of occupation'. The news reaching Rome and other capitals such
> as Lutetia (Paris), Athens, Londinum and Cologne, was first
> disbelieved, then came revulsion and abhorrence. But even Jewish
> soldiers murdering their own children did not prevent Christ's birth,
> so they ensnared Jesus, since for the Jews he is an enemy wanting to
> extend God's mercy to the Gentiles. He detested them, just read about
> his disgust with the hypocrisy of their faith. With obfuscations they
> wanted to deceive Pontius Pilatus, who tried to get Jesus freed, but
> the Jews were determined to kill Jesus. Pilatus hoped that at least in
> public the Jews would have mercy on Jesus, who claimed no political
> authority. But the Jews were merciless with Jesus. Yes, with Jesus the
> Jews were merciless! Flabbergasted, Pilatus asked the Jews three
> times, no difference: the Jews preferred a murderer instead of Jesus;
> the Jews had neither mercy for Jesus nor did they pity him ? and they
> still practise the same Judaism, the religion that has no mercy for
> Jesus Christ. Disgusted by those people our representative washed his
> hands, and thus Europe's hands, of the affair. And these people
> influence US politics and are America's primary allies, may God have
> pity on America.
>
> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, ?long time ago, etc. And
> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same dogmas,
> the faith whose followers had Jesus murdered? By logic: if it is the
> same Judaism, they'd do it again! Remember, the Jews voted publicly to
> murder him ? three times aloud! If their pretence of friendship with
> us were remotely true, they would be Christians and not Jews, lest we
> forget. And Judaism is the only religion with which Christianity has
> arguments about Jesus Christ.
>
> The Jews say that we, the Europeans/Romans did it. Not so! We were
> forced by treaty/law to provide the trial and the executioners. They
> pretend we were afraid of a new faith, utter rubbish. Within The
> Empire we had over 8,000 religions, no Caesar thought himself above
> Jupiter, Zeus, Wotan or whatever we called The Almighty. That he could
> lead a rebellion against us? Here are Jesus' own words in reference to
> us: "Render unto Caesar what?" That's not rebellion, that's exemplary.
> Also, once a Centurion asked Jesus to heal his dying daughter. Jesus
> said: "It is done." The Centurion said: "Thank you. May I take leave
> of you and return to my duty?" Surprised, Jesus asked the Centurion if
> he did not want to go home to his daughter. The Centurion replied that
> he trusted Jesus and his command, therefore he had no need to go
> absent; he added that when he gave orders to his troops, they too obey
> his command with or without his presence. As to that Jesus said: "If
> only 100 of my people had your faith, I could save them ALL!" We had
> absolutely no reason to harm this man! NB: the implication is that
> WITHOUT 100 Jews like our Centurion; Jesus will save NONE of them.
>
> Should Americans ask their candidates if they recently came into
> possession of thirty pieces of ?lobby' silver?
Show me one court case where someone is convicted of something that
happened before he was born. Show me one where an entire group is
convicted of a crime committed by a few of it's members. Your bullshit
is irrational and uncivilized, and so are you.
Will you take responsibility for rapes and murders committed by
Catholic knights during the Crusades? If not, then all your bullshit
is hypocrisy.
Joebruno
Show me one court case where someone is convicted of something before
he was born, idiot. Show me one where an entire group is held
responsible for what a few of them did. Your post is irrational and
stupid and so are you.
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
> >From: "Patrick Keenan" te...@dev.null
> >Date: 2/26/2004 4:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <V2w%b.16282$Mo4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> >
> >"Debunks2005" <debun...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20040226191056...@mb-m17.aol.com...
>
> >> Christ between Christians and utter rejection of Christ by Talmudists.
> >
> >Are you saying that Gardnerians are also "Talmudists"? Taoists and Hindus,
> >too?
>
> Do they adhere to the Talmud? No. Ergo, I shall not be saying it.
Who cares? Why is their rejection of Christ any different than that
of "Talmudists"?
> >I suppose you will simply classify those followers of Christ who the early
> >church condemned as heretics as non-Christians as well, so that they don't
> >challenge your notions...
>
> I classify them as heretics and/or apostates. The talmudists are in a
> distinct class by themselves.
Why?
Steven Mock
Steven Mock
LOL! "Loosely" is being very generous, Joe. Tell me, do you think
what is written above is an accurate depiction of the events described
in Matthew 2?
> >> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, 'long time ago, etc. And
> >> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
> >> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same dogmas,
> >> the faith whose followers had
>
> >Jesus murdered?
>
> >Absolutely not
>
> Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder of Christ
> lately, either.
So you acknowledge that this claim that the Jews of today practice the
same Judaism with the same dogmas as those who had Jesus killed is
false, then.
> >I suggest you learn a bit of history before spouting
> >such ignorant tripe. Even if one takes the NT as literally true, it
> >is clear that the empowered Jews who collaborated in and advocated the
> >death of Jesus were the Temple authorities of the Sadducean sect which
> >had long since lost the allegiance of the vast majority of the
> >population and whose interpretation of Judaism essentially died out
> >when the Temple was destroyed.
>
> Is that so? They did not induce Pilate and threaten him if he did not accede
> to their demands to put the Messiah to death? What is your excuse for the
> authors and codifiers of the Talmud and all their hateful comments relating
> to Jesus and His Mother? Did the Romans force them to include those too?
Calling somebody bad names is not the same as killing them, Joe.
> >They were placed in their positions by
> >the Romans and their continued power and authority in the face of
> >popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the maintenance
> >of Roman power.
>
> Blah blah. The red herring won't withstand detailed investigation.
Then what are you waiting for?
> >If Jesus was a threat to them, he was a threat to the Romans.
>
> He was NO threat to the Romans. Was St. stephen also a threat to the Romans?
> St. James?
>
> >If he
> >was a threat to the Romans, he was a threat to them.
>
> NONSENSE> The Romans were the most tolerant of all ancient societies when it
> came to freedom of worship, and bent over backwards to cater to Jewish
> sensitivities.
But it had nothing to do with religious sensitivities, Joe. It was
about political control, an issue over which the Romans most certainly
were NOT a tolerant society.
> >> By logic: if it is the
> >> same Judaism, they'd do it again! Remember, the Jews voted publicly to
> >> murder him - three times aloud! If their pretence of friendship with
> >> us were remotely true, they would be Christians and not Jews, lest we
> >> forget.
>
> >Right. So in the final analysis, your bigotry stems
>
> Forget HIS alleged 'bigotry' - let's talk about the bigotry inherent in
> Talmudic Judaism, Steve.
If you're so determined to change the subject...
> >not from any
> >actual crime or fault, but from the mere fact that they are different
> >- that they continue to believe and practice different things than
> >you. Typical.
>
> Their being 'different' has no bearing on this subject. Everyone is
> 'different' in some way or another.
Sure it is, Joe. It is clear that this poster - and yourself - do
not, in fact, hold the Jews of today collectively responsible for a
crime allegedly committed by a handful of people who are not even
their direct ideological predecessors some 2000 years ago. Rather,
you both merely use this as an excuse to blame them for remaining
Jews.
> >> And Judaism is the only religion with which Christianity has
> >> arguments about Jesus Christ.
>
> >That would be your problem, not Judaism's.
>
> No, the problem is Talmudic Judaism, not 'true' Judaism, which was fulfilled
> with the death and resurrection of the Messiah.
>
> > Jesus Christ is irrelevant to Jewish tradition.
>
> See? There he goes and proves the point succinctly.
And you have just proven mine. I'm sorry, Joe. There are people in
this world who believe differently than you. Not everyone holds the
same things sacred at the centre of their belief system. You are just
going to have to live with that.
> >It seems its only Christians (and by that I don't
> >mean all Christians, by any means, merely insecure Christians like
> >yourself) who seem to be so bothered by what another people thinks and
> >believes about him.
>
> LOL! Why don't you send that message off to Abe Foxman and co, only
> substituting Talmudists for 'Christians'?
Because it would make no sense. The same message would not apply to
"Abe Foxman and co.", whose issue has nothing to do with what another
people chooses to believe.
<snip>
Steven Mock
Frappe Boy
> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same dogmas,
> the faith whose followers had Jesus murdered? By logic: if it is the
> same Judaism, they'd do it again! Remember, the Jews voted publicly to
> us were remotely true, they would be Christians and not Jews, lest we
> forget. And Judaism is the only religion with which Christianity has
> arguments about Jesus Christ.
Actually Judaism is the only religion with which Christianity
consistently LOSES arguments regarding the true nature of Jesus
Christ. Your drive to slander Jews as "killers of Jesus" in this post
and other forms of antisemitism comes from the grudge you hold against
Jews for being more articulate than you on matters theological. Even
though Christianity led Europeans to a state of mini englightment
which caused technological progress it has failed to bring Salvation.
Perhaps by the way this is why the concept of the Second Coming has
been invented like Eliyahu points out. Judaism has not become
obsolete as a result of Christianity. Jews have higher IQs (because
of Judaism?) so they would have noticed. More likely they know
something that you and other "Christians" do not. No I don't mean the
false translations of the Talmud (another antisemitic scheme) that
circulate on the net. Keep trying though.
Jason K Lambrou
Joebruno wrote:
What about you Bruno, you want Turks to kill Greeks, you scumbag,
it is hereditary with you ain't it you filthy traitor.Russian my ass you are
a Kazar.
Henry Hooray
"Jews have higher IQs"
Believe me, there are Jews who are more stupid than I am. I'm equally sure
that there are Jews who are smarter than me as well.
So what. And what is the Greek connection, I wonder.
Henry.
"Frappe Boy" <myfr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49b0cfb3.04022...@posting.google.com...
Roman
[crap snipped]
Stupid Henrietta, you forgot to mention that 2+2=4, and when you let a
stone drop, it falls down to the ground, also if you put something in a
fire it will get burned. Geesh... all this huge amount of wisdom our
stupid little bleating turk is suddenly able to spew forth!! LOL!
--
In the German language the old word to "türken" (to turkify) means "to
falsify".
gogu
στο μήνυμα news:c1o70j$v36$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> How I dislike these generalisations.
>
> "Jews have higher IQs"
Of course you dislike them DUMB Henrietta!
You are a NOTORIOUS anti-Semite and a hitler's sympathizer, so no wonder...
"LESSER BEINGS"!!! Her master hitler used to use this term:-))
(UNDERMENSCH):-)
"GASTARBEITER"!!!
Neo-NAZIS are using this RACIST term!!!
Etc, etc, etc...
Enjoy the RACIST BASTARD!
---------------
"Henry Hooray" <c2mi...@sneakeLEAVETHISOUTmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqvqnb$rvj$3...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
I seriously consider Roman, Jason, gogu and yourself to be LESSER BEINGS,
--------------
"Henry-the Racist-Pig" <c2mi...@sneakeLEAVETHISOUTmail.com> wrote in
message news:bq82r2$top$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Who got attracted? Well, the particularly unintelligent racist GASTARBEITER
Roman, that's who.
-------------
> Believe me, there are Jews who are more stupid than I am.
LOL
No person can be more stupid than the DUMB NAZI Turkish TROLL Henrietta aka
Wolf-wolf:-)))
> I'm equally sure
> that there are Jews who are smarter than me as well.
Definitely!
Quite every single one of them :-))))
Every anti-Semite like you is DUMB:-)))
> So what. And what is the Greek connection, I wonder.
What is the Greek connection with a NAZI Turk like you, the resident TROLL
and FLAMER of scg?...
Get lost you filthy NAZI, you are a despicable fascist worm!
--
http://www.romclub.4t.com/rabin.html
E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure in codesto reame
debban risolversi tutte con grandi puttane!
F.d.A
> Henry-the-Racist-Scumbag.
DFD
> Dietma...@aol.com (DFD) wrote in message news:<9bfc4929.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > br...@indystart.com (Joebruno) wrote in message news:<bf3896a1.04013...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > snipped
> >
> Then why is it you ignore me every time I answer this re-posted rant,
> you sorry little hate-monkey?
snipped
Hate-monkey? LOL! Don't forget, I am following orders, given by your
friend McVay, remember how he and you hatefully atatcked my post,
derailed it with you bloody camps, your Hitler and his Jews?
Hate-maonkey? You know, I haven't been an anti-Semite until recently,
but reading the constant hate-posts by people such as 'xodus' etc.
Well, what's wrong with posting similar articles, but in the opposite
direction, repaying in coin as it were? Incidentally, are they
hate-monkeys too?
Oh, and tell your friend Mr. McVay that there are two more like these
to follow, the last one will be about his beloved camps, and he wont
like it, trust me. Although, I am not one of your 'deniers'.
The rest of your reply, sorry, 'can't be bothered.
DFD
PS reposting is cheap
Steven Mock
> sm...@nizkor.org (Steven Mock) wrote in message news:<5c26ed28.04022...@posting.google.com>...
> > Dietma...@aol.com (DFD) wrote in message news:<9bfc4929.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > br...@indystart.com (Joebruno) wrote in message news:<bf3896a1.04013...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > snipped
> > >
>
> > Then why is it you ignore me every time I answer this re-posted rant,
> > you sorry little hate-monkey?
>
> snipped
>
> Hate-monkey? LOL! Don't forget, I am following orders, given by your
> friend McVay, remember how he and you hatefully atatcked my post,
> derailed it with you bloody camps, your Hitler and his Jews?
No, I don't. Are you on drugs or something?
> Hate-maonkey? You know, I haven't been an anti-Semite until recently,
> but reading the constant hate-posts by people such as 'xodus' etc.
Well clearly, then, you were at least predisposed to mindless bigotry,
if it was so easy for you to develop hostility against millions of
people the vast majority of whom you've never met, all based on the
activities of a handful of anonymous usenet posters.
> Well, what's wrong with posting similar articles, but in the opposite
> direction, repaying in coin as it were? Incidentally, are they
> hate-monkeys too?
Maybe. I haven't seen their posts, so I can't say. I tend to judge
people as individuals, based on what they, themselves do and say.
Hence this lame attempt at a "tu quoque" fallacy falls flat. What
other people might do does not in the slightest address the mindless
hatred I have exposed in your discourse.
> The rest of your reply, sorry, 'can't be bothered.
Right. So when someone asks serious questions poking holes in your
made-up facts and illogical arguments, you just snip and run.
Not surprising. Tends to be standard practice for anonymous racists
cowards, who make insinuations around the claim that no one can or
will dispute their claims or ideas with serious discussion. Yet
inevitably, when someone actually tries, their response it to cry foul
and flee with their tails between their legs.
Here's what DFD "couldn't be bothered" to answer:
<snip>
Feel free to run away from these arguments a fourth time.
Steven Mock
DFD
> > > hate-monkey?
> >
> > snipped
> >
> > Hate-monkey? LOL! Don't forget, I am following orders, given by your
> > friend McVay, remember how he and you hatefully atatcked my post,
> > derailed it with you bloody camps, your Hitler and his Jews?
>
> No, I don't. Are you on drugs or something?
What an argument...
> predisposed to mindless bigotry,
> I tend to judge
> the mindless
> hatred I have exposed in your discourse.
> poking holes in your
> made-up facts and illogical arguments, you just snip and run.
> practice for anonymous racists
> cowards, who make insinuations around the claim that no one can or
> will dispute their claims or ideas with serious discussion. Yet
> inevitably, when someone actually tries, their response it to cry foul
> and flee with their tails between their legs
Incredible, where did you get all that 'stuff' from? Quite funny
though. But you forgot 'repellant' and 'disgusting', well, these are
probably to follow.
LOL
DFD
Steven Mock
> sm...@nizkor.org (Steven Mock) wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > snipped
> > > > hate-monkey?
> > >
> > > snipped
> > >
> > > Hate-monkey? LOL! Don't forget, I am following orders, given by your
> > > friend McVay, remember how he and you hatefully atatcked my post,
> > > derailed it with you bloody camps, your Hitler and his Jews?
> >
> > No, I don't. Are you on drugs or something?
>
> What an argument...
It wasn't an argument. Merely an observation in response to a rather
delusional claim that had nothing whatsoever to do with what we were
discussing.
> > predisposed to mindless bigotry, I tend to judge
> > the mindless hatred I have exposed in your discourse.
> > poking holes in your
> > made-up facts and illogical arguments, you just snip and run.
> > practice for anonymous racists
> > cowards, who make insinuations around the claim that no one can or
> > will dispute their claims or ideas with serious discussion. Yet
> > inevitably, when someone actually tries, their response it to cry foul
> > and flee with their tails between their legs
>
> Incredible, where did you get all that 'stuff' from?
From the way that you snipped and ran from my arguments and
observations relating to your ignorant assertions, all the while
whining about how your opponants merely abuse you rather than debating
your arguments.
Well, I'm trying to debate your arguments. Where are you?
Here are my points again, for you to snip and run from a fifth time:
<snip>
Steven Mock
Tamarisk
1)Jews are not Anti-Christ
2)Being an american ally doesen't mean you are anti-christ
3)Jesus died for ALL people's sins (sins of the whole world, not just
Jews)
4)I am not a Jew
5)Jewish hate all came from a book which was modified (books of sion)
with Jewish statements in.
6)Inform Yourself
7)Treat others as you expect others to treat you.
Dietma...@aol.com (DFD) wrote in message news:<9bfc4929.0403...@posting.google.com>...
Debunks2005
>Date: 2/27/2004 6:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <49b0cfb3.04022...@posting.google.com>
>
>> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, ?long time ago, etc. And
>> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
>> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same dogmas,
>> the faith whose followers had Jesus murdered? By logic: if it is the
>> same Judaism, they'd do it again! Remember, the Jews voted publicly to
>> murder him ? three times aloud! If their pretence of friendship with
>> us were remotely true, they would be Christians and not Jews, lest we
>> forget. And Judaism is the only religion with which Christianity has
>> arguments about Jesus Christ.
>
>Actually Judaism is the only religion with which Christianity
>consistently LOSES arguments regarding the true nature of Jesus
>Christ.
Not in this or any other lifetime, friend.
>Your drive to slander Jews as "killers of Jesus" in this post
>and other forms of antisemitism comes from the grudge you hold against
>Jews for being more articulate than you on matters theological.
LOL! Since when is lying and mindless denial a matter of theological
significance-only in the minds of the Talmudists.
> Even
>though Christianity led Europeans to a state of mini englightment
>which caused technological progress it has failed to bring Salvation.
Christ brings salvation. Salvation is a spiritual gift, not secular or
temporal. You Talmudists are always looking for your heaven on earth.
>Perhaps by the way this is why the concept of the Second Coming has
>been invented like Eliyahu points out. Judaism has not become
>obsolete as a result of Christianity.
Talmudic Judaism is outright apostasy. That simple.
>Jews have higher IQs (because
>of Judaism?)
No, because they juggle with the figures.
>) so they would have noticed. More likely they know
>something that you and other "Christians" do not.
That they are in denial? They they know their ancestors are guilty of
murdering the Messiah?
> No I don't mean the
>false translations of the Talmud
What false translations are you referring to?
