Confessions of Nat Turner

[Fred Cherry]

In Message-ID: <6ioghn$4t8q$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Confessions of Nat Turner
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 22:03:34 -0400
"mr. mike" <mde...@prodigy.net> wrote:

> After reading that novel way back when in high school, I concluded that
> the author took poetic license to the max. Not in terms of the slave
> revolt, but in giving the motivations for Turner's actions (a
> predilection for white women and latent homosexual tendencies). Never
> trust entertainment mediums to give a truthful account of historical
> events.

Funny thing is I DO trust one entertainment medium to give a truthful
account of historical events. I am referring to Howard Fast's novel: "My
Glorious Brothers." This novel describes the revolt of the Maccabees of
Israel against the homosexual oppression committed against Israel by the
successors of Alexander of Macedonia (a.k.a. "Alexander the Great"). I
refer to the Maccabees as My Glorious Ancestors.

I can never understand why the Ku Klux Klan insists that the Kink James
version of the Christian Bible is the only legitimate version. Kink James
the First of England, as is well known, was a homosexual. Now, I don't know
anything about biblical scholarship. In place of biblical scholarship I use
common sense. The Roman Catholic (Douay) version of the Christian Bible
includes the books of the Maccabees in its version of the Old Testament.
Common sense tells me that the books of the Maccabees were excluded from
the Kink James version of the Christian Bible in order to conform to the
pro-homosexual feelings of Kink James.

If you look at "The Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Revised
Standard Version", New York, Oxford University Press, 1965. Turn to page
221, (The pagination is somewhat confusing. It goes up to page 1544 and
then starts over again. I am referring to the second cycle of pages.) it
sez: "The style of 1 Maccabees is plain and straightforward and the book is
generally an excellent historical source...."

You will notice the messages in soc.culture.african.american vilifying me
in the strongest possible terms. These messages are motivated by my
denunciations of NAMBLA, an organization of homosexual child-molesters. In
the view of most of the homosexuals who post messages on Usenet, if one is
opposed to homosexual child-molesting, then one is a "homophobe."

I don't know how many people who read soc.culture.african.american remember
certain events which occurred in 1978. Here is what happened. Bernard
Gifford, a Black official in the New York City educational system decided
to run for the office of United States Congressman. I have forgotten
exactly what position he held. It was either Assistant Superintendent of
Schools, Deputy Superintendent of Schools, or something like that. He was
running in the Democratic Party Primary in a congressional district which
included Brooklyn Heights. His opponent was Frederick Richmond. Richmond
had recently been arrested for offering money to an underage Black boy for
an act of homosexual sex. Richmond somehow managed to worm himself out of a
criminal conviction.

Edward I. Koch, who was New York City's homosexual mayor at that time, and
who had expressed himself in the strongest possible terms as opposed to
heterosexual prostitution, endorsed Richmond for re-election to Congress.

Gifford made an issue of the fact that Richmond had offered this underage
Black boy money for sex. For campaigning on this issue, Gifford was
denounced as a "homophobe."

As the saying goes: "The more things change, the more they remain the
same." THAT'S why I am getting all of this vilification. That's why the
overwhelming majority of homosexuals who post messages on Usenet consider
me to be, among other things: "A Hateful Subhuman."

jo...@world.std.com (Fred Cherry)

[Arne Adolfsen]

In article <EsJs2...@world.std.com>,

Fred Cherry <jo...@world.std.com> wrote:
>I can never understand why the Ku Klux Klan insists that the Kink James
>version of the Christian Bible is the only legitimate version. Kink James
>the First of England, as is well known, was a homosexual. Now, I don't know
>anything about biblical scholarship.

No kidding.

>In place of biblical scholarship I use
>common sense. The Roman Catholic (Douay) version of the Christian Bible
>includes the books of the Maccabees in its version of the Old Testament.
>Common sense tells me that the books of the Maccabees were excluded from
>the Kink James version of the Christian Bible in order to conform to the
>pro-homosexual feelings of Kink James.

