The religion of bible arkies

[Matt Giwer]

For years I have been talking about the religious persuasion of the
fake bible arkies and so-called historians. I realized this by reading
quotes from them that were almost professional cited by believers. It
seems the believers who cite them are also liars.

Been reading, The Invention of Ancient Israel; the Silencing of
Palestinian History, 1996, Whitelam. The entire book is almost a support
of my statements about their religious persuasion but without any ax to
grind and carefully avoiding any opinion on whether or not ancient or
biblical Israel was real and fantasy.

But he quotes the same people I talk about as religious but he quote
their overtly religious positions found in their own professional
publications. The people who cite them have always avoided the overtly
religious statements these people have published.

However his theme is slightly different. That the major revisions of
the bible to salvage it have been based upon the zionist political
situation at the time they were popularized. The peaceful infiltration
idea is from the 1920s. The mountain tribes destroying the pagan cities
from the late 40s and early 50s mirroring the first Arab wars. The
return from Babylon of the late 50s and 60s mirroring the immigrations
of Jews from around the world.

In doing the above he uses terms like politico-religious and such which
lead to the citations.

Anyway, I now have more evidence than I ever imagined existed
explicitly showing the religious bias of these ideas.

--
Hodie Kalendis Maiis MMXIII est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
Wed, May 01, 2013 5:47:27 PM

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

>         For years I have been talking about the religious persuasion of the
> fake bible arkies and so-called historians. I realized this by reading
> quotes from them that were almost professional cited by believers. It
> seems the believers who cite them are also liars.

Your fault is in *Way* underestimating the problem. Not only do we
have
"Biblical archaeologists" today, but very little of period work (which
is the
foundation of even today's best secular science) was not based on the
bible.




-- --

http://jtem.tumble.com

[Martin Edwards]

The problem is that we grow up in a /culture/ where myth is taught as
fact. I believed in the basics of the Christian story, with suitable
rationalisations, way after I had ceased to be a Christian. I was
actually in my fifties and could read NT Greek before I realised how
dodgy it was. For example "He truly was a son of a god", was something
a centurion might well say if it pissed down with hran while he was
still on duty.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

[SolomonW]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:36:26 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:

> On 18/06/2013 13:51, JTEM wrote:
>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For years I have been talking about the religious persuasion of the
>>> fake bible arkies and so-called historians. I realized this by reading
>>> quotes from them that were almost professional cited by believers. It
>>> seems the believers who cite them are also liars.
>>
>> Your fault is in *Way* underestimating the problem. Not only do we
>> have
>> "Biblical archaeologists" today, but very little of period work (which
>> is the
>> foundation of even today's best secular science) was not based on the
>> bible.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- --
>>
>> http://jtem.tumble.com
>>
>>
>>
> The problem is that we grow up in a /culture/ where myth is taught as
> fact. I believed in the basics of the Christian story, with suitable
> rationalisations, way after I had ceased to be a Christian. I was
> actually in my fifties and could read NT Greek before I realised how
> dodgy it was. For example "He truly was a son of a god", was something
> a centurion might well say if it pissed down with hran while he was
> still on duty.

You see what you want to see.

[JTEM]

SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

> You see what you want to see.

Problem is, that's a double-edged sword and most
people are incapable of seeing the edge that's
cutting into them.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

Nowhere man, can you see me at all?

[SolomonW]

You should keep note of your own advise.

[Matt Giwer]

As does everyone but those whose beliefs entail magic should learn not
to take themselves and their beliefs seriously. Simply saying, there is
no magic but ..., does not answer the mail.

--
The worst mistake Palestinians ever made
was inventing Judaism.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4430

[Matt Giwer]

Another aspect of these bible types writings is the constant invention
of anachronistic descriptions of the noble Israelites as well as
baseless descriptions of the Palestinians whom they insist upon calling
by the imaginary names Philistine and Canaanite. Not only do they
parallel the political activities of Zionists at the time they are said
but they invent anachronistic descriptions.

For example, take the indigenous hill people invention. Of course they
are described as Jews separate from Philistines and Canaanites and
certainly not as the Palestinians they had to have been. They are
described as having a confederacy of tribes and establishing a national
identity. The former being without any evidence whatsoever. The latter
an anachronistic 18th century invention.

It is difficult to summarize the quotes he gives as every one of them
screams invention without evidence.

[Martin Edwards]

Interestingly, the people we know as Philistines in English are called
"strangers" in Greek, while the other peoples, real or imaginary, have
names. Perhaps a reader of Hebrew can help out here.

[Matt Giwer]

We know from the real history of Herodotus that there were
Palestinians. We are told in a book filled with magic that there were a
people called Philistines just as another book tells us of a people
called Munchkins. What am I to make their name meaning small eaters?
Unfortunately for such questions the people who invented the names are
long dead and we cannot ask them.

See if this link works for you.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/106398181/Hebrew-is-Greek.pdf

[Martin Edwards]

Neither of us know what Herodotus called them. My Ancient Greek is
elementary and I have only read him in English. Again, perhaps a
Classicist could help.