>(another antisemitic scheme)
Another mindless diversion from the facts.
Debunks2005
Why don't you read it and figure it all out for yourself, Steve?
>> >> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, 'long time ago, etc. And
>> >> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
>> >> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same dogmas,
>> >> the faith whose followers had
>
>> >Jesus murdered?
>>
>> >Absolutely not
>>
>> Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder of Christ
>> lately, either.
>So you acknowledge that this claim that the Jews of today practice the
>same Judaism with the same dogmas as those who had Jesus killed is
>false, then.
The new face of Judiasm, i.e., that which evolved after the crucifixion, is
Talmudism. Apostasy. Rejection of the Messiah. How many thousand of years
have you been waiting for your messiah already? He has already appeared. Get
used to it. If you don't wake up soon you shall get the messiah you deserve.
why continue to torture yourselves over a matter of pride?
>> >I suggest you learn a bit of history before spouting
>> >such ignorant tripe. Even if one takes the NT as literally true, it
>> >is clear that the empowered Jews who collaborated in and advocated the
>> >death of Jesus were the Temple authorities of the Sadducean sect
>which
>> >had long since lost the allegiance of the vast majority of the
>> >population and whose interpretation of Judaism essentially died out
>> >when the Temple was
>destroyed.
>>
>> Is that so? They did not induce Pilate and threaten him if he did not
>accede
>> to their demands to put the Messiah to death? What is your excuse for the
>> authors and codifiers of the Talmud and all their hateful comments relating
>
>> to Jesus and His Mother? Did the Romans force them to include those too?
>Calling somebody bad names is not the same as killing them, Joe.
Ever hear of incitement to murder? Are you denying that Jews perseucted Jewish
Christians unto death? And in significant numbers, too. Particulary under Bar
kokba and rabbi Akkiba.
>>They were placed in their positions by
>> >the Romans and their continued power and authority in the face of
>> >popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the maintenance
>> >of Roman power.
>> Blah blah. The red herring won't withstand detailed investigation.
>
>Then what are you waiting for?
What are 'you' waiting for? You really do not want me to go there, do you?
Didn't your own rabbis invite the Romans and ask for their protection, knowing
fully well that their protection came at a price?
>
>> >If Jesus was a threat to them, he was a threat to the Romans.
>>
>> He was NO threat to the Romans. Was St. stephen also a threat to the
>Romans?
>> St. James?
>>
No answer from Steve, I see...
>> >If he
>> >was a threat to the Romans, he was a threat to them.
>>
>> NONSENSE> The Romans were the most tolerant of all ancient societies when
>it
>> came to freedom of worship, and bent over backwards to cater to Jewish
> sensitivities.
>
>But it had nothing to do with religious sensitivities, Joe. It was
>about political control,
No, it wan't about political control. It was about maintaining peace, and no
nation under Roman control was ever granted the numerous freedoms of expression
which were allowed to the Jews.
>an issue over which the Romans most certainly
>were NOT a tolerant society.
>
I don't think it is necessary to get into some long involved discussion over
Roman politics at this point.
>> By logic: if it is the
>> >> same Judaism, they'd do it again! Remember, the Jews voted publicly to
>> >> murder him - three times aloud! If their pretence of friendship with
>> >> us were remotely true, they would be Christians and not Jews,
>lest we
>> >> forget.
>>
>> >Right. So in the final analysis, your bigotry stems
>>
>> Forget HIS alleged 'bigotry' - let's talk about the bigotry inherent in
>> Talmudic Judaism, Steve.
>
>If you're so determined to change the subject...
Seems you are far more determined than I.
>> >not from any
>> >actual crime or fault, but from the mere fact that they are different
>> >- that they continue to believe and practice different things than
>> >you. Typical.
>> Their being 'different' has no bearing on this subject. Everyone is
>> 'different' in some way or another.
>Sure it is, Joe. It is clear that this poster - and yourself - do
>not, in fact, hold the Jews of today collectively responsible for a
>crime allegedly committed by a handful of people who are not even
>their direct ideological predecessors some 2000 years ago.
>Rather,
>you both merely use this as an excuse to blame them for remaining
>Jews.
I don't require excuses, Steve. I have posted my opinons relating to this
issue quite openly in this forum. Those Jews of later generations who continue
to malign Jesus and His Mother, or ridicule them, or deny or minimize or
rationalize the role of their ancestors in orchestrating His murder and the
murders of thousands of Christians, share a moral guilt with their ancestors.
>>> And Judaism is the only religion with which Christianity has
>> >> arguments about Jesus Christ.
>>
>> >That would be your problem, not Judaism's.
>>
>> No, the problem is Talmudic Judaism, not 'true' Judaism, which was
>fulfilled
>> with the death and resurrection of the Messiah.
>>
>> > Jesus Christ is irrelevant to Jewish tradition.
>See? There he goes and proves the point succinctly.
>
>And you have just proven mine.
I fail to see it.
>I'm sorry, Joe. There are people in
>this world who believe differently than you. Not everyone holds the
>same things sacred at the centre of their belief system. You are just
>going to have to live with that.
You keep forgetting we Christians are under a mandate to preach the Gospel.
>
>> >It seems its only Christians (and by that I don't
>> >mean all Christians, by any means, merely insecure Christians like
>> >yourself) who seem to be so bothered by what another people thinks and
>> >believes about him.
>> LOL! Why don't you send that message off to Abe Foxman and co, only
>> substituting Talmudists for 'Christians'?
>
>Because it would make no sense.
No? Why not?
>The same message would not apply to
>"Abe Foxman and co.", whose issue has nothing to do with what another
>people chooses to believe.
>
><snip>
I think it does.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20040305150407...@mb-m11.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 05 Mar 2004 20:04:07 GMT, debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote:
> Talmudists
Be aware that Joe Bellinger uses this as a code word for the Roman
Catholic Church which he has forsaken.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQEkgbDfbIykA6SysEQJPtwCgmBH9R0Q1D/94nQGU+2BYkDAzRGQAoIZq
eKAUrEBLoChvrzZ+wkk2nW9J
=3HSk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20040305152044...@mb-m11.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 05 Mar 2004 20:20:44 GMT, debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote:
> Apostasy.
Joe is describing his current religion here. He regards the Roman
Catholic Church as a bunch of "Talmudic Judaizers."
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQEkg4zfbIykA6SysEQLGXACeL7PL/SBy/ZAgbc2tvdg6U0HWC8UAnjQt
4WEM7ABhkSN98ZXidYutYfgv
=f4/u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steven Mock
I did. I'm asking you for your opinion, Joe.
> >> >> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, 'long time ago, etc. And
> >> >> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
> >> >> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same dogmas,
> >> >> the faith whose followers had Jesus murdered?
>
> >> >Absolutely not
> >>
> >> Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder of Christ
> >> lately, either.
>
> >So you acknowledge that this claim that the Jews of today practice the
> >same Judaism with the same dogmas as those who had Jesus killed is
> >false, then.
>
> The new face of Judiasm, i.e., that which evolved after the crucifixion, is
> Talmudism. Apostasy. Rejection of the Messiah. How many thousand of years
> have you been waiting for your messiah already? He has already appeared.
> Get used to it. If you don't wake up soon you shall get the messiah you
> deserve. why continue to torture yourselves over a matter of pride?
<sigh> So you acknowledge that this claim that the Jews of today
practice the same Judaism with the same dogmas as those who had Jesus
killed is false, then.
> >> >I suggest you learn a bit of history before spouting
> >> >such ignorant tripe. Even if one takes the NT as literally true, it
> >> >is clear that the empowered Jews who collaborated in and advocated the
> >> >death of Jesus were the Temple authorities of the Sadducean sect which
> >> >had long since lost the allegiance of the vast majority of the
> >> >population and whose interpretation of Judaism essentially died out
> >> >when the Temple was destroyed.
> >>
> >> Is that so? They did not induce Pilate and threaten him if he did not
> accede
> >> to their demands to put the Messiah to death? What is your excuse for the
> >> authors and codifiers of the Talmud and all their hateful comments
> >> relating to Jesus and His Mother? Did the Romans force them to include
> >> those too?
>
> >Calling somebody bad names is not the same as killing them, Joe.
>
> Ever hear of incitement to murder?
You can't incite to murder hundreds of years after the alleged victim
is already dead.
> Are you denying that Jews perseucted Jewish
> Christians unto death? And in significant numbers, too.
Perhaps in the early years, it seems. Are you denying that Christians
persecuted Jews unto death? And in *more* significant numbers?
In any case, it has nothing to do with the subject we were actually
discussing.
> >>They were placed in their positions by
> >> >the Romans and their continued power and authority in the face of
> >> >popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the maintenance
> >> >of Roman power.
>
> >> Blah blah. The red herring won't withstand detailed investigation.
> >
> >Then what are you waiting for?
>
> What are 'you' waiting for?
Hey, you said you could prove me wrong. Go for it.
> You really do not want me to go there, do you?
> Didn't your own rabbis invite the Romans and ask for their protection,
> knowing fully well that their protection came at a price?
No, the Sadduccees are the ones who invited the Romans into Jerusalem,
as they had lost the allegience of the people to the Pharisees and
foreign imperial support was the only means by which they could
recapture power.
> >> >If Jesus was a threat to them, he was a threat to the Romans.
>
> >> He was NO threat to the Romans. Was St. stephen also a threat to the
> >> Romans? St. James?
>
> No answer from Steve, I see...
I have no idea. We weren't talking about St. Stephen. We were
talking about Jesus. So what's your point?
<snip: a few similar evasions>
Steven Mock
Debunks2005
>Date: 2/26/2004 6:27 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c1m9va$1i8e1h$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
I think you are obsessed with the Jews, Gord.
Debunks2005
>From: "Patrick Keenan" te...@dev.null
>Message-id: <nEy%b.9792$ee3.4...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Because the Koran evinces a pronounced respect for Christ and His Mother,
unlike the Talmud and other apostate offerings.
Debunks2005
>Date: 2/27/2004 12:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <5c26ed28.04022...@posting.google.com>
>
hardness of heart, they rejected Him and caused Him to be put to death. Thus,
all those rabbis who continue in the example of their ancestors in hating the
Messiah, bear a unique responsibility for their actions.
Debunks2005
>Date: 2/26/2004 6:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <qiat3054dvj6td417...@4ax.com>
Sure, and they if they can't stand the ensuing heat, they should never have
entered the kitchen.
>And until you take power and start to burn Jews, sucks to be you.
>
>- --
> John Morris
You have a very morbid imagination, Mr. Morris. Ilya Ehrenburg would have
appreciated a man of your talents during the second world war.
Debunks2005
>From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
>Message-id: <358i401jcbdjvt6as...@4ax.com>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In <20040305152044...@mb-m11.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
>on 05 Mar 2004 20:20:44 GMT, debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote:
>
>> Apostasy.
>
>Joe is describing his current religion here. He regards the Roman
>Catholic Church as a bunch of "Talmudic Judaizers."
>
>- --
> John Morris
I would appreciate it if it the future you would allow me to speak for myself
on such issues. How people like you continually wail and whine that posters
who disagree with you here all lump all 'the Jews' into one category, and here
you are adding lump upon lump in your own post. Hypocrite.
Ken Lewis
[snip]
>I think you are obsessed with the Jews, Gord.
LMAO!
So says the fruitloop who has never initiated a thread that did not
involve Jews.
Debunks2005
>Message-id: <5c26ed28.04030...@posting.google.com>
The passage does not call for an opinion or an interpretation, Steve. You seem
to think that everything is open to interpretation. It isn't.
>>> >> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, 'long time ago, etc. And
>> >> >> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
>> >> >> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same dogmas,
>> >> >> the faith whose followers
>had Jesus murdered?
>>
>> >> >Absolutely not
>> >> Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder of Christ
>> >> lately, either.
>>
>> >So you acknowledge that this claim that the Jews of today practice the
>> >same Judaism with the same dogmas as those who had Jesus killed is
>> >false, then.
>> The new face of Judiasm, i.e., that which evolved after the crucifixion, is
>> Talmudism. Apostasy. Rejection of the Messiah. How many thousand of
>years
>> have you been waiting for your messiah already? He has already appeared.
>> Get used to it. If you don't wake
>up soon you shall get the messiah you
>> deserve. why continue to torture yourselves over a matter of pride?
>
>
><sigh> So you acknowledge that this claim that the Jews of today
>practice the same Judaism with the same dogmas as those who had Jesus
>killed is false, then.
No, they do not practice the same dogmas at all. Their Talmud has perverted
Judaism. And this is all a direct result of their abandoment by God for their
persistent rejection of His Son. Read the story of the prodigal son in the New
Testament. The door has always been left open to you people, as God is
merciful.
>> >> >I suggest you learn a bit of history before spouting
>> >> >such ignorant tripe. Even if one takes the NT as literally true, it
>> >> >is clear that the empowered Jews who collaborated in and advocated the
>> >> >death of Jesus were the Temple authorities of the Sadducean sect which
> >> >had long since lost the allegiance of the vast majority of the
>> >> >population and whose interpretation of Judaism essentially died out
>> >> >when the Temple was destroyed.
>> >> Is that so? They did not induce Pilate and threaten him if he did not
>> accede
>> >> to their demands to put the Messiah to death? What is your excuse for
>the
>> >> authors and codifiers of the Talmud and all their hateful comments
>> >> relating to Jesus and His Mother? Did the Romans force them to include
>> >> those too?
No answer from Steve and the answer why is apparent.
>> >Calling somebody bad names is not the same as killing them, Joe.
>>
>> Ever hear of incitement to murder?
>You can't incite to murder hundreds of years after the alleged victim
>is already dead.
Then stop calling people nazis then! Touche'.
.
>> Are you denying that Jews perseucted Jewish
>> Christians unto death? And in significant numbers, too.
>
>Perhaps in the early years, it seems.
Yes, quite so. But those early years encompass at least 400 years in length.
Their constant smears and lies which they spread about the Christians to the
Romans were a cause of manifold suffering. But thank you for making this
admission. Quite decent of you.
>Are you denying that Christians
>persecuted Jews unto death?
Yes, I am. I need to qualify that comment by saying that in much later times,
people 'calling' themselves 'christians' caused Jewish people enormous
suffering, but consider this example:
I will refer you to a tragic incident recalled by Hermann Graetze, the Jewish
historian, who wrote of a persecution of the Jewish community during medieval
times. The local Catholic Bishop tried to dissuade the mob from attacking the
Jewish populace and begged the Jews to allow their children at least to undergo
a pseudo-baptism, which would be INVALID, simply to save their lives. The Jews
refused and the mob butchered them all, tragically. Thus, this incident cannot
be laid at the doorstep of Christianity, for the Popes always exhorted
Christians to leave the Jews unmolested. We cannot say the same for those Jews
who persecuted the Christians, save for ONE outstanding examples: Rabbi
Gamaliel, whom I have quoted for you in this forum. And the rabbis refused to
listen to his sage advice as well! Once again, here is what he said to his
fellow rabbis:
But one of the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a man of learning in the
law, of whom all the people had a high opinion, got up and made a suggestion
for the men to be put outside for a little time. 35 And he said to them, Men of
Israel, take care what you do about these men. 36 For before this there was
Theudas, who said he was someone important, to whom about four hundred men gave
their support: he was put to death, and his band was broken up and came to
nothing. 37 After this man, there was Judas of Galilee, at the time of the
numbering, and some of the people went after him: he was put to death, and all
his supporters were put to flight. 38 And now I say to you, Do nothing to these
men, but let them be: for if this teaching or this work is of men, it will come
to nothing: 39 But if it is of God, you will not be able to overcome them, and
you are in danger of fighting against God. 40
Christianity is still here after 2000 years. It has withstood the test of
time, and the rabbis prophecy has come to pass: the Talmudists are fighting
against God Himself, and still waiting for a train that passed them by 2000
years ago.
> And in *more* significant numbers?
I have no idea how many Christians, as opposed to Jews, have died over the
centuries, and I don't believe anyone else does either. But let me ask you:
does the Communist persecution count in your estimation?
>In any case, it has nothing to do with the subject we were actually
>discussing.
Then why did you ask the question?
>> >>They were placed in their positions by
>> >> >the Romans and their continued power and authority in the face of
>> >> >popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the maintenance
>> >> >of Roman power.
>>
>> >> Blah blah. The red herring won't withstand detailed investigation.
>> >
>> >Then what are you waiting for?
>>
>> What are 'you' waiting for?
>Hey, you said you could prove me wrong. Go for it.
>
I prove you wrong most of the time, Steve.
>> You really do not want me to go there, do you?
>> Didn't your own rabbis invite the Romans and ask for their protection,
>> knowing fully well that their protection came at a price?
>No, the Sadduccees are the ones who invited the Romans into Jerusalem,
Then you admit your people's representatives invited the Romans and asked for
their protection. Thank you.
>as they had lost the allegience of the people to the Pharisees
Were their people prepared to fight the enemy threat from the east? NO. That
is why they made their supplication to Rome.
> and
>foreign imperial support was the only means by which they could
>recapture power.
The Jewish people are not known for being politically naive, Steve. They knew
fully well the attendant dangers of Roman collaboration.
>> >> >If Jesus was a threat to them, he was a threat to the Romans.
>>
>> >> He was NO threat to the Romans. Was St. stephen also a threat to the
>> >> Romans? St. James?
>>
>> No answer from Steve, I see...
>I have no idea.
I think you do.
>We weren't talking about St. Stephen.
This discussion is 'all' encompassing. We are discussing the Jews, the
Christians, Christ, the crucifixion..etc. My point proves that whatever point
you thought you were making with your previous comments rests upon the shakiest
pretext.
> We were
>talking about Jesus. So what's your point?
I just made it. Jesus was NO threat to the Romans, nor did they perceive Him
to be. It was the Jewish priests who perceived the Meissah to be a threat.
Debunks2005
>Message-id: <5c26ed28.04030...@posting.google.com>
Please cease with these grotesque distortions of history, Steve! The Pharisees
were every bit as inimical toward the Messiah as the Sadduccees. It was one of
the few points on which both were agreed.
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/2/2004 9:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <8688c2da.04030...@posting.google.com>
>
>Come on people, Don't tell me you are brainwashed.
>
>1)Jews are not Anti-Christ
>2)Being an american ally doesen't mean you are anti-christ
>3)Jesus died for ALL people's sins (sins of the whole world, not just
>Jews)
>4)I am not a Jew
>5)Jewish hate all came from a book which was modified (books of sion)
>with Jewish statements in.
>6)Inform Yourself
>7)Treat others as you expect others to treat you.
>
>
Thanks for your erroneous opinions. My advice to you would be to convert to
Buddhism,.
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/5/2004 4:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <228i401abumpoh4i6...@4ax.com>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In <20040305150407...@mb-m11.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
>on 05 Mar 2004 20:04:07 GMT, debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote:
>
>> Talmudists
>
>Be aware that Joe Bellinger uses this as a code word for the Roman
>Catholic Church which he has forsaken.