And the reason that I and II Maccabees are also excluded from
the Hebrew Bible is what, exactly?

--
-- Arne Adolfsen ------------------------------------------- ar...@mtcc.com --
"No matter what happens in the kitchen, never apologize." -- Julia Child

[Margot Sheehan]

ar...@mtcc.com (Arne Adolfsen) writes:

>In article <EsJs2...@world.std.com>,
>Fred Cherry <jo...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>I can never understand why the Ku Klux Klan insists that the Kink James
>>version of the Christian Bible is the only legitimate version. Kink James
>>the First of England, as is well known, was a homosexual. Now, I don't know
>>anything about biblical scholarship.

>No kidding.

>>In place of biblical scholarship I use
>>common sense. The Roman Catholic (Douay) version of the Christian Bible
>>includes the books of the Maccabees in its version of the Old Testament.
>>Common sense tells me that the books of the Maccabees were excluded from
>>the Kink James version of the Christian Bible in order to conform to the
>>pro-homosexual feelings of Kink James.

>And the reason that I and II Maccabees are also excluded from
>the Hebrew Bible is what, exactly?

Oh silly. The 'hebrew bible' was a canon formulated well after the the
time of the Gospels. When Mr Christ walked the earth the Septuagint had
something like 72 books. The Church continued to use the Old Testament as
it was in the first century. The sect of Jews who did not accept
Christianity later modified their canon. And why not?

--
Margot Sheehan

'She was a faded but still lovely woman of twenty-seven.'
-- F. Scott Fitzgerald

[JGA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net]

Margot Sheehan wrote:
>
> ar...@mtcc.com (Arne Adolfsen) writes:
>
> >In article <EsJs2...@world.std.com>,
> >Fred Cherry <jo...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >>I can never understand why the Ku Klux Klan insists that the Kink James
> >>version of the Christian Bible is the only legitimate version. Kink James
> >>the First of England, as is well known, was a homosexual. Now, I don't know
> >>anything about biblical scholarship.
>
> >No kidding.
>
> >>In place of biblical scholarship I use
> >>common sense. The Roman Catholic (Douay) version of the Christian Bible
> >>includes the books of the Maccabees in its version of the Old Testament.
> >>Common sense tells me that the books of the Maccabees were excluded from
> >>the Kink James version of the Christian Bible in order to conform to the
> >>pro-homosexual feelings of Kink James.
>
> >And the reason that I and II Maccabees are also excluded from
> >the Hebrew Bible is what, exactly?
>
> Oh silly. The 'hebrew bible' was a canon formulated well after the the
> time of the Gospels. <

No, the Hebrew bible was "canonized" amongst the Jews before Jesus.

When Mr Christ walked the earth the Septuagint had
> something like 72 books.<

The Septuagint is the five books of Moses, and remain. The HEbrew bible
does not include the books of the so-called "apocrypha."

> The Church continued to use the Old Testament as
> it was in the first century. The sect of Jews who did not accept
> Christianity later modified their canon. And why not?>

Christianity had nothing to do with what JEws consider to be their
Tenach (bible.)
The hebrew acronym "TeNaCh" stands for Torah (Law), Neviim (Prophets),
and Khtuvim (writings or scripture.) The laws, the prophetic writings,
and the historical writings
are the three components of our Bible which is why we call it Tenach.

[JGA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net]

Greg Hartman wrote:

>
> JGA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > No, the Hebrew bible was "canonized" amongst the Jews before Jesus.
>

> Not true. The Council of Jamnia ratified the OT canon around 100 AD.

>
> > When Mr Christ walked the earth the Septuagint had
> > > something like 72 books.<
> >
> > The Septuagint is the five books of Moses, and remain. The HEbrew bible
> > does not include the books of the so-called "apocrypha."<

My mistake. THe Pentateuch is the five books of Moses. My apologies.

> You're BOTH wrong. The Septuagint was a Koine Greek translation of the
> Hebrew Bible, completed around 200 BC.<

Yes, there were seventy scribes simultaneously translating, hence
Septuagint.