>
>- --
> John Morris
Be aware that I have not forsaken the true Roman Catholic Church. Next
diversion?
Ken Lewis
Where he would find more freedom that in you hate-filled perversion of
christianity.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20040307170418...@mb-m11.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 07 Mar 2004 22:04:18 GMT, debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote:
> >From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
> >Message-id: <228i401abumpoh4i6...@4ax.com>
> >In <20040305150407...@mb-m11.aol.com> in
> >alt.revisionism, on 05 Mar 2004 20:04:07 GMT, debun...@aol.com
> >(Debunks2005) wrote:
> >> Talmudists
> >Be aware that Joe Bellinger uses this as a code word for the Roman
> >Catholic Church which he has forsaken.
> Be aware that I have not forsaken the true Roman Catholic Church.
As to opposed to the Judaizers and Talmudists of the fake Roman
Catholic Church who currently occupy the Vatican, right, Joe?
> Next diversion?
Well, we'll just have to wait and see what diversion you come up
with. This one wasn't very good, BTW.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQEuoKDfbIykA6SysEQLOMQCeOXUUV9PQ7U/emxopO5gxkanROCMAmwRh
K4a3lDKzJIw2WDm9g/F7nY1v
=a0Vo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20040307170308...@mb-m11.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
But, Joe, you have repeatedly stated that here is no salvation
outside the Church. Are you suggesting, even jokingly, that someone
join a religion which will guarantee their damnation?
You're a monster!
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQEuo6TfbIykA6SysEQI+FQCgzA+ke3zKCXr68U24NgH+acoRxVkAoPRl
zjCe+PjcK4JwJvsRjPqwRhST
=H2Sw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/7/2004 2:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <dc8n4051tkrlg8pv0...@4ax.com>
Speaking of hated toward Christianity, why don't you post that blasphemous
limmerick for us again?
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/7/2004 2:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <hr9n401l3npkk742i...@4ax.com>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In <20040307170418...@mb-m11.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
>on 07 Mar 2004 22:04:18 GMT, debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote:
>
>> >From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
>> >Message-id: <228i401abumpoh4i6...@4ax.com>
>
>> >In <20040305150407...@mb-m11.aol.com> in
>> >alt.revisionism, on 05 Mar 2004 20:04:07 GMT, debun...@aol.com
>> >(Debunks2005) wrote:
>
>> >> Talmudists
>
>> >Be aware that Joe Bellinger uses this as a code word for the Roman
>> >Catholic Church which he has forsaken.
>
>> Be aware that I have not forsaken the true Roman Catholic Church.
>
>As to opposed to the Judaizers and Talmudists of the fake Roman
>Catholic Church who currently occupy the Vatican, right, Joe?
>
You seem to possess extensive knowlege of this subject, Mr. Morris. Can you
identify any of them by name?
Ken Lewis
It's not a limmerick, JHJ and I don't find it blasphemous. In poor
taste, perhaps, but not blasphemous unless you happen to worship Mary
as the fourth person of the Godhead.
You don't happen to worship Mary do you, Jew Hating Joe?
Debunks2005
>Message-id: <tmbn401u4ha16hvov...@4ax.com>
How unsurprising.
> In poor
>taste, perhaps, but not blasphemous unless you happen to worship Mary
>as the fourth person of the Godhead.
It is blasphemous. You, as a 'christian' should be aware of this fact. For if
Christ is the 2nd person of the Trinity, and Mary is His mother, then Mary is
indeed the 'mother of God in the second person' and so this is not a matter of
worshipping Mary but giving honor to God in choosing Mary to be the mother of
the Messiah. So yes, your limmerick is blasphemous.
>You don't happen to worship Mary do you, Jew Hating Joe?
What do you woship, Mr. Lewis? Besides yourself and the authors of the Tamud?
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/7/2004 2:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <f1an4013re3vda98l...@4ax.com>
As far as I can determine, they are already damned by their own words.
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/7/2004 1:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ik5n40dvkoajjfgak...@4ax.com>
Another one who is obsessed with them. Little minds run in similar circles,
after all.
Steven Mock
We naturally interpret everything we read, Joe. But that's not the
point. The point is whether the original poster's depiction of Matt.2
is, in your view, accurate.
He said: "when Christ's coming was eminent, the Jews murdered their
own children to prevent his birth! European Peace Keeping Forces (The
Roman Army) watched in horror the atrocity, helpless to interfere due
to the usual ?treaty of occupation'. The news reaching Rome and other
capitals such as Lutetia (Paris), Athens, Londinum and Cologne, was
first disbelieved, then came revulsion and abhorrence."
Is this true? Is this the way it is described in Matt.2? Why won't
you answer the question?
> >>> >> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, 'long time ago, etc. And
> >> >> >> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
> >> >> >> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same dogmas,
> >> >> >> the faith whose followers had Jesus murdered?
>
> >> >> >Absolutely not
>
> >> >> Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder of
> >> >> Christ lately, either.
Interestingly enough, an article that Bellinger posted recently
(describing it as a rabbi "venting his spleen") does just this rather
succinctly:
"If the story of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels were actual fact,
and Jesus was actually a righteous Jew persecuted by wicked Sadduceean
Priests and their Roman overlords, I myself would have come to his
defense, and even carried his cross. More so, most religious Jews I
know would have done the same. We Jews are not Christ killers; we are
the victims of those who have accused us of such."
> >> >So you acknowledge that this claim that the Jews of today practice the
> >> >same Judaism with the same dogmas as those who had Jesus killed is
> >> >false, then.
>
> >> The new face of Judiasm, i.e., that which evolved after the crucifixion,
> >> is Talmudism. Apostasy. Rejection of the Messiah. How many thousand of
> >> years have you been waiting for your messiah already? He has already
> >> appeared. Get used to it. If you don't wake
> >> up soon you shall get the messiah you
> >> deserve. why continue to torture yourselves over a matter of pride?
>
> ><sigh> So you acknowledge that this claim that the Jews of today
> >practice the same Judaism with the same dogmas as those who had Jesus
> >killed is false, then.
>
> No, they do not practice the same dogmas at all.
So you acknowledge that the original poster was wrong to make such a
claim.
<snip: some off-topic religious ranting>
> >> >> >I suggest you learn a bit of history before spouting
> >> >> >such ignorant tripe. Even if one takes the NT as literally true, it
> >> >> >is clear that the empowered Jews who collaborated in and advocated the
> >> >> >death of Jesus were the Temple authorities of the Sadducean sect which
> >> >> >had long since lost the allegiance of the vast majority of the
> >> >> >population and whose interpretation of Judaism essentially died out
> >> >> >when the Temple was destroyed.
>
> >> >> Is that so? They did not induce Pilate and threaten him if he did not
> >> >> accede
> >> >> to their demands to put the Messiah to death? What is your excuse for
> >> >> the authors and codifiers of the Talmud and all their hateful comments
> >> >> relating to Jesus and His Mother? Did the Romans force them to
> >> >> include those too?
>
> No answer from Steve and the answer why is apparent.
Yes, I do answer directly below (pointing out that this is a diversion
from the point we were actually discussing):
> >> >Calling somebody bad names is not the same as killing them, Joe.
> >>
> >> Ever hear of incitement to murder?
>
> >You can't incite to murder hundreds of years after the alleged victim
> >is already dead.
>
> Then stop calling people nazis then! Touche'.
Um, Joe, if someone in inciting others against me NOW, I will call
them what I like. But I do not, for example, accuse present-day
"Nazis" of retroactive personal responsibility for the Holocaust in
1944.
<snip: a rather large diversion>
> >> >>They were placed in their positions by
> >> >> >the Romans and their continued power and authority in the face of
> >> >> >popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the maintenance
> >> >> >of Roman power.
>
> >> >> Blah blah. The red herring won't withstand detailed investigation.
> >> >
> >> >Then what are you waiting for?
> >>
> >> What are 'you' waiting for?
>
> >Hey, you said you could prove me wrong. Go for it.
>
> I prove you wrong most of the time, Steve.
If you say so. Why not do it this time? Show us how "detailed
investigation" proves that those who the gospels records as
collaborating in Jesus' death were not placed in their positions by
the Romans and whose continued power and authority in the face of
popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the maintenance
of Roman power.
> >> You really do not want me to go there, do you?
> >> Didn't your own rabbis invite the Romans and ask for their protection,
> >> knowing fully well that their protection came at a price?
>
> >No, the Sadduccees are the ones who invited the Romans into Jerusalem,
>
> Then you admit your people's representatives invited the Romans and asked for
> their protection. Thank you.
No, the sect that no longer represented the people invited the Romans
in order to depose the one that did. You can't read, can you?
> >as they had lost the allegience of the people to the Pharisees
>
> Were their people prepared to fight the enemy threat from the east? NO.
> That is why they made their supplication to Rome.
>
> > and
> >foreign imperial support was the only means by which they could
> >recapture power.
>
> The Jewish people are not known for being politically naive, Steve. They
> knew fully well the attendant dangers of Roman collaboration.
The leaders who invited the Romans in probably did. That is why they
are so consistently cursed and condemned in the Talmud.
> >> >> >If Jesus was a threat to them, he was a threat to the Romans.
>
> >> >> He was NO threat to the Romans. Was St. stephen also a threat to the
> >> >> Romans? St. James?
> >>
> >> No answer from Steve, I see...
>
> >I have no idea.
>
> I think you do.
Why would you think that?
> >We weren't talking about St. Stephen.
>
> This discussion is 'all' encompassing.
To you maybe, when you want to change the subject.
> We are discussing the Jews, the
> Christians, Christ, the crucifixion..etc. My point proves that whatever
> point you thought you were making with your previous comments rests upon the
> shakiest pretext.
>
> > We were
> > talking about Jesus. So what's your point?
>
> I just made it. Jesus was NO threat to the Romans, nor did they perceive Him
> to be. It was the Jewish priests who perceived the Meissah to be a threat.
And I explained that the "Jewish priests" were so deeply
interconnected with Roman power as to make up a single nexus. Those
"Jewish priests" did not represent the people, and are not perceived
as doing so in subsequent Jewish sources. They represented Roman
control. If Jesus threatened them, he threatened the Romans and their
hold on Judea, while if he was a threat to the Romans he was also a
threat to the instruments by which these quisling "priests"
illegitimately held on to their power.
Steven Mock
Gord McFee
Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
Why don't you tell us why you believe God to be a self-hating Jew?
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Gord McFee
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
Exactly. He should be trying to save the OP's soul.
Gord McFee
Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
> As far as I can determine, they are already damned by their own words.
So much for repentance and forgiveness of sins in the wacky world of
Jew-hating Joe Bellinger.
Gord McFee
Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>> From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
>> Date: 3/5/2004 4:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: <228i401abumpoh4i6...@4ax.com>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> In <20040305150407...@mb-m11.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
>> on 05 Mar 2004 20:04:07 GMT, debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote:
>>
>>> Talmudists
>>
>> Be aware that Joe Bellinger uses this as a code word for the Roman
>> Catholic Church which he has forsaken.
>
> Be aware that I have not forsaken the true Roman Catholic Church. Next
> diversion?
You have not only forsaken the true Roman Catholic faith, you have
forsaken Christianity in toto. You have no disposition to love your
neighbour, nor to forgive your enemy. Indeed, you ooze loathing of the
people with whom God first made his Covenant from every pore of your
body. You are no Christian and certainly no Catholic.
Gord McFee
Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
> I think you are obsessed with the Jews, Gord.
The difference is, everyone *knows* you are.
Debunks2005
Interpret this: the sun is shining today. Some things require NO
interpretation, Steve.
> But that's not the
>point. The point is whether the original poster's depiction of Matt.2
>is, in your view, accurate.
>He said: "when Christ's coming was eminent, the Jews murdered their
>own children to prevent his birth!
No, not 'the Jews' but ONE particular powerful Jew named Herod.
>European Peace Keeping Forces (The
>Roman Army) watched in horror the atrocity, helpless to interfere due
>to the usual ?treaty of occupation'.
I can't find any factual basis for that statement, either.
>The news reaching Rome and other
>capitals such as Lutetia (Paris), Athens, Londinum and Cologne, was
>first disbelieved, then came revulsion and abhorrence."
There is no historical basis for suggesting that the news of Herod's massacre
ever reached Rome until the message of the Gospel was finally preached there.
>Is this true? Is this the way it is described in Matt.2? Why won't
>you answer the question?
I think I just did, didn't I?
>> >>> >> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, 'long time ago, etc.
>And
>> >> >> >> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
>> >> >> >> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same
>dogmas,
>> >> >> >> the faith whose
>followers had Jesus murdered?
>>
>> >> >> >Absolutely not
>>
>> >> >> Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder of
> >> Christ lately, either.
>
>Interestingly enough, an article that Bellinger posted recently
>(describing it as a rabbi "venting his spleen") does just this rather
>succinctly:
>"If the story of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels were actual fact,
Of course he is implying that it ISN"T. "If the story WERE actual fact...."
>and Jesus was actually a righteous Jew persecuted by wicked Sadduceean
>Priests and their Roman overlords,
Firstly, Jesus was not a 'righteous Jew, but the MESSIAH. Secondly, he was
persecuted by Pharisees and Sadducees alike.
>I myself would have come to his
>defense, and even carried his cross.
LOL! Oh, I sincerely DOUBT THAT, Mr. Mock! IOW he is saying that Jesus was
GUILTY of wrongdoing and deserved the death he was meted out by the envious
High Priests.
>More so, most religious Jews I
>know would have done the same.
Again, I don't believe him. His entire hate filled essay presents an entirely
different picture of this man and his opinions.
>We Jews are not Christ killers; we are
>the victims of those who have accused us of such."
Utter RUBBISH. Why are they now threatening to assassinate Mr. Gibson and Mr.
Caviezel?
>> >> >So you acknowledge that this claim that the Jews of today practice the
>> >> >same Judaism with the same dogmas as those who had Jesus killed is
>> >> >false, then.
>> >> The new face of Judiasm, i.e., that which evolved after the crucifixion,
>
>> >> is Talmudism. Apostasy. Rejection of the Messiah. How many thousand
>of
>> >> years have you been waiting for your messiah already? He has already
>> >> appeared. Get used to it. If you don't wake
> >> up soon you shall get the messiah you
>> >> deserve. why continue to torture yourselves over a matter of pride?
> ><sigh> So you acknowledge that this claim that the Jews of today
>> >practice the same Judaism with the same dogmas as those who had Jesus
>> >killed is false, then.
>>
>> No, they do not practice the same dogmas at all.
>So you acknowledge that the original poster was wrong to make such a
>claim.
He posted claims at variance with what I believe and what can be proved, but he
was correct in certain essentials.
>
><snip: some off-topic religious ranting>
>> >> >> >I suggest you learn a bit of history before spouting
>> >> >> >such ignorant tripe. Even if one takes the NT as literally true, it
>> >> >> >is clear that the empowered Jews who collaborated in and advocated
>the
>> >> >> >death of Jesus were the Temple authorities of the
>Sadducean sect which
>> >> >> >had long since lost the allegiance of the vast majority of the
>> >> >> >population and whose interpretation of Judaism essentially died out
>> >> >> >when the Temple was destroyed.
>> >> >> Is that so? They did not induce Pilate and threaten him if he did
>not
>> >> >> accede
>> >> >> to their demands to put the Messiah to death? What is your excuse
>for
>> >> >> the authors and codifiers of the Talmud and all their hateful
>comments
> >> relating to Jesus and His Mother? Did the Romans force them to
>> >> >> include those too?
>>
>> No answer from Steve and the answer why is apparent.
>Yes, I do answer directly below (pointing out that this is a diversion
>from the point we were actually discussing):
Your answer was unsatisfactory, Steve.,
>
>> >> >Calling somebody bad names is not the same as killing them, Joe.
>> >>
>> >> Ever hear of incitement to murder?
>
>> >You can't incite to murder hundreds of years after the alleged victim
>> >is already dead.
>>
>> Then stop calling people nazis then! Touche'.
>Um, Joe, if someone in inciting others against me NOW, I will call
>them what I like
Well WHO is doing that, Steve? The only people I usually see being branded
with the stigma of Nazis here are people who disagree with some of your
opinions.
> But I do not, for example, accuse present-day
>"Nazis" of retroactive personal responsibility for the Holocaust in
>1944.
And I am not accusing all Jews of that either! Are you trying to imply that I
am?
>
><snip: a rather large diversion>
>> >> >>They were placed in their positions by
>> >> >> >the Romans and their continued power and authority in the face of
>> >> >> >popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the
>maintenance
>> >> >> >of Roman power.
> >> >> Blah blah. The red herring won't withstand detailed investigation.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then what are you waiting for?
>> >>
>> >> What are 'you' waiting for?
>
>> >Hey, you said you could prove me wrong. Go for it.
>>
>> I prove you wrong most of the time, Steve.
>If you say so. Why not do it this time?
Because I feel you are doing a sufficient job of proving yourself wrong, that's
why.
> Show us how "detailed
>investigation" proves that those who the gospels records as
>collaborating in Jesus' death were not placed in their positions by
>the Romans and whose continued power and authority in the face of
>popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the
>maintenance
>of Roman power.
I don't have to do that to prove it, because these same Jews you claim were so
ineffectual and powerless were able to induce Pilate to murder the Messiah by
threatening to denounce him to Caesar. End of story. Caiaphas is the man who
CURSED your nation, Steve. Get used to it.
>> >No, the Sadduccees are the ones who invited the Romans into Jerusalem,
>>
>> Then you admit your people's representatives invited the Romans and asked
>for
>> their protection. Thank you.
>No, the sect that no longer represented the people invited the Romans
>in order to depose the one that did. You can't read, can you?
What you say and what happened in the crucifixion of Christ are two different
matters. You know perfectly well that I can read.
>> >as they had lost the allegience of the people to the Pharisees
>>
>> Were their people prepared to fight the enemy threat from the east? NO.
>> That is why they made their supplication to Rome.
>>
>> > and
>> >foreign imperial support was the only means by which they could
>> >recapture power.
>
>> The Jewish people are not known for being politically naive, Steve. They
>> knew fully well the attendant dangers of Roman collaboration.
>The leaders who invited the Romans in probably did. That is why they
>are so consistently cursed and condemned in the Talmud.
yet so is YESHUA! Did "HE" invite the Romans?!!!!!!
>
>> >> >> >If Jesus was a threat to them, he was a threat to the Romans.
> >> >> He was NO threat to the Romans. Was St. stephen also a threat to the
>> >> >> Romans? St. James?
>> >>
>> >> No answer from Steve, I see...
>>
>> >I have no idea.
>>
>> I think you do.
>Why would you think that?
Because you are not an imbecile, Steve. that's why. You are an intelligent
person and that gives you less of an excuse to behave the way you are currently
doing.
>
>> >We weren't talking about St. Stephen.
>>
>> This discussion is 'all' encompassing.
>
>To you maybe, when you want to change the subject.
This subject is right on target, Steve, and you know it. But it proves your
thesis to be WRONG, and you know that too, hence , the diversion.