> The Septuagint translators also translated the books called the
> Aporcrypha today--Wisdom, Esdras, Tobit, Judith and so on. Whether or
> not they were "included" in the Septuagint in the sense of being
> considered canonical is still debated today. I happen to believe they
> weren't; that they were simply considered part of a complete theological
> library.<

Okay, this is what I meant. I think the BIble before Jesus were
comprised of those
22 books.

> But it's not as cut and dried as all that or the argument wouldn't be
> continuing. However, it's undeniable that the Apocryphal books didn't
> make it past Jamnia and that seems to have been the watershed.

>
> > Christianity had nothing to do with what JEws consider to be their
> > Tenach (bible.)
> > The hebrew acronym "TeNaCh" stands for Torah (Law), Neviim (Prophets),
> > and Khtuvim (writings or scripture.)
>

> Christianity had EVERYTHING to do with Jamnia. The Jewish leaders of the
> day formed the council in an attempt to keep the Christian church from
> completely appropriating the TaNaK for themselves.<

Thanks for the information. I will look into it further.

[Greg Hartman]

JGA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:

> No, the Hebrew bible was "canonized" amongst the Jews before Jesus.

Not true. The Council of Jamnia ratified the OT canon around 100 AD.

> When Mr Christ walked the earth the Septuagint had
> > something like 72 books.<
>
> The Septuagint is the five books of Moses, and remain. The HEbrew bible
> does not include the books of the so-called "apocrypha."

You're BOTH wrong. The Septuagint was a Koine Greek translation of the
Hebrew Bible, completed around 200 BC. The Hebrew Bible (or TaNaK, as it
was called) contained 22 books as opposed to our 39, because the Minor
Prophets were combined into one book, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Samuel, and
1 and 2 Chronicles were all one book each, and Lamentations was part of
Jeremiah.

The Septuagint translators also translated the books called the
Aporcrypha today--Wisdom, Esdras, Tobit, Judith and so on. Whether or
not they were "included" in the Septuagint in the sense of being
considered canonical is still debated today. I happen to believe they
weren't; that they were simply considered part of a complete theological
library.

Let's say I'm a missionary and I translate the Bible, the Book of Common
Prayer and Pilgrim's Progress into the language of a people group which
does not have the Bible. Someone looking at my work many years from now
may not be able to tell whether or not I considered the two other books
as canonical.

But it's not as cut and dried as all that or the argument wouldn't be
continuing. However, it's undeniable that the Apocryphal books didn't
make it past Jamnia and that seems to have been the watershed.

> Christianity had nothing to do with what JEws consider to be their
> Tenach (bible.)
> The hebrew acronym "TeNaCh" stands for Torah (Law), Neviim (Prophets),
> and Khtuvim (writings or scripture.)

Christianity had EVERYTHING to do with Jamnia. The Jewish leaders of the
day formed the council in an attempt to keep the Christian church from
completely appropriating the TaNaK for themselves.

--

"Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."

Christian Humor!
http://christianhumor.miningco.com
Check out the Christian Humor bulletin board!
http://christianhumor.miningco.com/mpboards.htm
Take the "x" and "z" out of my address to mail me

[irgun1943]

>> Christianity had EVERYTHING to do with Jamnia. The Jewish leaders of the
>> day formed the council in an attempt to keep the Christian church from
>> completely appropriating the TaNaK for themselves.<
>

>Thanks for the information. I will look into it further.

I think you're in a dream world. For the most part, Judaism ignores
Christianity as a system.
irgun43

[Ward Stewart]

On Thu, 7 May 1998 22:14:37 -0700, "irgun1943" <irg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

The Jews do tend to take note of them when they are being stuffed into
the ovens! I would dare say that "Christianity as a system" is vivid
in their minds during the pogroms.

ward

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Love, like a mountain-wind upon an oak,
Falling upon me, shakes me leaf and bough."
Sappho of Lesbos
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^