>
>> We are discussing the Jews, the
>> Christians, Christ, the crucifixion..etc. My point proves that whatever
>> point you thought you were making with your previous comments rests upon
>the
>> shakiest pretext.
> > We were
>> > talking about Jesus. So what's your point?
>>
>> I just made it. Jesus was NO threat to the Romans, nor did they perceive
>Him
>> to be. It was the Jewish priests who perceived the Meissah to be a threat.
>And I explained that the "Jewish priests" were so deeply
>interconnected with Roman power as to make up a single nexus.
Not when it came to the crucifixion, apparently.
>Those
>"Jewish priests" did not represent the people, and are not perceived
>as doing so in subsequent Jewish sources. They represented Roman
>control.
Yet the same TALMUD you referred to above consistently and appallingly
blasphemes against Yeshua and His Mother! Do you think that is right?
>If Jesus threatened them, he threatened the Romans
If, if, if...if blades of grass were dollar bills...remember that one? Jesus
the Messiah was NO THREAT to either the Jewish priests, the Jewish nation, the
Jewish people, or to the Romans. Get that fact straight for once, please.
>and their
>hold on Judea,
Your own priests invited them there! For better or for worse!
>while if he was a threat to the Romans he was also a
>threat to the instruments by which these quisling "priests"
>illegitimately held on to their power.
It's a nice evasion, but it is only a pipedream, Steve, and you need to
confront the sad reality that the High Priests murdered the Messiah your people
longed for and that your own High Priest cursed the Jewish nation to 2000 years
of torment, persecution and suffering. The soul of Caiaphas is rotting in hell
today, along with that of Judas. Sad. Tragically sad, in fact.
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/8/2004 4:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c2j3pr$1sl3nh$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
Where did I ever post that?
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/8/2004 4:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c2j45i$1tspa6$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
And the name calling continues...
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/8/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c2j4ag$1u1a6b$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>In news:20040307170418...@mb-m11.aol.com,
>Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>>> From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
>>> Date: 3/5/2004 4:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: <228i401abumpoh4i6...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> In <20040305150407...@mb-m11.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
>>> on 05 Mar 2004 20:04:07 GMT, debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Talmudists
>>>
>>> Be aware that Joe Bellinger uses this as a code word for the Roman
>>> Catholic Church which he has forsaken.
>>
>> Be aware that I have not forsaken the true Roman Catholic Church. Next
>> diversion?
>
>You have not only forsaken the true Roman Catholic faith, you have
>forsaken Christianity in toto.
Did the Pope send you a personal message to this effect? If so, ask me to
forward a copy to me.
>You have no disposition to love your
>neighbour,
No? And your proof for this baseless accusation consists of what, exactly?
> nor to forgive your enemy.
Are you calling yourself my enemy or complaining that I have not forgiven you?
>Indeed, you ooze loathing of the
>people with whom God first made his Covenant from every pore of your
>body.
Not at all. Proof?
>You are no Christian and certainly no Catholic.
You are no judge. I daresay that you ought to revert back to the old St
Joseph's Baltimore Catechism. Seems you are confused about the faith you
profess.
Debunks2005
>Message-id: <c2j4ik$1u6pu4$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>In news:20040307162215...@mb-m11.aol.com,
>Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> I think you are obsessed with the Jews, Gord.
>
>The difference is, everyone *knows* you are.
>
>--
>Gord McFee
And 'everyone' in this instance just happens to be your posting confederates
here, isn't that right?
Gord McFee
Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>> From: "Gord McFee" gord....@rogers.com
>> Date: 3/8/2004 4:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: c2j3pr$1sl3nh$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de
[...]
>>> Speaking of hated toward Christianity, why don't you post that
>>> blasphemous limmerick for us again?
>>
>> Why don't you tell us why you believe God to be a self-hating Jew?
>
> Where did I ever post that?
Aren't you the one who said Jesus, who is God, did not forgive the Jews,
of which he was one?
Gord McFee
Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>> From: "Gord McFee" gord....@rogers.com
>> Date: 3/8/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: <c2j4ag$1u1a6b$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
[...]
>>> Be aware that I have not forsaken the true Roman Catholic Church.
>>> Next diversion?
>>
>> You have not only forsaken the true Roman Catholic faith, you have
>> forsaken Christianity in toto.
>
> Did the Pope send you a personal message to this effect?
No, Joe Bellinger did.
> If so, ask
> me to forward a copy to me.
Huh?
>> You have no disposition to love your
>> neighbour,
>
> No? And your proof for this baseless accusation consists of what,
> exactly?
Your own words. Unless you are lying.
>> nor to forgive your enemy.
>
> Are you calling yourself my enemy or complaining that I have not
> forgiven you?
Nope.
>> Indeed, you ooze loathing of the
>> people with whom God first made his Covenant from every pore of your
>> body.
>
> Not at all. Proof?
Your words, over and over and over again. Calling them Talmudists.
Suggesting they are condemned to Hell because they believe in their God
in their way. Calling them apostates. Your antisemitic doggerel. Your
Streicher-like characterizations. Your complete lack of even a
scintilla of Christian forgiveness and love of your neighbour. And so
much more.
>> You are no Christian and certainly no Catholic.
>
> You are no judge.
I never said I was.
> I daresay that you ought to revert back to the old
> St Joseph's Baltimore Catechism. Seems you are confused about the
> faith you profess.
Now Joe just babbles.
Gord McFee
Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>> From: sm...@nizkor.org (Steven Mock)
>> Date: 3/8/2004 2:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: <5c26ed28.04030...@posting.google.com>
[...]
>>>>>>>> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, 'long time ago,
>>>>>>>> etc.
>> And
>>>>>>>>> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh
>>>>>>>>> really? Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with
>>>>>>>>> the same dogmas, the faith whose
>
>> followers had Jesus murdered?
>>>
>>>>>>>> Absolutely not
>>>
>>>>>>> Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder
>>>>>>> of
>
>>>> Christ lately, either.
>>
>> Interestingly enough, an article that Bellinger posted recently
>> (describing it as a rabbi "venting his spleen") does just this rather
>> succinctly:
>
>> "If the story of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels were actual fact,
>
> Of course he is implying that it ISN"T. "If the story WERE actual
> fact...."
No, he is implying that as a Jew, he doesn't believe Jesus was God.
>> and Jesus was actually a righteous Jew persecuted by wicked
>> Sadduceean Priests and their Roman overlords,
>
> Firstly, Jesus was not a 'righteous Jew, but the MESSIAH. Secondly,
> he was persecuted by Pharisees and Sadducees alike.
They didn't *know* he was the Messiah.
>> I myself would have come to his
>> defense, and even carried his cross.
>
> LOL! Oh, I sincerely DOUBT THAT, Mr. Mock! IOW he is saying that
> Jesus was GUILTY of wrongdoing and deserved the death he was meted
> out by the envious High Priests.
Huh? He says he would have come to his defence. Or do you simply
assert that Jews all lie?
>> More so, most religious Jews I
>> know would have done the same.
>
> Again, I don't believe him. His entire hate filled essay presents an
> entirely different picture of this man and his opinions.
Yup, Joe just can't believe anything good about a Jew.
>> We Jews are not Christ killers; we are
>> the victims of those who have accused us of such."
>
> Utter RUBBISH. Why are they now threatening to assassinate Mr.
> Gibson and Mr. Caviezel?
Who is threatening that?
[...]
>> If Jesus threatened them, he threatened the Romans
>
> If, if, if...if blades of grass were dollar bills...remember that
> one? Jesus the Messiah was NO THREAT to either the Jewish priests,
> the Jewish nation, the Jewish people, or to the Romans. Get that
> fact straight for once, please.
>
>> and their
>> hold on Judea,
>
> Your own priests invited them there! For better or for worse!
>
>> while if he was a threat to the Romans he was also a
>> threat to the instruments by which these quisling "priests"
>> illegitimately held on to their power.
>
> It's a nice evasion, but it is only a pipedream, Steve, and you need
> to confront the sad reality that the High Priests murdered the
> Messiah your people longed for and that your own High Priest cursed
> the Jewish nation to 2000 years of torment, persecution and
> suffering. The soul of Caiaphas is rotting in hell today, along with
> that of Judas. Sad. Tragically sad, in fact.
What a Christian Jew-hating Joe is.
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
> >From: sm...@nizkor.org (Steven Mock)
> >Date: 3/8/2004 2:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <5c26ed28.04030...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote in message
> >news:<20040307170038...@mb-m11.aol.com>...
>
Yes, you did. Thank you. You agree with me that the original posters
characterization of the event is entirely off-base.
> >> >>> >> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, 'long time ago, etc.
> And
> >> >> >> >> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh really?
> >> >> >> >> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same
> >> >> >> >> dogmas, the faith whose followers had Jesus murdered?
>
> >> >> >> >Absolutely not
>
> >> >> >> Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder of
> >> >> >> Christ lately, either.
> >
> >Interestingly enough, an article that Bellinger posted recently
> >(describing it as a rabbi "venting his spleen") does just this rather
> >succinctly:
>
> >"If the story of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels were actual fact,
>
> Of course he is implying that it ISN"T. "If the story WERE actual fact...."
Right, Joe. He's not a Christian. He has no vested reason to concern
himself with whether it is fact or not. As far as he's concerned it
may be, it may not be. Regardless, the fact that he does not share
your belief is not the issue. The issue is whether he would condemn
those who bore direct responsibility for killing Jesus. Clearly, he
is saying he would, and in no uncertain terms.
> >and Jesus was actually a righteous Jew persecuted by wicked Sadduceean
> >Priests and their Roman overlords,
>
> Firstly, Jesus was not a 'righteous Jew, but the MESSIAH. Secondly, he was
> persecuted by Pharisees and Sadducees alike.
>
> >I myself would have come to his
> >defense, and even carried his cross.
>
> LOL! Oh, I sincerely DOUBT THAT, Mr. Mock! IOW he is saying that Jesus was
> GUILTY of wrongdoing and deserved the death he was meted out by the envious
> High Priests.
No. He doesn't say that at all. Are you on drugs or something, Joe?
> >More so, most religious Jews I
> >know would have done the same.
>
> Again, I don't believe him.
That's your prerogative. Regardless, you asked if Jews are documented
as stating that they would condemn the murder of Jesus. This rabbi
says that they would. The fact that you personally don't wish to
trust his sincerety is neither here not there.
> His entire hate filled essay presents an entirely
> different picture of this man and his opinions.
Only because you are so filled with hate that you are incapable of
reading the words of any believeing Jew with an open mind.
> >We Jews are not Christ killers; we are
> >the victims of those who have accused us of such."
>
> Utter RUBBISH. Why are they now threatening to assassinate Mr. Gibson and Mr.
> Caviezel?
Who is? Certainly not this rabbi. Certainly not the Jews as a group.
> >> >> >> >Sadducean sect which
> >> >> >> >had long since lost the allegiance of the vast majority of the
> >> >> >> >population and whose interpretation of Judaism essentially died out
> >> >> >> >when the Temple was destroyed.
>
> >> >> >> Is that so? They did not induce Pilate and threaten him if he did
> >> >> >> not accede
> >> >> >> to their demands to put the Messiah to death? What is your excuse
> >> >> >> for the authors and codifiers of the Talmud and all their hateful
> >> >> >> comments
>
> >> >> >> relating to Jesus and His Mother? Did the Romans force them to
> >> >> >> include those too?
> >>
> >> No answer from Steve and the answer why is apparent.
>
> >Yes, I do answer directly below (pointing out that this is a diversion
> >from the point we were actually discussing):
>
> Your answer was unsatisfactory, Steve.,
Then why did you say I didn't answer?
I'm sorry if my answer was not completely to your personal liking,
Joe. But that's kind of what debating with someone who disagrees with
you is all about.
> >> >> >>They were placed in their positions by
> >> >> >> >the Romans and their continued power and authority in the face of
> >> >> >> >popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the
> >> >> >> >maintenance of Roman power.
>
> > >> >> Blah blah. The red herring won't withstand detailed investigation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Then what are you waiting for?
> >> >>
> >> >> What are 'you' waiting for?
>
> >> >Hey, you said you could prove me wrong. Go for it.
> >>
> >> I prove you wrong most of the time, Steve.
>
> >If you say so. Why not do it this time?
>
> Because I feel you are doing a sufficient job of proving yourself wrong,
> that's why.
How? Are you saying it is self-evidently obvious that that temple
preists were NOT placed in their positions by the Romans and that
their continued power and authority in the face of popular opposition
did NOT depend on collaboration with and the maintenance of Roman
power?
> > Show us how "detailed
> >investigation" proves that those who the gospels records as
> >collaborating in Jesus' death were not placed in their positions by
> >the Romans and whose continued power and authority in the face of
> >popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the
> >maintenance of Roman power.
>
> I don't have to do that to prove it, because these same Jews you claim were so
> ineffectual and powerless were able to induce Pilate to murder the Messiah by
> threatening to denounce him to Caesar. End of story. Caiaphas is the man who
> CURSED your nation, Steve. Get used to it.
Right. Joe believes. The facts don't matter. (Not even the very
facts recorded in the gospels)
> >> >No, the Sadduccees are the ones who invited the Romans into Jerusalem,
> >>
> >> Then you admit your people's representatives invited the Romans and asked
> >> for their protection. Thank you.
>
> >No, the sect that no longer represented the people invited the Romans
> >in order to depose the one that did. You can't read, can you?
>
> What you say and what happened in the crucifixion of Christ are two different
> matters. You know perfectly well that I can read.
>
> >> >as they had lost the allegience of the people to the Pharisees
> >>
> >> Were their people prepared to fight the enemy threat from the east? NO.
> >> That is why they made their supplication to Rome.
>
> >> > and
> >> >foreign imperial support was the only means by which they could
> >> >recapture power.
>
> >> The Jewish people are not known for being politically naive, Steve. They
> >> knew fully well the attendant dangers of Roman collaboration.
>
> >The leaders who invited the Romans in probably did. That is why they
> >are so consistently cursed and condemned in the Talmud.
>
> yet so is YESHUA! Did "HE" invite the Romans?!!!!!!
No. But that is beside the point. The point is that Talmudic Judaism
did not in any way identify positively with the temple priests who are
recorded in the gospels as having been responsible for Jesus'
execution. Granted, that is not the specific reason why. But the
fact remains that the original poster was wrong when he claimed that
the Judaism of today is the same as that which was practiced by those
responsible for Jesus' death.
> >> >> >> >If Jesus was a threat to them, he was a threat to the Romans.
>
> He was NO threat to the Romans. Was St. stephen also a threat to the
> >> >> >> Romans? St. James?
> >> >>
> >> >> No answer from Steve, I see...
>
> >> >I have no idea.
> >>
> >> I think you do.
>
> >Why would you think that?
>
> Because you are not an imbecile, Steve. that's why. You are an intelligent
> person and that gives you less of an excuse to behave the way you are
> currently doing.
Still no argument as to why I am wrong, though.
> >> >We weren't talking about St. Stephen.
> >>
> >> This discussion is 'all' encompassing.
> >
> >To you maybe, when you want to change the subject.
>
> This subject is right on target, Steve, and you know it. But it proves your
> thesis to be WRONG, and you know that too,
Still no argument as to how.
> >> We are discussing the Jews, the
> >> Christians, Christ, the crucifixion..etc. My point proves that whatever
> >> point you thought you were making with your previous comments rests upon
> >> the shakiest pretext.
>
> > > We were
> >> > talking about Jesus. So what's your point?
> >>
> >> I just made it. Jesus was NO threat to the Romans, nor did they perceive
> Him
> >> to be. It was the Jewish priests who perceived the Meissah to be a threat.
>
> >And I explained that the "Jewish priests" were so deeply
> >interconnected with Roman power as to make up a single nexus.
>
> Not when it came to the crucifixion, apparently.
>
> >Those
> >"Jewish priests" did not represent the people, and are not perceived
> >as doing so in subsequent Jewish sources. They represented Roman
> >control.
>
> Yet the same TALMUD you referred to above consistently and appallingly
> blasphemes against Yeshua and His Mother! Do you think that is right?
Not really. What's your point? Those "Jewish priests" did not
represent the people, and are not perceived as doing so in subsequent
Jewish sources. They represented Roman control.
<snip: some more empty blustering>
Steven Mock
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Steven --- I've been following these posts with you and Joe although
I'll confess that I'm particularly interested in Joe's remarks of late
with regard to his [in my opinion and so stated] overly religious
fanaticism ranging from his urging Jews to 'convert' and thus be 'saved'
to his interpretations of the Good Book...and, when apparently
required, the Talmud as well, but two comments of your own piqued my
interest when you state 'not this Rabbi' and again, 'certainly not this
Rabbi'... are you a Rabbi, Steven?
And one other inquiry...in one of our own exchanges, I commented on my
years in Germany and I recall you commenting on your own travels through
Europe and Germany...if not too personal...was that for protracted study
or simply travel for travel....just curious.
Sometimes things are mentioned in passing that can be interesting. For
example, I spent 5 years in Germany and lived in Bad Nauheim and
Darmstadt [mostly Darmstadt] only to find out that Gord McFee was also
in Darmstadt for about a year. BTW Steve, I'm certain you were uplifted
in your post with Joe Bellinger by the fact that he did 'not' find you
to be an 'imbecile' [sic--!] which, coming from Joe Bellinger, is no
doubt his version of the favorable nod...as it were. ;-)
Doc Tony
Steven Mock
> Steven --- I've been following these posts with you and Joe although
> I'll confess that I'm particularly interested in Joe's remarks of late
> with regard to his [in my opinion and so stated] overly religious
> fanaticism ranging from his urging Jews to 'convert' and thus be 'saved'
> to his interpretations of the Good Book...and, when apparently
> required, the Talmud as well, but two comments of your own piqued my
> interest when you state 'not this Rabbi' and again, 'certainly not this
> Rabbi'... are you a Rabbi, Steven?
No. Oddly enough, it was a job that I considered way back in my youth
(not that I consider that to be over, mind you) insofar as I had an
interest in religion and thought it was something I'd be good at. All
in all, pretty straightforward reasons for considering a particular
career, until I realized that in the case of this one it would
probably be a good idea to be religious too.
"This rabbi" referred to the rabbi I was quoting - ironically from one
of Joe's earlier posts.
> And one other inquiry...in one of our own exchanges, I commented on my
> years in Germany and I recall you commenting on your own travels through
> Europe and Germany...if not too personal...was that for protracted study
> or simply travel for travel....just curious.
Mostly just pleasure, though occasionally bits of business for the
International Holocaust Conspiracy (I bet you think I'm joking, too).
I have some good friends in the general area of Stuttgart and have
seen much of Baden-Wurttemberg in the course of visiting them, and
when I was living in Amsterdam made a few jaunts across the border
into Dortmund, as well as Dusseldorf for the jazz festival. Got stuck
in Mannheim one night when you couldn't find a hotel room because the
Rolling Stones happened to be there at the same time. Then took at
trip along the Rhine, taking in Worms (fascinating Jewish as well as
Protestant history there), Cologne, and Aachen (truly amazing place,
that), then to Hamburg and Berlin just in time to see Schroeder first
elected (popped by Berlin again for New Year's 1999 with my Swiss
girlfriend). Also made it to Munich and Wurzburg on brief occasions.
That's all.
> Sometimes things are mentioned in passing that can be interesting. For
> example, I spent 5 years in Germany and lived in Bad Nauheim and
> Darmstadt [mostly Darmstadt] only to find out that Gord McFee was also
> in Darmstadt for about a year. BTW Steve, I'm certain you were uplifted
> in your post with Joe Bellinger by the fact that he did 'not' find you
> to be an 'imbecile' [sic--!] which, coming from Joe Bellinger, is no
> doubt his version of the favorable nod...as it were. ;-)
Yeah, Joe and I go way back. When I first got to a.r. back in - oh,
must have been 1996 - I cut my teeth (so to speak) on his initial
spate of "Dr. Mengele was really a great guy" posts. Look it up.
Steven Mock
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Steven Mock wrote:
> "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <doc...@localnet.com> wrote in message news:<404F5021...@localnet.com>...
>
>
>>Steven --- I've been following these posts with you and Joe although
>>I'll confess that I'm particularly interested in Joe's remarks of late
>>with regard to his [in my opinion and so stated] overly religious
>>fanaticism ranging from his urging Jews to 'convert' and thus be 'saved'
>> to his interpretations of the Good Book...and, when apparently
>>required, the Talmud as well, but two comments of your own piqued my
>>interest when you state 'not this Rabbi' and again, 'certainly not this
>>Rabbi'... are you a Rabbi, Steven?
>
>
> No. Oddly enough, it was a job that I considered way back in my youth
> (not that I consider that to be over, mind you) insofar as I had an
> interest in religion and thought it was something I'd be good at. All
> in all, pretty straightforward reasons for considering a particular
> career, until I realized that in the case of this one it would
> probably be a good idea to be religious too.
>
> "This rabbi" referred to the rabbi I was quoting - ironically from one
> of Joe's earlier posts.
>
Ah! A cogent lesson for me to not get lazy and check the thread more
thoroughly before such inquiry but then it would not be the first time
that I was actually surprised at what a poster did for a living. In one
of the av groups I was 'again' wrestling with VOR adjustments and
calculations [*kudos to the Garmin folks for GPS back-up!!!] and a
female poster gave me some tips and hints [navigational VORS can be VERY
demanding and they, alas, are also rather UNforgiving] and here I make
with the tongue-in-cheek 'ohh, a 'sunshine' pilot to the rescue!' and
then I find out she's a '4 striper' captain on a scheduled airline with
an ATP 'ticket' with over 7000 hours flying 737's and owning her own
classic Bonanza V-tail! Hmmmm. Crow for dinner! :-(
>
>>And one other inquiry...in one of our own exchanges, I commented on my
>>years in Germany and I recall you commenting on your own travels through
>>Europe and Germany...if not too personal...was that for protracted study
>>or simply travel for travel....just curious.
>
>
> Mostly just pleasure, though occasionally bits of business for the
> International Holocaust Conspiracy (I bet you think I'm joking, too).
> I have some good friends in the general area of Stuttgart and have
> seen much of Baden-Wurttemberg in the course of visiting them, and
> when I was living in Amsterdam made a few jaunts across the border
> into Dortmund, as well as Dusseldorf for the jazz festival. Got stuck
> in Mannheim one night when you couldn't find a hotel room because the
> Rolling Stones happened to be there at the same time. Then took at
> trip along the Rhine, taking in Worms (fascinating Jewish as well as
> Protestant history there), Cologne, and Aachen (truly amazing place,
> that), then to Hamburg and Berlin just in time to see Schroeder first
> elected (popped by Berlin again for New Year's 1999 with my Swiss
> girlfriend). Also made it to Munich and Wurzburg on brief occasions.
> That's all.
>
That's enough! ;-) Hey, it's experience that can't be taken away! I
miss Europe but, then again, you know what 'Dorothy' always says.
>
>>Sometimes things are mentioned in passing that can be interesting. For
>>example, I spent 5 years in Germany and lived in Bad Nauheim and
>>Darmstadt [mostly Darmstadt] only to find out that Gord McFee was also
>>in Darmstadt for about a year. BTW Steve, I'm certain you were uplifted
>>in your post with Joe Bellinger by the fact that he did 'not' find you
>>to be an 'imbecile' [sic--!] which, coming from Joe Bellinger, is no
>>doubt his version of the favorable nod...as it were. ;-)
>
>
> Yeah, Joe and I go way back. When I first got to a.r. back in - oh,
> must have been 1996 - I cut my teeth (so to speak) on his initial
> spate of "Dr. Mengele was really a great guy" posts. Look it up.
>
> Steven Mock
Tnx for the info. You write well, Steven. Sometimes I think I should get
less colloquial and perhaps pay more homage to Messrs. Strunk and White
and their dictums [which are often mandatory in the real world of
scribblings] but, well, Usenet at least affords variations and modes
that permit all sorts of things.....printed word rule breaking among
them and experimentation a la mode. I must say though, there are some
excellent writers in AR, all sides BTW, and so it's then a matter of
zeroing in on their wares ... versus their individual style(s). I still
miss Stein's stuff though..I used to joke with Mike that he secretly
must have an 'enhanced' speller and $20 word 'suggester' plus
'Grammatik IV' [big program at the time] behind the scenes but, Stein
being Stein, he relegated his style to listening to recordings of his
beloved viola bass cello and simply taking his time! ;-)
Doc Tony
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/9/2004 5:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c2lrs9$1vins3$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
Neither did Caiaphas, so I guess they are equal. Neither do you, apparently.
>>> and Jesus was actually a righteous Jew persecuted by wicked
>>> Sadduceean Priests and their Roman overlords,
>>
>> Firstly, Jesus was not a 'righteous Jew, but the MESSIAH. Secondly,
>> he was persecuted by Pharisees and Sadducees alike.
>
>They didn't *know* he was the Messiah.
Yes, they did. And even supposing they didn't, they all know it by now.
Moreover, even if they didn't, they still engineered the murder of a completely
innocent man. God held them accountable for their rejection of His Son, so I
guess He disagrees with your assessment.
>>> I myself would have come to his
>>> defense, and even carried his cross.
>> LOL! Oh, I sincerely DOUBT THAT, Mr. Mock! IOW he is saying that
>> Jesus was GUILTY of wrongdoing and deserved the death he was meted
>> out by the envious High Priests.
>
>Huh? He says he would have come to his defence. Or do you simply
>assert that Jews all lie?
Is he 'all' Jews?
>
>>> More so, most religious Jews I
>>> know would have done the same.
>>
>> Again, I don't believe him. His entire hate filled essay presents an
>> entirely different picture of this man and his opinions.
>Yup, Joe just can't believe anything good about a Jew.
Not about that one.
>
>>> We Jews are not Christ killers; we are
>>> the victims of those who have accused us of such."
>>
>> Utter RUBBISH. Why are they now threatening to assassinate Mr.
>> Gibson and Mr. Caviezel?
>Who is threatening that?
>
The bogeyman.
>[...]
>
>>> If Jesus threatened them, he threatened the Romans
>> If, if, if...if blades of grass were dollar bills...remember that
>> one? Jesus the Messiah was NO THREAT to either the Jewish priests,
>> the Jewish nation, the Jewish people, or to the Romans. Get that
>> fact straight for once, please.
>
>>> and their
>>> hold on Judea,
>>
>> Your own priests invited them there! For better or for worse!
>> while if he was a threat to the Romans he was also a
>>> threat to the instruments by which these quisling "priests"
>>> illegitimately held on to their power.
>>
>> It's a nice evasion, but it is only a pipedream, Steve, and you need
>> to confront the sad reality that the High Priests murdered the
>> Messiah your people longed for and that your own High Priest cursed
>> the Jewish nation to 2000 years of torment, persecution and
> suffering. The soul of Caiaphas is rotting in hell today, along with
>> that of Judas. Sad. Tragically sad, in fact.
>What a Christian Jew-hating Joe is
It is God's judgment. Not mine. I guess He is just another 'Jew hater', eh?
I suppose you have no other recourse but to worship Lucifer now.
Debunks2005
>Message-id: <5c26ed28.04031...@posting.google.com>
On a few rather non-essential points, yes.
>> >> >>> >> The Jews say they had nothing to do with it, 'long time ago, etc.
>> And
>> >> >> >> >> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh
>really?
>> >> >> >> >> Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with the same
>> >> >> >> >> dogmas, the faith
>whose followers had Jesus murdered?
>>
>> >> >> >> >Absolutely not
>>
>> >> >> >> Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder of
>> >> >> >> Christ lately, either.
>>
>> >Interestingly enough, an article that Bellinger posted recently
>> >(describing it as a rabbi "venting his spleen") does just this rather
>> >succinctly:
>>
>> >"If the story of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels were actual fact,
> Of course he is implying that it ISN"T. "If the story WERE actual fact...."
>
>
>Right, Joe. He's not a Christian.
That is NO excuse! You have to be a Christian to suddenly 'see' that the
murder of Christ was not only unjust, but barbaric?!!
>He has no vested reason to concern
>himself with whether it is fact or not.
Then he should not whine about imagined antisemitism. He certainly DOES have a
vested interest in this because it concerns where his soul will be spending
eternity.
>As far as he's concerned it
>may be, it may not be.
I understand exactly what his opinions happen to be, Mr. Mock.
>Regardless, the fact that he does not share
>your belief is not the issue.
The fact that he REFUSES to condemn the orchestrated murder of Christ is what
is at issue here.
>The issue is whether he would condemn
>those who bore direct responsibility for killing Jesus. Clearly, he
>is saying he would, and in no uncertain terms.
He is saying NOTHING of the kind. He won't even admit of the possibility that
Jesus was unjustly accused and murdered.
>
>> >and Jesus was actually a righteous Jew persecuted by wicked Sadduceean
>> >Priests and their Roman overlords,
>
>> Firstly, Jesus was not a 'righteous Jew, but the MESSIAH. Secondly, he was
>> persecuted by Pharisees and Sadducees alike.
>
>> >I myself would have come to his
>> >defense, and even carried his cross.
> LOL! Oh, I sincerely DOUBT THAT, Mr. Mock! IOW he is saying that Jesus was
>> GUILTY of wrongdoing and deserved the death he was meted out by the envious
>> High Priests.
>
>No. He doesn't say that at all. Are you on drugs or something, Joe?
The man is outright LYING. The rest of his hate filled article reveals the
true extent and nature of his feelings on this subject.
>
>> >More so, most religious Jews I
>> >know would have done the same.
>>
>> Again, I don't believe him.
>
>That's your prerogative.
Damn right it is.
>Regardless, you asked if Jews are documented
>as stating that they would condemn the murder of Jesus. This rabbi
>says that they would. T
No! This rabbi said they 'would' but he DIDN"T DO IT!!!!! That is the
difference, so we are BACK to square ONE. And WHY won't he do it? Because HE
agrees with it. That simple.
>The fact that you personally don't wish to
>trust his sincerety is neither here not there.
What sincerity? It is all self-serving phony rot.
>
>> His entire hate filled essay presents an entirely
>> different picture of this man and his opinions.
>
>Only because you are so filled with hate that you are incapable of
>reading the words of any believeing Jew with an open mind.
We'll leave that for others to decide.
>
>> >We Jews are not Christ killers; we are
>> >the victims of those who have accused us of such."
>>
>> Utter RUBBISH. Why are they now threatening to assassinate Mr. Gibson and
>Mr.
>> Caviezel?
>
>Who is? Certainly not this rabbi. Certainly not the Jews as a group.
The article stands on its own merits.
> >> >> >> >Sadducean sect which
>> >> >> >> >had long since lost the allegiance of the vast majority of the
>> >> >> >> >population and whose interpretation of Judaism essentially died
>out
>> >> >> >> >when the Temple was destroyed.
>> >> >> >> Is that so? They did not induce Pilate and threaten him if he did
>> >> >> >> not accede
>> >> >> >> to their demands to put the Messiah to death? What is your excuse
>> >> >> >> for the authors and codifiers of the Talmud and all their hateful
>> comments
>>
>> >> >> >> relating to Jesus and His Mother? Did the Romans force them to
>> >> >> >> include those too?
>>> No answer from Steve and the answer why is apparent.
>>
>> >Yes, I do answer directly below (pointing out that this is a diversion
>> >from the point we were actually discussing):
>>
>> Your answer was unsatisfactory, Steve.,
>
>Then why did you say I didn't answer?
An unsatisfactory answer is no better than no answer at all.
>I'm sorry if my answer was not completely to your personal liking,
>Joe.
It was what I have come to expect from you, Steve.
>But that's kind of what debating with someone who disagrees with
>you is all about.
Well, feel free to continue disagreeing then.
>
>> >> >> >>They were placed in their positions by
>> >> >> >> >the Romans and their continued power and authority in the face of
>> >> >> >> >popular opposition depended on collaboration with and the
>> >> >> >> >maintenance of Roma
>power.
>>
>> > >> >> Blah blah. The red herring won't withstand detailed investigation.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Then what are you waiting for?
>>> >>
>> >> >> What are 'you' waiting for?
>>
>> >> >Hey, you said you could prove me wrong. Go for it.
>> >>
>>> I prove you wrong most of the time, Steve.
>>
>> >If you say so. Why not do it this time?
>>
>> Because I feel you are doing a sufficient job of proving yourself wrong,
>> that's why.
>How?
Retrace your steps.
> Are you saying it is self-evidently obvious that that temple
>preists were NOT placed in their positions by the Romans and that
>their continued power and authority in the face of popular opposition
>did NOT depend on collaboration
>with and the maintenance of Roman
>power?
To a certain extent this is true, but not in the case of Christ, who was put to
death by THEIR law, and by THEIR connivance.
>> > Show us how "detailed
>> >investigation" proves that those who the gospels records as
>> >collaborating in Jesus' death were not placed in their positions by
>> >the Romans and whose continued power and authority in the face of
>> >popular opposition depended
>on collaboration with and the
>> >maintenance of Roman power.
>> I don't have to do that to prove it, because these same Jews you claim were
>so
>> ineffectual and powerless were able to induce Pilate to murder the Messiah
>by
>> threatening to denounce him to Caesar. End of story. Caiaphas is the man
>who
>> CURSED your nation, Steve. Get used to it.
>
>Right. Joe believes. The facts don't matter. (Not even the very
>facts recorded in the gospels)
The Gospels record this fact, Steve. Read them sometime.
No? Then why does the Talmud and other Jewish polemical tracts consistently
REPEAT the smears and blasphemies of these rabbis in connection with Christ and
his mother?
>Granted, that is not the specific reason why. But the
>fact remains that the original poster was wrong when he claimed that
>the Judaism of today is the same as that which was practiced by those
>responsible for Jesus' death.
Certainly Judaism has evolved in many respects over the centuries.
>> >> >> >> >If Jesus was a threat to them, he was a threat to the Romans.
>>
>> He was NO threat to the Romans. Was St. stephen also a threat to the
>> >> >> >> Romans? St. James?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No answer from Steve, I see...
>
>> >> >I have no idea.
>> >>
>> >> I think you do.
>>
>> >Why would you think that?
>
>> Because you are not an imbecile, Steve. that's why. You are an
>intelligent
>> person and that gives you less of an excuse to behave the way you are
>> currently doing.
>Still no argument as to why I am wrong, though.
I think the answer is self-evident.
Then why do subsequent Rabbis continue to repeat their scurrilous descriptions
of Yeshua and His Mother?!
Debunks2005
>Message-id: <5c26ed28.04031...@posting.google.com>
>
Debunks2005
>Message-id: <c2lr1b$1uoe17$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>In news:20040309184241...@mb-m25.aol.com,
>Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>>> From: "Gord McFee" gord....@rogers.com
>>> Date: 3/8/2004 4:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: c2j3pr$1sl3nh$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de
>
>[...]
>
>>>> Speaking of hated toward Christianity, why don't you post that
>>>> blasphemous limmerick for us again?
>>>
>>> Why don't you tell us why you believe God to be a self-hating Jew?
>>
>> Where did I ever post that?
>
>Aren't you the one who said Jesus, who is God, did not forgive the Jews,
>of which he was one?
>
The Gospel record is clear, as is the subsequent tragic history of the Jewish
people.
Debunks2005
>Message-id: <c2lrfa$1uafko$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>In news:20040309184617...@mb-m25.aol.com,
>Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>>> From: "Gord McFee" gord....@rogers.com
>>> Date: 3/8/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: <c2j4ag$1u1a6b$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>[...]
>
>>>> Be aware that I have not forsaken the true Roman Catholic Church.
>>>> Next diversion?
>>>
>>> You have not only forsaken the true Roman Catholic faith, you have
>>> forsaken Christianity in toto.
>>
>> Did the Pope send you a personal message to this effect?
>
>No, Joe Bellinger did.
>
I did?
>
>> If so, ask
>> me to forward a copy to me.
>
>Huh?
>
>> You have no disposition to love your
>>> neighbour,
>>
>> No? And your proof for this baseless accusation consists of what,
>> exactly?
>
>Your own words. Unless you are lying.
I don't like and my own words do not accuse me of any malfeasance on my part,
nor of any personal rancor.
>
>>> nor to forgive your enemy.
>>
>> Are you calling yourself my enemy or complaining that I have not
>> forgiven you?
>
>Nope.
>
That's good to hear, Mr. McFee, for I have forgiven your insults on many
occasions.
>
>>> Indeed, you ooze loathing of the
>>> people with whom God first made his Covenant from every pore of your
>>> body.
>>
>> Not at all. Proof?
>
>Your words, over and over and over again. Calling them Talmudists.
WELL?
>Suggesting they are condemned to Hell because they believe in their God
>in their way.
God does not view the matter as you do, Mr. McFee. You claim you are a
Catholic. If so, you KNOW perfectly well that you are not doing the Jewish
people any good whatsover by confirming them in their disbelief and apostasy.
We Christians are under a mandate to preach the Gospel to ALL nations, and that
includes the nation of Israel, first and foremost, for it was to them that the
Gospel was first preach to begin with.
> Calling them apostates
I am only telling the truth, as should you.
>Your antisemitic doggerel.
I have not posted any antisemitic doggerel. It is all in your perception...and
you have NO idea what my purpose is in posting material here.
>Your
>Streicher-like characterizations.
HUH? I am no supporter of Julius Streicher. In fact, his hate filled writings
fill me with disgust. He was no friend of Catholicism either. Is it necessary
for me to tell you that?
>Your complete lack of even a
>scintilla of Christian forgiveness and love of your neighbour. And so
>much more.
Really? Where have I been attacking 'you' or any of your team mates here? If
anything, I 'ignore' your repeated attacks against me.
>>> You are no Christian and certainly no Catholic.
>>
>> You are no judge.
>
>I never said I was.
Then why are you talking like one?
>
>> I daresay that you ought to revert back to the old
>> St Joseph's Baltimore Catechism. Seems you are confused about the
>> faith you profess.
>
>Now Joe just babbles.
Just a straight forward statement.
Steven Mock
> >Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
> >From: sm...@nizkor.org (Steven Mock)
> >Date: 3/10/2004 6:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <5c26ed28.04031...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote in message
> >news:<20040309170650...@mb-m10.aol.com>...
>
> >> >capitals such as Lutetia (Paris), Athens, Londinum and Cologne, was
> >> >first disbelieved, then came revulsion and abhorrence."
> >>
> >> There is no historical basis for suggesting that the news of Herod's
> >> massacre
> >> ever reached Rome until the message of the Gospel was finally preached
> >> there.
> >>
> >> >Is this true? Is this the way it is described in Matt.2? Why won't
> >> >you answer the question?
> >>
> >> I think I just did, didn't I?
> >
> >Yes, you did. Thank you. You agree with me that the original posters
> >characterization of the event is entirely off-base.
>
> On a few rather non-essential points, yes.
The man says that the Jews collectively conspired to murder their own
children, and that's a *non-essential" point?
> >> >> >> >> Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder
> >> >> >> >> of Christ lately, either.
>
> >> >Interestingly enough, an article that Bellinger posted recently
> >> >(describing it as a rabbi "venting his spleen") does just this rather
> >> >succinctly:
>
> >> >"If the story of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels were actual fact,
>
> > Of course he is implying that it ISN"T. "If the story WERE actual
> > fact...."
>
> >Right, Joe. He's not a Christian.
>
> That is NO excuse! You have to be a Christian to suddenly 'see' that the
> murder of Christ was not only unjust, but barbaric?!!
No. But that is pretty much what the rabbi you quoted was saying,
now, wasn't it. Indeed, I don't know of any Jew who would think that
the murder of any innocent person by such means WASN'T barbaric, so
just who do you think you're speaking for when you claim that Jews of
today think otherwise?
> >He has no vested reason to concern
> >himself with whether it is fact or not.
>
> Then he should not whine about imagined antisemitism.
Huh?
> >As far as he's concerned it
> >may be, it may not be.
>
> I understand exactly what his opinions happen to be, Mr. Mock.
>
> >Regardless, the fact that he does not share
> >your belief is not the issue.
>
> The fact that he REFUSES to condemn the orchestrated murder of Christ is what
> is at issue here.
But that is exactly what he does in the passage I highlighted, Joe.
You really are insane, you know.
> >The issue is whether he would condemn
> >those who bore direct responsibility for killing Jesus. Clearly, he
> >is saying he would, and in no uncertain terms.
>
> He is saying NOTHING of the kind. He won't even admit of the possibility
> that Jesus was unjustly accused and murdered.
Sure he does. And he's saying that if it is true, it was condemnable.
> >> >and Jesus was actually a righteous Jew persecuted by wicked Sadduceean
> >> >Priests and their Roman overlords,
>
> >> Firstly, Jesus was not a 'righteous Jew, but the MESSIAH. Secondly, he
> >> was persecuted by Pharisees and Sadducees alike.
>
> >> >I myself would have come to his
> >> >defense, and even carried his cross.
>
> >> LOL! Oh, I sincerely DOUBT THAT, Mr. Mock! IOW he is saying that Jesus
> >> was GUILTY of wrongdoing and deserved the death he was meted out by the
> >> envious High Priests.
>
> >No. He doesn't say that at all. Are you on drugs or something, Joe?
>
> The man is outright LYING.
He's saying what he thinks. How do you know he's lying about what he
thinks?
> The rest of his hate filled article reveals the
> true extent and nature of his feelings on this subject.
How? And where is the "hate" in his article (not that I expect you to
answer... you never substantiate claims like this one).
> >> >More so, most religious Jews I
> >> >know would have done the same.
> >>
> >> Again, I don't believe him.
> >
> >That's your prerogative.
>
> Damn right it is.
>
> >Regardless, you asked if Jews are documented
> >as stating that they would condemn the murder of Jesus. This rabbi
> >says that they would. T
>
> No! This rabbi said they 'would' but he DIDN"T DO IT!!!!! That is the
> difference, so we are BACK to square ONE. And WHY won't he do it? Because
> HE agrees with it. That simple.
You really are insane, Joe. You know that, don't you?
<snip: the rest of Joe's boring blustering>
Steven Mock
Debunks2005
>Message-id: <5c26ed28.04031...@posting.google.com>
>
>debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote in message
>news:<20040311032949...@mb-m27.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>> >From: sm...@nizkor.org (Steven Mock)
>> >Date: 3/10/2004 6:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <5c26ed28.04031...@posting.google.com>
>> >
>> >debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote in message
>> >news:<20040309170650...@mb-m10.aol.com>...
>>
>> >> >The news reaching Rome and other
>> >> >capitals such as Lutetia (Paris), Athens, Londinum and Cologne, was
>> >> >first disbelieved, then came revulsion and abhorrence."
>> >>
>> >> There is no historical basis for suggesting that the news of Herod's
>> >> massacre
>> >> ever reached Rome until the message of the Gospel was finally preached
>> >> there.
>> >>
>> >> >Is this true? Is this the way it is described in Matt.2? Why won't
>> >> >you answer the question?
>> >>
>> >> I think I just did, didn't I?
>> >
>> >Yes, you did. Thank you. You agree with me that the original posters
>> >characterization of the event is entirely off-base.
>>
>> On a few rather non-essential points, yes.
>
>The man says that the Jews collectively conspired to murder their own
>children, and that's a *non-essential" point?
>
I meant non-essential to the question of the crucifixion, Steve. sheesh.
Certainly the "Jews" did not conspire to murder their own children...Masada
being the exception, but that was in a desperate situation. Very tragic, too.
>> >> >> >> >> Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder
>> >> >> >> >> of Christ lately, either.
>> >> >Interestingly enough, an article that Bellinger posted recently
>> >> >(describing it as a rabbi "venting his spleen") does just this rather
>> >> >succinctly:
>>
>>"If the story of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels were actual fact,
>>
>> > Of course he is implying that it ISN"T. "If the story WERE actual
>> > fact...."
>>
>> >Right, Joe. He's not a Christian.
>>
>> That is NO excuse! You have to be a Christian to suddenly 'see' that the
>> murder of Christ was not only unjust, but barbaric?!!
>No. But that is pretty much what the rabbi you quoted was saying,
No, Steve, that is NOT what he was saying. What he was saying, is that he
fails to see it, period.
>Indeed, I don't know of any Jew who would think that
>the murder of any innocent person
We are not discussing just 'any' innocent person, but Yeshua, the Messiah, and
their animoisty toward the Messiah is what prevents people like the rabbi from
acknowleging the horrenous nature of the crime committed against Yeshua.
>by such means WASN'T barbaric, so
>just who do you think you're speaking for when you claim that Jews of
>today think otherwise?
Steve, please listen: I have been asking you repeatedly for some indication
that contemporary, influential or otherwise respected Jews, or even Jews from
previous centuries, (converted Jews do not count) ever condemned the murder of
Christ in a public statement? Sadly, you are unable to prove that any of them
did.
And that is my point. NO acknowlegment of any crime or any wrong doing on the
part of their ancestors.
>
>> >He has no vested reason to concern
>> >himself with whether it is fact or not.
>>
>> Then he should not whine about imagined antisemitism.
>
>Huh?
That is what it always boils down to in the long wrong, isn't it?
>> >As far as he's concerned it
>> >may be, it may not be.
>>
>> I understand exactly what his opinions happen to be, Mr. Mock.
>>
>> >Regardless, the fact that he does not share
>> >your belief is not the issue.
>> The fact that he REFUSES to condemn the orchestrated murder of Christ is
>what
>> is at issue here.
>But that is exactly what he does in the passage I highlighted, Joe.
>You really are insane, you know.
No, Steve, I am not insane. I understand exactly what the man is saying and I
pointed out that he prefaced the entire insincere passage with IF...if, if, if,
if, Get it? And this indicates that he does not BELIEVE that Christ's death
was either undeserved or unjust. Certainly he NEVER explicitly states that the
crucifixion of Christ was a heinous crime on the part of his ancestors.
>>The issue is whether he would condemn
>> >those who bore direct responsibility for killing Jesus. Clearly, he
>> >is saying he would, and in no uncertain terms.
>>
>> He is saying NOTHING of the kind. He won't even admit of the possibility
>> that Jesus was unjustly accused and murdered.
>Sure he does. And he's saying that if it is true, it was condemnable.
If, if, if, if, and he is not saying that is is condemnable. His comments are
full of insincerity.
>> >> >and Jesus was actually a righteous Jew persecuted by wicked Sadduceean
>> >> >Priests and their Roman overlords,
> >> Firstly, Jesus was not a 'righteous Jew, but the MESSIAH. Secondly, he
>> >> was persecuted by Pharisees and Sadducees alike.
>>
>> >> >I myself would have come to his
>> >> >defense, and even carried his cross.
> >> LOL! Oh, I sincerely DOUBT THAT, Mr. Mock! IOW he is saying that Jesus
>> >> was GUILTY of wrongdoing and deserved the death he was meted out by the
>> >> envious High Priests.
>
>> >No. He doesn't say that at all. Are you on drugs or something, Joe?
>>
>> The man is outright LYING
>He's saying what he thinks. How do you know he's lying about what he
>thinks?
>
I read his entire essay, Steve.
>
>> The rest of his hate filled article reveals the
>> true extent and nature of his feelings on this subject.
>How? And where is the "hate" in his article (not that I expect you to
>answer... you never substantiate claims like this one).
I don't? I posted his entire essay, did I not?
>
>> >> >More so, most religious Jews I
>> >> >know would have done the same.
>> >>
>> >> Again, I don't believe him.
>> >
>> >That's your prerogative.
> Damn right it is.
>>
>> >Regardless, you asked if Jews are documented
>> >as stating that they would condemn the murder of Jesus. This rabbi
>> >says that they would. T
>>
> No! This rabbi said they 'would' but he DIDN"T DO IT!!!!! That is the
>> difference, so we are BACK to square ONE. And WHY won't he do it? Because
>
>> HE agrees with it. That simple.
>
>You really are insane, Joe. You know that, don't you?
Calling me names is not earning you any merit points, Steve.
><snip: the rest of Joe's boring blustering>
IOW, you cannot convince us of the correctness of your position. The usual
story.
Gord McFee
Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>> From: "Gord McFee" gord....@rogers.com
>> Date: 3/9/2004 5:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: <c2lr1b$1uoe17$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
>>
>> In news:20040309184241...@mb-m25.aol.com,
>> Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>>>> From: "Gord McFee" gord....@rogers.com
>>>> Date: 3/8/2004 4:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: c2j3pr$1sl3nh$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Speaking of hated toward Christianity, why don't you post that
>>>>> blasphemous limmerick for us again?
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you tell us why you believe God to be a self-hating Jew?
>>>
>>> Where did I ever post that?
>>
>> Aren't you the one who said Jesus, who is God, did not forgive the
>> Jews, of which he was one?
>
> The Gospel record is clear, as is the subsequent tragic history of
> the Jewish people.
Joe runs away again.
Gord McFee
Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>> From: "Gord McFee" gord....@rogers.com
>> Date: 3/9/2004 5:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: <c2lrfa$1uafko$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
>>
>> In news:20040309184617...@mb-m25.aol.com,
>> Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>>>> From: "Gord McFee" gord....@rogers.com
>>>> Date: 3/8/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: <c2j4ag$1u1a6b$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Be aware that I have not forsaken the true Roman Catholic Church.
>>>>> Next diversion?
>>>>
>>>> You have not only forsaken the true Roman Catholic faith, you have
>>>> forsaken Christianity in toto.
>>>
>>> Did the Pope send you a personal message to this effect?
>>
>> No, Joe Bellinger did.
>
> I did?
Yes.
>>> If so, ask
>>> me to forward a copy to me.
>>
>> Huh?
>
>>> You have no disposition to love your
>>>> neighbour,
>>>
>>> No? And your proof for this baseless accusation consists of what,
>>> exactly?
>
>> Your own words. Unless you are lying.
>
> I don't like and my own words do not accuse me of any malfeasance on
> my part, nor of any personal rancor.
Really? Remember this?
<quote>
From gmc...@ibm.net Thu May 21 23:37:03 1998
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Hypocrite Bellinger lies again.... .. Re: Bellinger
admits that he doesn't care about the truth... Re: B
From: gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 03:37:03 GMT
In <199805210311...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 21 May 1998
03:11:11 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >I'd be
> >interested in their reply. Althouhg I'm not entirely sure of the
complaint
> >e-mail address, I'd suggest that you start with
> >customer...@bc.sympatico.ca or webm...@bc.sympatico.ca.
>
> I really should start with your mother and ask how she managed to
bring such an
> imbecile into the world. Wrong milkman, I guess.
We'll remember that one the next time you whine about people insulting
you. You insult someone's mother. Disgusting.
</quote>
[...]
>>>> Indeed, you ooze loathing of the
>>>> people with whom God first made his Covenant from every pore of
>>>> your body.
>>>
>>> Not at all. Proof?
>
>> Your words, over and over and over again. Calling them Talmudists.
>
> WELL?
Well, what?
>> Suggesting they are condemned to Hell because they believe in their
>> God in their way.
>
> God does not view the matter as you do, Mr. McFee.
How do you know how God views things, you pretentious prat?
> You claim you are
> a Catholic. If so, you KNOW perfectly well that you are not doing
> the Jewish people any good whatsover by confirming them in their
> disbelief and apostasy.
I am doing nothing of the sort.
> We Christians are under a mandate to preach
> the Gospel to ALL nations, and that includes the nation of Israel,
> first and foremost, for it was to them that the Gospel was first
> preach to begin with.
We are not under a mandate to claim they are condemned to Hell by a
loving God.
>> Calling them apostates
>
> I am only telling the truth, as should you.
You are not telling the truth. You are raving. You are historcially
and theologically wrong.
>> Your antisemitic doggerel.
>
> I have not posted any antisemitic doggerel.
You are sooooooooooo easy.
<begin quote>
From: rblac...@juno.com
To: ns...@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Oh Where, Oh Where Have My Nizkooks Gone?
References: <1.5.4.16.1996121...@earthlink.net>
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 6-26,28-82
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:33:43 EST
Indeed, they are far from silenced. Right now they have been attacking
me unremittingly with spams from porno sites on the web. They have also
somehow cut me off from posting through my ISP---and I have heard not a
word about it from my ISP, though I have sent email after email. When I
attempt to post to alt revisionism, a message appears on my screen: You
have no permission to talk! If they are unusually dormant right
now--perhaps they are celebrating Hannukah--
Rockin around the Hannukah bush,
Have a happy holiday...
Christmas gifts are selling fast
The money's on the way....
The stupid Goy, is spending his cash
On our cheap and shoddy goods,
While we go to the bank and deposit the dough,
For vacations in Hollywood....
Izzy gets a sentimental feeling every year
Everyone can hear him holler
"Deck my tree with silver dollars"
Rockin around the Hannukah bush
Izzy's tribe is here to stay
Ripping dumb old Goyim off
In that good old Jewish way
<end quote>
> It is all in your
> perception...and you have NO idea what my purpose is in posting
> material here.
I know exactly what motivates you.
[...]
Gord McFee
Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>> From: "Gord McFee" gord....@rogers.com
>> Date: 3/9/2004 5:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: <c2lrs9$1vins3$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
[...]
>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>> Mr. Cohen or Mr. Levy down the road didn't kill Jesus. Oh
>>>>>>>>>>> really? Aren't they still practising the same Judaism with
>>>>>>>>>>> the same dogmas, the faith whose
>>>
>>>> followers had Jesus murdered?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Funny, but I haven't read of any of them condemning the murder
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>
>>>>>> Christ lately, either.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly enough, an article that Bellinger posted recently
>>>> (describing it as a rabbi "venting his spleen") does just this
>>>> rather succinctly:
>>>
>>>> "If the story of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels were actual
>>>> fact,
>>>
>>> Of course he is implying that it ISN"T. "If the story WERE actual
>>> fact...."
>>
>> No, he is implying that as a Jew, he doesn't believe Jesus was God.
>
> Neither did Caiaphas, so I guess they are equal. Neither do you,
> apparently.
Then Caiaphas cannot be accused of knowingly conspiring to kill the
Messiah.
Thanks for the admission.
>>>> and Jesus was actually a righteous Jew persecuted by wicked
>>>> Sadduceean Priests and their Roman overlords,
>>>
>>> Firstly, Jesus was not a 'righteous Jew, but the MESSIAH. Secondly,
>>> he was persecuted by Pharisees and Sadducees alike.
>>
>> They didn't *know* he was the Messiah.
>
> Yes, they did.
Yet, you can never provide one bit of proof of that. Why is that, Joe?
> And even supposing they didn't, they all know it by
> now.
Changing the subject a bit? They can't know it now any more than they
could know it then. It is a matter of belief.
> Moreover, even if they didn't, they still engineered the murder
> of a completely innocent man.
So, they are no more guilty than the Romans. So, Jesus obviously
included them in his plea for forgiveness to the Father.
> God held them accountable for their
> rejection of His Son,
How did he do that?
> so I guess He disagrees with your assessment.
>
>>>> I myself would have come to his
>>>> defense, and even carried his cross.
>
>>> LOL! Oh, I sincerely DOUBT THAT, Mr. Mock! IOW he is saying that
>>> Jesus was GUILTY of wrongdoing and deserved the death he was meted
>>> out by the envious High Priests.
>
>> Huh? He says he would have come to his defence. Or do you simply
>> assert that Jews all lie?
>
> Is he 'all' Jews?
Do you ever answer a question?
>>>> More so, most religious Jews I
>>>> know would have done the same.
>>>
>>> Again, I don't believe him. His entire hate filled essay presents
>>> an entirely different picture of this man and his opinions.
>
>> Yup, Joe just can't believe anything good about a Jew.
>
> Not about that one.
Of course not.
>>>> We Jews are not Christ killers; we are
>>>> the victims of those who have accused us of such."
>>>
>>> Utter RUBBISH. Why are they now threatening to assassinate Mr.
>>> Gibson and Mr. Caviezel?
>
>> Who is threatening that?
>
> The bogeyman.
Now you are just being silly again. Is that what passes for witty
remarks in your cuckoo sect?
[...]
>>> while if he was a threat to the Romans he was also a
>>>> threat to the instruments by which these quisling "priests"
>>>> illegitimately held on to their power.
>
>>> It's a nice evasion, but it is only a pipedream, Steve, and you need
>>> to confront the sad reality that the High Priests murdered the
>>> Messiah your people longed for and that your own High Priest cursed
>>> the Jewish nation to 2000 years of torment, persecution and
>>> suffering. The soul of Caiaphas is rotting in hell today, along
>>> with that of Judas. Sad. Tragically sad, in fact.
>
>> What a Christian Jew-hating Joe is
>
> It is God's judgment.
No, it is not. It is a lie propagated by Jew-haters and bigots.
> Not mine. I guess He is just another 'Jew
> hater', eh? I suppose you have no other recourse but to worship
> Lucifer now.
Nah, you can keep him.
Steven Mock
Joe, I know you're a one-note piano, but not every discussion we get
into is about the crucifixion.
This one started from my comment about this moron's claim that the
Jews, in order to prevent the coming of Jesus, collectively conspired
to murder their own children and my question as to what sources this
claim was based on.
> sheesh.
> Certainly the "Jews" did not conspire to murder their own children...Masada
> being the exception, but that was in a desperate situation. Very tragic,
> too.
Yeah, whatever Joe.
<snip: a whole lot of stupid blustering>
> >by such means WASN'T barbaric, so
> >just who do you think you're speaking for when you claim that Jews of
> >today think otherwise?
>
> Steve, please listen: I have been asking you repeatedly for some indication
> that contemporary, influential or otherwise respected Jews, or even Jews from
> previous centuries, (converted Jews do not count) ever condemned the murder
> of Christ in a public statement?
I just quoted you one, from one of YOUR earlier posts, and you
rejected it on the grounds that you don't personally believe he was
being sincere.
How is it physically possible for me to meet your demand if you
reserve the right to hand-wave away whatever I present based on your
claim to insider knowledge of the writer's innermost thoughts and
feelings?
> Sadly, you are unable to prove that any of them did.
> And that is my point. NO acknowlegment of any crime or any wrong doing on
> the part of their ancestors.
Whose ancestors? How would they know if the Temple Priests were among
their ancestors? And why should it matter?
> >> >He has no vested reason to concern
> >> >himself with whether it is fact or not.
> >>
> >> Then he should not whine about imagined antisemitism.
> >
> >Huh?
>
> That is what it always boils down to in the long wrong, isn't it?
Huh?
> >> >As far as he's concerned it
> >> >may be, it may not be.
> >>
> >> I understand exactly what his opinions happen to be, Mr. Mock.
> >>
> >> >Regardless, the fact that he does not share
> >> >your belief is not the issue.
>
> >> The fact that he REFUSES to condemn the orchestrated murder of Christ is
> >> what is at issue here.
>
> >But that is exactly what he does in the passage I highlighted, Joe.
> >You really are insane, you know.
>
> No, Steve, I am not insane. I understand exactly what the man is saying and
> I pointed out that he prefaced the entire insincere passage with IF...if,
> if, if,
> if, Get it? And this indicates that he does not BELIEVE that Christ's death
> was either undeserved or unjust.
No, he just does not know whether it happened exactly in the way that
is depicted in the Gospels.
> Certainly he NEVER explicitly states that the
> crucifixion of Christ was a heinous crime on the part of his ancestors.
Again, where do you get this insider knowledge that the crime was
committed by *his* ancestors?
> >> >The issue is whether he would condemn
> >> >those who bore direct responsibility for killing Jesus. Clearly, he
> >> >is saying he would, and in no uncertain terms.
>
> >> He is saying NOTHING of the kind. He won't even admit of the possibility
> >> that Jesus was unjustly accused and murdered.
>
> >Sure he does. And he's saying that if it is true, it was condemnable.
>
> If, if, if, if, and he is not saying that is is condemnable. His comments
> are full of insincerity.
Because JOE SAYS SO!
> >> >> >I myself would have come to his
> >> >> >defense, and even carried his cross.
>
> >> >> LOL! Oh, I sincerely DOUBT THAT, Mr. Mock! IOW he is saying that
> >> >> Jesus was GUILTY of wrongdoing and deserved the death he was meted out
> >> >> by the envious High Priests.
>
> >> >No. He doesn't say that at all. Are you on drugs or something, Joe?
> >>
> >> The man is outright LYING
No, you're lying. He doesn't say what you attribute to him.
> >He's saying what he thinks. How do you know he's lying about what he
> >thinks?
>
> I read his entire essay, Steve.
So where does he say what you attribute to him? <Joe will not answer>
> >> The rest of his hate filled article reveals the
> >> true extent and nature of his feelings on this subject.
>
> >How? And where is the "hate" in his article (not that I expect you to
> >answer... you never substantiate claims like this one).
>
> I don't? I posted his entire essay, did I not?
Yes. Where is the "hate"? You can't answer, can you. You NEVER
substantiate claims like this one.
Steven Mock
Debunks2005
>Message-id: <c2r4i4$219rc3$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
Since you are so intent on talking about mothers why don't we post what the
Talmud says about the mother of Jesus, when it refers to her as a whore?
>
>>>>> Indeed, you ooze loathing of the
>>>>> people with whom God first made his Covenant from every pore of
>>>>> your body.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. Proof?
>>
>>> Your words, over and over and over again. Calling them Talmudists.
>>
>> WELL?
>
>Well, what?
Well?
>>> Suggesting they are condemned to Hell because they believe in their
>>> God in their way.
>>
>> God does not view the matter as you do, Mr. McFee.
>How do you know how God views things, you pretentious prat?
We know how God views things via the Scriptures, the Prophets and the
traditional Church, and there is nothing pretentious in that.
>> You claim you are
>> a Catholic. If so, you KNOW perfectly well that you are not doing
>> the Jewish people any good whatsover by confirming them in their
>> disbelief and apostasy.
>
>I am doing nothing of the sort.
whatever, Mr. McFee. I don't see you doing anything else BUT confirming them
in their antichrist bigotry and apostasy.
>
>> We Christians are under a mandate to preach
>> the Gospel to ALL nations, and that includes the nation of Israel,
>> first and foremost, for it was to them that the Gospel was first
>> preach to begin with.
>We are not under a mandate to claim they are condemned to Hell by a
>loving God.
We are under a mandate to CONVERT them. If they were heading to HEAVEN,
conversion would be completely UNNECESSARY.
>> Calling them apostates
>>
>> I am only telling the truth, as should you.
>
>You are not telling the truth.
Yes, sir, I AM telling the truth.
>You are raving.
Seems that it is you who is raving, Mr. McFee.
>You are historcially
>and theologically wrong.
I am not wrong on either account, and you know it.
As you well know, the composition of satiric doggerel was not my own
composition. And even if it were, so what? It is obvious satire. I see far
more offensive on Mad TV.
>> It is all in your
>> perception...and you have NO idea what my purpose is in posting
>> material here.
>
>I know exactly what motivates you.
sadly, you don't. But tell me, what do you think motivates Talmudists to
attack Our Lord and Blessed Mother so vehemently? What did they do to them to
incite such satanic rage? Do you have an intelligent answer to those
questions?
Debunks2005
>Message-id: <c2r503$20n5nq$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
No? Our LORD HIMSELF pronounced him GUILTY in the Gospels. Are you going to
contradict HIM now? Call HIM an antisemite for condemning Caiaphas, who in
effect condemned HIMSELF by his own criminal thoughts, words and deeds?
>Thanks for the admission.
See above. waiting for your reply, Mr. Catholic.
>>>>> and Jesus was actually a righteous Jew persecuted by wicked
>>>>> Sadduceean Priests and their Roman overlords,
>>>> Firstly, Jesus was not a 'righteous Jew, but the MESSIAH. Secondly,
>>>> he was persecuted by Pharisees and Sadducees alike.
>>>
>>> They didn't *know* he was the Messiah.
>> Yes, they did.
>
>Yet, you can never provide one bit of proof of that. Why is that, Joe?
Jesus HIMSELF is the PROOF, Mr. McFee. He lived and walked and talked and
performed Divine Miracles right in their midst, but these false teachers and
guides were for the most part perverse servants of satan, which is why they
rejected the Messiah.
>
>> And even supposing they didn't, they all know it by
>> now.
>Changing the subject a bit? They can't know it now any more than they
>could know it then. It is a matter of belief.
OUR LORD HIMSELF declared their GUILT. Are you contradicting HIM now? perhaps
you should apostatize, if you have not already done so.l
>> Moreover, even if they didn't, they still engineered the murder
>> of a completely innocent man.
>
>So, they are no more guilty than the Romans.
OUR LORD said they are. Are you contradicting HIM?
> So, Jesus obviously
>included them in his plea for forgiveness to the Father.
we have been through this enough already. His forgiveness was extended to the
pagan Romans, who 'knew not what they do."
> God held them accountable for their
>> rejection of His Son,
>
>How did he do that?
Have you never read Jewish history? Where is their Temple today? where is
their priesthood?
>
>> so I guess He disagrees with your assessment.
>>
>>>>> I myself would have come to his
>>>>> defense, and even carried his cross.
>
>>>> LOL! Oh, I sincerely DOUBT THAT, Mr. Mock! IOW he is saying that
>>>> Jesus was GUILTY of wrongdoing and deserved the death he was meted
>>>> out by the envious High Priests.
>>
>>> Huh? He says he would have come to his defence. Or do you simply
>>> assert that Jews all lie?
>>
>> Is he 'all' Jews?
>
>Do you ever answer a question?
I just did, and quite explicitly too.
>>>>> More so, most religious Jews I
>>>>> know would have done the same.
>>>> Again, I don't believe him. His entire hate filled essay presents
>>>> an entirely different picture of this man and his opinions.
>>
>>> Yup, Joe just can't believe anything good about a Jew.
>> Not about that one.
>
>Of course not.
Of course not is right. Next you will be defending Lucifer himself,
complaining about how 'misunderstood' he is.
>
>>>>> We Jews are not Christ killers; we are
>>>>> the victims of those who have accused us of such."
>>>> Utter RUBBISH. Why are they now threatening to assassinate Mr.
>>>> Gibson and Mr. Caviezel?
>>
>>> Who is threatening that?
>>
>> The bogeyman.
>Now you are just being silly again. Is that what passes for witty
>remarks in your cuckoo sect?
I have posted the particulars in the article which claims that Talmudists have
earmarked Mr. Gibson and Mr. Caviezel for assassination.
>.]
>
>>>> while if he was a threat to the Romans he was also a
>>>>> threat to the instruments by which these quisling "priests"
>>>>> illegitimately held on to their power.
>>
>>>> It's a nice evasion, but it is only a pipedream, Steve, and you need
>>>> to confront the sad reality that the High Priests murdered the
>>>> Messiah your people longed for and that your own High Priest cursed
>>>> the Jewish nation to 2000 years of torment, persecution and
>>>> suffering. The soul of
>Caiaphas is rotting in hell today, along
>>>> with that of Judas. Sad. Tragically sad, in fact.
>>
>>> What a Christian Jew-hating Joe is
>>
>> It is God's judgment.
>
>No, it is not. It is a lie propagated by Jew-haters and bigots.
It is GOD'S Judgment, Mr. McFee, and all history attests to it. Why did Julian
and his Talmudic allies FAIL to rebuild the Temple in defiance of God's own
judgment against the Jews for rejecting His Son>?
>> Not mine. I guess He is just another 'Jew
>> hater', eh? I suppose you have no other recourse but to worship
>> Lucifer now.
>
>Nah, you can keep him.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass."
He is all yours, Mr. McFee.
Debunks2005
This entire thread is concerned with the subject of the mission of Yeshua and
His crucifixion.
>This one started from my comment about this moron's claim that the
>Jews, in order to prevent the coming of Jesus, collectively conspired
>to murder their own children and my question as to what sources this
>claim was based on.
This was one claim contained within a number of other claims all related to the
Passion of Christ.
>
>> sheesh.
>> Certainly the "Jews" did not conspire to murder their own children...Masada
>> being the exception, but that was in a desperate situation. Very tragic,
>> too.
>Yeah, whatever Joe.
well, it is a factual statement, is it not?
><snip: a whole lot of stupid blustering>
>> >by such means WASN'T barbaric, so
>> >just who do you think you're speaking for when you claim that Jews of
>> >today think otherwise?
>> Steve, please listen: I have been asking you repeatedly for some
>indication
>> that contemporary, influential or otherwise respected Jews, or even Jews
>from
>> previous centuries, (converted Jews do not count) ever condemned the murder
>
>> of Christ in a public statement?
>I just quoted you one, from one of YOUR earlier posts, and you
>rejected it on the grounds that you don't personally believe he was
>being sincere.
No. "I" posted that source and I posted it to demonstrate the insincerity of
that man's claims. It does NOT in any respect offer a credible reply to my
question, which remains unaswered by you or anyone else.
Hell, you can't even bring YOURSELF to condemn them for their role in the
murder of Yeshua.
>How is it physically possible for me to meet your demand if you
>reserve the right to hand-wave away whatever I present based on your
>claim to insider knowledge of the writer's innermost thoughts and
>feelings?
Post something CONVINCING then. Post something which is CLEAR, and
unequivocal. You know exactly what I am asking for here, yet you cannot
produce it because it DOES NOT EXIST.
>> Sadly, you are unable to prove that any of them did.
>> And that is my point. NO acknowlegment of any crime or any wrong doing on
>> the part of their ancestors.
>
>
>Whose ancestors? How would they know if the Temple Priests were among
>their ancestors? And why should it matter?
Apparently it DOES matter, otherwise Foxman and co would not have been
screeching about it for over a year now.
>
>> >> >He has no vested reason to concern
>> >> >himself with whether it is fact or not.
>> >>
>> >> Then he should not whine about imagined antisemitism.
>> >
>> >Huh?
>> That is what it always boils down to in the long wrong, isn't it?
>
>Huh?
I am getting to be of the opinion that 'antisemitism' is nothing more than
'antisatanism' in disguise.
>>> >As far as he's concerned it
>> >> >may be, it may not be.
>> >>
>>> I understand exactly what his opinions happen to be, Mr. Mock.
>> >>
>> >> >Regardless, the fact that he does not share
>> >> >your belief is not the issue.
> >> The fact that he REFUSES to condemn the orchestrated murder of Christ is
>> >> what is at issue here.
>>
>> >But that is exactly what he does in the passage I highlighted, Joe.
>> >You really are insane, you know.
>>
>> No, Steve, I am not insane. I understand exactly what the man is saying
>and
>> I pointed out that he prefaced the entire insincere passage with IF...if,
>
>
>> if, if,
>> if, Get it? And this indicates that he does not BELIEVE that Christ's
>death
>> was either undeserved or unjust.
>No, he just does not know whether it happened exactly in the way that
>is depicted in the Gospels.
Oh please~!
>
>> Certainly he NEVER explicitly states that the
>> crucifixion of Christ was a heinous crime on the part of his ancestors.
>
>Again, where do you get this insider knowledge that the crime was
>committed by *his* ancestors?
Ancestors...Jewish High Priests...in any event he condemns NEITHER. The old
refrain is always the same: "Shift the blame on to the Gentile Romans. Never
mind that THEY eventually converted to Christianity and we haven't and have no
intention of ever doing so."
>> >> >The issue is whether he would condemn
>> >> >those who bore direct responsibility for killing Jesus. Clearly, he
>> >> >is saying he would, and in no uncertain terms.
>> >> He is saying NOTHING of the kind. He won't even admit of the
>possibility
>> >> that Jesus was unjustly accused and murdered.
>> >Sure he does. And he's saying that if it is true, it was condemnable.
>>
>> If, if, if, if, and he is not saying that is is condemnable. His comments
>> are full of insincerity.
>
>Because JOE SAYS SO!
No, because 'he' says so, Steve.
>
>> >> >> >I myself would have come to his
>> >> >> >defense, and even carried his cross.
>> >> >> LOL! Oh, I sincerely DOUBT THAT, Mr. Mock! IOW he is saying that
>> >> >> Jesus was GUILTY of wrongdoing and deserved the death he was meted
>out
>> >> >> by the envious High Priests.
> >> >No. He doesn't say that at all. Are you on drugs or something, Joe?
>> >>
>> >> The man is outright LYING
>
>No, you're lying. He doesn't say what you attribute to him.
It is ALL quite clear what he is saying, Mr. Mock, and what he is implying.
> >He's saying what he thinks. How do you know he's lying about what he
>> >thinks?
>>
>> I read his entire essay, Steve.
>So where does he say what you attribute to him? <Joe will not answer>
I have already answered this.
> >> The rest of his hate filled article reveals the
>> >> true extent and nature of his feelings on this subject.
>>
>> >How? And where is the "hate" in his article (not that I expect you to
>> >answer... you never substantiate claims like this one).
>>
>> I don't? I posted his entire essay, did I not?
>
>Yes. Where is the "hate"? You can't answer, can you. You NEVER
>substantiate claims like this one.
That's the problem. You see 'hate' in everyone and everything save for the
ones most guilty of spreading it for 2000 years now: these antichrist
Talmudists.
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
Hey Joe, at what point in these exchanges with Gord do you finally pop
the question, as it were, and ask Gord [I mean from your perspective
anyway] if he is ready ..... for an exorcism? I mean if you can preach
the Word, hey, what's the big deal in your wrestling with the apparent
demons that allegedly have Gord by the, shall we say, short 'wares'...in
a manner of speaking.
It wouldn't be like some years ago and those wee hour marathons between
the players but then, hey, when is the last time AR had an exorcism!?
Question is, I'm not quite sure at this point exactly whose head does
the 360 spin and thus makes with the split-pea soup shtick versus the
incantations and dialog with the devil thing!
Whew!
Doc Tony
;-)
[suddenly....]
DEM: [subway scene w/requisite script change] "Can you help an old
'Osama'- boy, Father? [pause] I'm a Boot'lik' "
Steven Mock
news:20040313205908...@mb-m20.aol.com:
>>Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>>From: sm...@nizkor.org (Steven Mock)
>>Date: 3/11/2004 7:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <5c26ed28.04031...@posting.google.com>
>>
>>debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote in message
>>news:<20040311152745...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
>
>>> Steve, please listen: I have been asking you repeatedly for some
>>> indication
>>> that contemporary, influential or otherwise respected Jews, or even
>>> Jews from
>>> previous centuries, (converted Jews do not count) ever condemned the
>>> murder of Christ in a public statement?
>
>>I just quoted you one, from one of YOUR earlier posts, and you
>>rejected it on the grounds that you don't personally believe he was
>>being sincere.
>
> No. "I" posted that source and I posted it to demonstrate the
> insincerity of that man's claims.
You posted his entire article without comment. How does that
demonstrate his insincereity.
> It does NOT in any respect offer a
> credible reply to my question, which remains unaswered by you or
> anyone else. Hell, you can't even bring YOURSELF to condemn them for
> their role in the murder of Yeshua.
Sure I can, though not in terms that are acceptable to you given that,
like the rabbi whose article you posted, I do not believe that Jesus was
the Messiah or a divine being, and I have no idea the extent to which
the story as depicted in the Gospels is historically accurate. So you
are going to have to respect that whatever I say is said in the context
of the fact that our beliefs on these matters differ. Aside from that,
when I read the gospels, I read the story of the execution of an
innocent man who promulgated compassionate and wise teachings and who
was murdered by a conspiracy that involved quisling Jewish authorities
in shameful collaboration with the Roman occupation.
>>How is it physically possible for me to meet your demand if you
>>reserve the right to hand-wave away whatever I present based on your
>>claim to insider knowledge of the writer's innermost thoughts and
>>feelings?
>
> Post something CONVINCING then. Post something which is CLEAR, and
> unequivocal. You know exactly what I am asking for here, yet you
> cannot produce it because it DOES NOT EXIST.
I tell you what, Joe. Pay for my plane ticket and I'll fly to L.A.
myself and bang your head against the wall until you learn to read what
is actually WRITTEN in a text rather than what the voices in your head
tell you the author is REALLY saying.
<snip: some incoherence>
>>> Certainly he NEVER explicitly states that the
>>> crucifixion of Christ was a heinous crime on the part of his
>>> ancestors.
>
>>Again, where do you get this insider knowledge that the crime was
>>committed by *his* ancestors?
>
> Ancestors...Jewish High Priests...in any event he condemns NEITHER.
> The old refrain is always the same: "Shift the blame on to the
> Gentile Romans. Never mind that THEY eventually converted to
> Christianity and we haven't and have no intention of ever doing so."
Right. So again it becomes evident that the problem is not any actual
guilt, but rather then fact that we continue to maintain a different
religion with different beliefs than yours.
>>> >> >The issue is whether he would condemn
>>> >> >those who bore direct responsibility for killing Jesus.
>>> >> >Clearly, he is saying he would, and in no uncertain terms.
>
>>> >> He is saying NOTHING of the kind. He won't even admit of the
>>> >> possibility that Jesus was unjustly accused and murdered.
>
>>> >Sure he does. And he's saying that if it is true, it was
>>> >condemnable.
>>>
>>> If, if, if, if, and he is not saying that is is condemnable. His
>>> comments are full of insincerity.
>>
>>Because JOE SAYS SO!
>
> No, because 'he' says so, Steve.
Where does he say that he is being insincere?
>> >He's saying what he thinks. How do you know he's lying about what
>> >he thinks?
>>>
>>> I read his entire essay, Steve.
>
>>So where does he say what you attribute to him? <Joe will not answer>
>
> I have already answered this.
Joe does not answer.
>> >> The rest of his hate filled article reveals the
>>> >> true extent and nature of his feelings on this subject.
>>>
>>> >How? And where is the "hate" in his article (not that I expect you
>>> >to answer... you never substantiate claims like this one).
>>>
>>> I don't? I posted his entire essay, did I not?
>>
>>Yes. Where is the "hate"? You can't answer, can you. You NEVER
>>substantiate claims like this one.
>
> That's the problem. You see 'hate' in everyone and everything save
> for the ones most guilty of spreading it for 2000 years now: these
> antichrist Talmudists.
So where is the "hate" in his article. (not that I expect you to
answer... you never substantiate claims like this one).
Steven Mock
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks2005 wrote
in message <20040309184617...@mb-m25.aol.com>:
>From: "Gord McFee" gord....@rogers.com
>Date: 3/8/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c2j4ag$1u1a6b$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
>>In news:20040307170418...@mb-m11.aol.com,
>>Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
< attributions >
>>>>> Talmudists
>>>> Be aware that Joe Bellinger uses this as a code word for the Roman
>>>> Catholic Church which he has forsaken.
>>> Be aware that I have not forsaken the true Roman Catholic Church. Next
>>> diversion?
>>You have not only forsaken the true Roman Catholic faith, you have
>>forsaken Christianity in toto.
>Did the Pope send you a personal message to this effect? If so, ask me to
>forward a copy to me.
Let's see, joe-joe: what specifically of the following do you
disagree with:
"We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic
Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary
to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the
Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly
evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all
the reforms which issued from it.
All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing
to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to
the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to
the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian
teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching
derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the
solemn Magisterium of the Church.
No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to
abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and
professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.
"But though we," says St. Paul, "or an angel from heaven preach a
gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be
anathema" (Gal. 1:8).
Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if
we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well
as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught
and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.
It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying
the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism,
a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church-all
things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.
This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned
through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even
if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible
for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this
Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.
The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine,
in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this
Reformation.
That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or
resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless
Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no
greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff
and to posterity.
That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced
in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of
the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time;
to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before
the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such
time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness
obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.
By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of
remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the
successors of Peter, and of being the faithful dispensers of the
mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost."
>>You have no disposition to love your
>>neighbour,
>No? And your proof for this baseless accusation consists of what, exactly?
Your hateful words here.
>> nor to forgive your enemy.
>Are you calling yourself my enemy or complaining that I have not forgiven you?
Neither -- he is pointing out that you continually vilify those who
disagree with you, with no hint of forgiveness in any of it.
>>Indeed, you ooze loathing of the
>>people with whom God first made his Covenant from every pore of your
>>body.
>Not at all. Proof?
The fact that you cannot initiate a thread here which does not reflect
an attempt to demonize the Jews.
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Debunks2005 wrote
>From: "Gord McFee" gord....@rogers.com
>Date: 3/11/2004 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c2r4i4$219rc3$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
>>In news:20040311043414...@mb-m27.aol.com,
>>Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
Except that *you* are the one that brought mothers into that
conversation, in direct contradiction of your above claim that "<your>
own words do not accuse <you> of ... any personal rancor."
Nor does the Talmud refer directly to either Jesus or His mother.
< snip to >
>>>> Suggesting they are condemned to Hell because they believe in their
>>>> God in their way.
>>> God does not view the matter as you do, Mr. McFee.
>>How do you know how God views things, you pretentious prat?
>We know how God views things via the Scriptures, the Prophets and the
>traditional Church, and there is nothing pretentious in that.
There is in your interpretation of the Scriptures (interpretations I
might add which are not accepted by the Church you claim membership
of...)
>>> You claim you are
>>> a Catholic. If so, you KNOW perfectly well that you are not doing
>>> the Jewish people any good whatsover by confirming them in their
>>> disbelief and apostasy.
>>I am doing nothing of the sort.
>whatever, Mr. McFee. I don't see you doing anything else BUT confirming them
>in their antichrist bigotry and apostasy.
Because you are incapable of seeing anything except justification for
your irrational hatred.
>>> We Christians are under a mandate to preach
>>> the Gospel to ALL nations, and that includes the nation of Israel,
>>> first and foremost, for it was to them that the Gospel was first
>>> preach to begin with.
>>We are not under a mandate to claim they are condemned to Hell by a
>>loving God.
>We are under a mandate to CONVERT them. If they were heading to HEAVEN,
>conversion would be completely UNNECESSARY.
No, the mandate is to spread the Gospel not to convert. There's a
difference.
< snip to >
The so what is that you *did* post it, in direct contradiction of your
claim that you had "not posted any antisemitic doggerel."
>>> It is all in your
>>> perception...and you have NO idea what my purpose is in posting
>>> material here.
>>I know exactly what motivates you.
>sadly, you don't. But tell me, what do you think motivates Talmudists to
>attack Our Lord and Blessed Mother so vehemently? What did they do to them to
>incite such satanic rage? Do you have an intelligent answer to those
>questions?
Yes. The answer is that your delusional world view causes you to see
such attacks where they do not exist.
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/14/2004 9:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <057618188ed2b330...@news.teranews.com>
How far back did you dig into archives to obtain that exchange, which was
pulled out of context, by the way.
>Nor does the Talmud refer directly to either Jesus or His mother.
>
>
In some instances, it does. In other passages they are alluded to in quite
obvious terms. But you are aware of this fact.
> < snip to >
>
>>>>> Suggesting they are condemned to Hell because they believe in their
>>>>> God in their way.
>
>>>> God does not view the matter as you do, Mr. McFee.
>
>>>How do you know how God views things, you pretentious prat?
>
>>We know how God views things via the Scriptures, the Prophets and the
>>traditional Church, and there is nothing pretentious in that.
>There is in your interpretation of the Scriptures (interpretations I
>might add which are not accepted by the Church you claim membership
>of...)
Wrong, Mr. Mathews. I have cited the sources for my 'interpretations' above
and will be MOST HAPPY to cite them for you verbatim if you would just ask! As
you should probably know by now, I am not the sort of man who makes empty
boasts about such matters as this.
>>>> You claim you are
>>>> a Catholic. If so, you KNOW perfectly well that you are not doing
>>>> the Jewish people any good whatsover by confirming them in their
>>>> disbelief and apostasy.
>>>I am doing nothing of the sort.
>
>>whatever, Mr. McFee. I don't see you doing anything else BUT confirming
>them
>>in their antichrist bigotry and apostasy.
>Because you are incapable of seeing anything except justification for
>your irrational hatred.
Your very opinion as expressed upon is an example of irrational hatred toward
someone who disagrees with your historical and theological distortions, Mr.
Rogers.
>>>> We Christians are under a mandate to preach
>>>> the Gospel to ALL nations, and that includes the nation of Israel,
>>>> first and foremost, for it was to them that the Gospel was first
>>>> preach to begin with.
>
>>>We are not under a mandate to claim they are condemned to Hell by a
>>>loving God.
>>We are under a mandate to CONVERT them. If they were heading to HEAVEN,
>>conversion would be completely UNNECESSARY.
>
>No, the mandate is to spread the Gospel not to convert. There's a
>difference.
Spreading the Gospels is the means to CONVERSIONS, Mr Roger. Countless numbers
of Christians were martyred in the process of spreading the Gospel.
I don't see where it is antisemitic. It may be doggerel but it is not 'my'
composition.
>>>> It is all in your
>>>> perception...and you have NO idea what my purpose is in posting
>>>> material here.
>
>>>I know exactly what motivates you.
>>sadly, you don't. But tell me, what do you think motivates Talmudists to
>>attack Our Lord and Blessed Mother so vehemently? What did they do to them
>to
>>incite such satanic rage? Do you have an intelligent answer to those
>>questions?
>
>Yes. The answer is that your delusional world view causes you to see
>such attacks where they do not exist.
>
They don't, eh? Shall we get into a detailed discussion again re these very
insults you are claiming 'do not exist'?
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/13/2004 6:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <4053C08D...@localnet.com>
hahah. I asked that years ago! LOL!
>I mean if you can preach
>the Word, hey, what's the big deal in your wrestling with the apparent
>demons that allegedly have Gord by the, shall we say, short 'wares'...in
>a manner of speaking.
I don't think Mr. McFee is possessed by demons, Doc Tony. I think he is just
misinformed, granting him the benefit of the doubt.
>It wouldn't be like some years ago and those wee hour marathons between
>the players but then, hey, when is the last time AR had an exorcism!?
God only knows it needs one!
>Question is, I'm not quite sure at this point exactly whose head does
>the 360 spin and thus makes with the split-pea soup shtick versus the
>incantations and dialog with the devil thing!
>
>Whew!
>
>Doc Tony
Take that up with the Friedkin, the Jewish director of the movie.
Debunks2005
>Date: 3/14/2004 5:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns94AC8E13277F...@140.99.99.130>
>
>debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote in
>news:20040313205908...@mb-m20.aol.com:
>
>>>Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>>>From: sm...@nizkor.org (Steven Mock)
>>>Date: 3/11/2004 7:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <5c26ed28.04031...@posting.google.com>
>>>
>>>debun...@aol.com (Debunks2005) wrote in message
>>>news:<20040311152745...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
>>
>>>> Steve, please listen: I have been asking you repeatedly for some
>>>> indication
>>>> that contemporary, influential or otherwise respected Jews, or even
>>>> Jews from
>>>> previous centuries, (converted Jews do not count) ever condemned the
>>>> murder of Christ in a public statement?
>>
>>>I just quoted you one, from one of YOUR earlier posts, and you
>>>rejected it on the grounds that you don't personally believe he was
>>>being sincere.
>>
>> No. "I" posted that source and I posted it to demonstrate the
>> insincerity of that man's claims.
>
>You posted his entire article without comment. How does that
>demonstrate his insincereity.
>
I posted his article without comment because he demonstrates his own
insincereity quite nicely.
>
>> It does NOT in any respect offer a
>> credible reply to my question, which remains unaswered by you or
>> anyone else. Hell, you can't even bring YOURSELF to condemn them for
> their role in the murder of Yeshua.
>Sure I can, though not in terms that are acceptable to you given that,
>like the rabbi whose article you posted, I do not believe that Jesus was
>the Messiah or a divine being,
Like I said, you cannot even bring yourself to condemn the murder of a
completely innocent man by the High Priests.
>and I have no idea the extent to which
>the story as depicted in the Gospels is historically accurate.
Why don't you try and study it sometime?
> So you
>are going to have to respect that whatever I say is said in the context
>of the fact that our beliefs on these matters differ.
What I am asking from you or any other "Jewish" person, has nothing to do with
theological considerations. I am asking that you unequivocally CONDEMN the
murderous actions of the High Sanhendrin for orchestrating the murder of an
innocent man.
> Aside from that,
>when I read the gospels, I read the story of the execution of an
>innocent man who promulgated compassionate and wise teachings and who
>was murdered by a conspiracy that involved quisling Jewish authorities
>in shameful collaboration with the Roman occupation.
The Romans did not pay Judas to betray Christ, did they?
>
>>>How is it physically possible for me to meet your demand if you
>>>reserve the right to hand-wave away whatever I present based on your
>>>claim to insider knowledge of the writer's innermost thoughts and
>>>feelings?
>>
> Post something CONVINCING then. Post something which is CLEAR, and
>> unequivocal. You know exactly what I am asking for here, yet you
>> cannot produce it because it DOES NOT EXIST.
>
>
>I tell you what, Joe. Pay for my plane ticket and I'll fly to L.A.
>myself and bang your head against the wall until you learn to read what
>is actually WRITTEN in a text rather than what the voices in your head
>tell you the author is REALLY saying.
Where is your condemnation? You still cannot bring yourself to post it!
><snip: some incoherence>
>
>>>> Certainly he NEVER explicitly states that the
>>>> crucifixion of Christ was a heinous crime on the part of his
>>>> ancestors.
>>
>>>Again, where do you get this insider knowledge that the crime was
>>>committed by *his* ancestors?
>>
>> Ancestors...Jewish High Priests...in any event he condemns NEITHER.
>> The old refrain is always the same: "Shift the blame on to the
>> Gentile Romans. Never mind that THEY eventually converted to
>> Christianity and we haven't and have no intention of ever doing so."
>Right. So again it becomes evident that the problem is not any actual
>guilt, but rather then fact that we continue to maintain a different
>religion with different beliefs than yours.
No, that is not the issue here at all. It may be indeed how you would 'like'
for it to appear, but that wish does not correspond with fact here.
>>>> >> >The issue is whether he would condemn
>>>> >> >those who bore direct responsibility for killing Jesus.
>>>> >> >Clearly, he is saying he would, and in no uncertain terms.
>>>> >> He is saying NOTHING of the kind. He won't even admit of the
>>>> >> possibility that Jesus was unjustly accused and murdered.
>>
>>>> >Sure he does. And he's saying that if it is true, it was
>>>> >condemnable.
>>>>
>>>> If, if, if, if, and he is not saying that is is condemnable. His
>>>> comments are full of insincerity.
>>>
>>>Because JOE SAYS SO!
>>
>> No, because 'he' says so, Steve.
>Where does he say that he is being insincere?
His entire essay REEKS with insincereity.
>>> >He's saying what he thinks. How do you know he's lying about what
>>> >he thinks?
>>>>
>>>> I read his entire essay, Steve.
>
>>>So where does he say what you attribute to him? <Joe will not answer>
>>
>> I have already answered this.
>
>Joe does not answer.
I have already answered it, that's why.
>
>>> >> The rest of his hate filled article reveals the
>>>> >> true extent and nature of his feelings on this subject.
>>>> >How? And where is the "hate" in his article (not that I expect you
>>>> >to answer... you never substantiate claims like this one).
>>>>
>>>> I don't? I posted his entire essay, did I not?
>>>
>>>Yes. Where is the "hate"? You can't answer, can you. You NEVER
>>>substantiate claims like this one.
>>
>> That's the problem. You see 'hate' in everyone and everything save
>> for the ones most guilty of spreading it for 2000 years now: these
>> antichrist Talmudists.
>So where is the "hate" in his article. (not that I expect you to
>answer... you never substantiate claims like this one).
>
>Steven Mock
Once again, that is the problem: you are blind to the hatred expressed by
Talmudists.
Gord McFee
Debunks2005 <debun...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Subject: Re: The Christ Killers? America's Allies?
>> From: "Gord McFee" gord....@rogers.com
>> Date: 3/11/2004 5:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: <c2r4i4$219rc3$1...@ID-211658.news.uni-berlin.de>
[...]
Jew-hating Joe tries to divert attention from the fact that he lied when
he said his words do not accuse him of malfeasance or rancour.
>>>>>> Indeed, you ooze loathing of the
>>>>>> people with whom God first made his Covenant from every pore of
>>>>>> your body.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. Proof?
>
>>>> Your words, over and over and over again. Calling them Talmudists.
>>>
>>> WELL?
>>
>> Well, what?
>
> Well?
Jew-hating Joe can't deal with the fact his antisemitic leanings are
known to everyone.
>>>> Suggesting they are condemned to Hell because they believe in their
>>>> God in their way.
>>>
>>> God does not view the matter as you do, Mr. McFee.
>
>> How do you know how God views things, you pretentious prat?
>
> We know how God views things via the Scriptures, the Prophets and the
> traditional Church, and there is nothing pretentious in that.
Where does God call the Jews "Talmudists", pretentious one?
>>> You claim you are
>>> a Catholic. If so, you KNOW perfectly well that you are not doing
>>> the Jewish people any good whatsover by confirming them in their
>>> disbelief and apostasy.
>>
>> I am doing nothing of the sort.
>
> whatever, Mr. McFee. I don't see you doing anything else BUT
> confirming them in their antichrist bigotry and apostasy.
You cannot see because you are blinded by your hatred of Jews.
>>> We Christians are under a mandate to preach
>>> the Gospel to ALL nations, and that includes the nation of Israel,
>>> first and foremost, for it was to them that the Gospel was first
>>> preach to begin with.
>
>> We are not under a mandate to claim they are condemned to Hell by a
>> loving God.
>
> We are under a mandate to CONVERT them. If they were heading to
> HEAVEN, conversion would be completely UNNECESSARY.
So, in Jew-hating Joe's version of "Christianity", God is a hateful,
spiteful entity.
>>> Calling them apostates
>>>
>>> I am only telling the truth, as should you.
>>
>> You are not telling the truth.
>
> Yes, sir, I AM telling the truth.
You are lying, Joe. Your whole message is a lie.
>> You are raving.
>
> Seems that it is you who is raving, Mr. McFee.
>
>> You are historcially
>> and theologically wrong.
>
> I am not wrong on either account, and you know it.
You are wrong n both accounts and everyone knows it.
Irrelevant. You said: "I have not posted any *antisemitic* doggerel."
That, like everything else you say, was a lie.
> And even if it were, so what?
So, you are a lying antisemite.
[antisemitic troll deleted]