[Odysseus]

In article <nAwxt.104224$re5....@fx10.am4>,
Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

> Neither of us know what Herodotus called [Philistines]. My Ancient

> Greek is elementary and I have only read him in English. Again,
> perhaps a Classicist could help.

I'm no classicist, but Perseus has "in the part of Syria called
Palestine" translated from _en tE, PalaistinE, SuriE,_ (where _E,_
represents eta with iota-subscript) in I.105. I don't find "Philistine"
in their English text of _The Histories_ (by A.D. Godley), but if you
have a book & chapter reference from another translation it should be
easy enough to find the corresponding Greek.

--
Odysseus

[Martin Edwards]

No, fine, I trust you. It does leave us with a bit of a mystery though.
What exactly /was/ the etymology, as it could not have been anything
meaning "Philistines"?

[Matt Giwer]

I tracked down the word in the Greek text, no mean feat for with only
math symbols as sight reading guides. The word is Palestine absent the
ways of representing Greek vowels in English. Critically the first
phoneme is P not F/PH. Therein lies a world of difference. Also the
reversion to the name Palestine by Hadrian is exactly the same word
without a PH equivalent in sight.

Rather some day I will maybe stumble upon someone who has found the
name in "hebrew" and get a transliteration as the older English spelling
was often Filistine.

And as to what he "called" them, the reference is consistently to
Palestine-Syria without a decent English translation like
Palestinians-Syrians or Palestinians of Syria. But the point is he
correctly uses the name Syria. It is not a reasonable assumption that he
invented Palestine after getting Syria correct.

And before they picked up Arabic by osmosis this was still part of the
old Mycenaen/Helenic world with Jaffa as Joppa and all. The local
language was likely no more different from Greek than Portuguese from
Spanish but maybe as far removed as Italian.

OTOH, I can find no way that Amelekites and Philistines and Canaanites
and a host of other peoples unknown to archaeology should be consider
"real" at this late date. Even the lamest "they were real" argument has
to acknowledge the writers invented people to slay such as the people of
Jericho and the rest of the people in Numbers and Joshua.

[zayton]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 1:31:33 AM UTC-5, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 23/06/2013 22:21, Odysseus wrote:
>
> > In article <nAwxt.104224$re5....@fx10.am4>,
>
> > Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > <snip>
>
> >
>
> >> Neither of us know what Herodotus called [Philistines]. My Ancient
>
> >> Greek is elementary and I have only read him in English. Again,
>
> >> perhaps a Classicist could help.
>
> >
>
> > I'm no classicist, but Perseus has "in the part of Syria called
>
> > Palestine" translated from _en tE, PalaistinE, SuriE,_ (where _E,_
>
> > represents eta with iota-subscript) in I.105. I don't find "Philistine"
>
> > in their English text of _The Histories_ (by A.D. Godley), but if you
>
> > have a book & chapter reference from another translation it should be
>
> > easy enough to find the corresponding Greek.
>
> >
>
> No, fine, I trust you. It does leave us with a bit of a mystery though.
>
> What exactly /was/ the etymology, as it could not have been anything
>
> meaning "Philistines"?
>

My recollection from seminary is that we were told that Palestina/philistia were forms of the same word from different dialects.
wickipedia makes a similar connection and might give you references for further investigation....

[Martin Edwards]

Mark Twain observed in passing (literally) that it was too small a
country to have contained all these peoples and to have evolved into an
empire.

[Matt Giwer]

And sitting on the trade route connecting Egypt with every place north
of it to valuable to let it tax traders on its own. Egypt and every
state north of it could muster a larger army than the entire could hope
to do.

Which again leads to Syria-Palestine as two divisions of a common
political entity. And Cyprus has been regularly included in the group as
it was by the Persians. The Seleucids ruled both and a revolt against
the Seleucids in favor of the Ptolemys started the Maccabean war that
elevated Judea to a local power. And then Judeans spread their cult
practices by military conquest.

Everything fits with this model. This produces a consistent description
of all the history of the region without needing any exceptions or
special pleadings. Observations like Twain's are simply against
religious tradition. It is one of hundreds. There are more than
sufficient to discard all of religious tradition.

Once that is done what remains is incredibly consistent. Ignoring
believers who try to integrate the Amarna letters into religious
tradition we find them consistent with the rest of the facts known of
the region.

[Martin Edwards]

Incidentally, Whitelam helped explain Lemche for me. Lemche claimed to
make a new departure by dealing purely with archaeology. Imagine my
surprise on finding that, wherever it fitted the putative timescale, the
narrative background to the archeology was the Bible story.

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer wrote:

> And sitting on the trade route connecting Egypt with every place north
> of it to valuable to let it tax traders on its own. Egypt and every
> state north of it could muster a larger army than the entire could hope
> to do.

Well, bible land was pretty much solidly in
Egyptian hands up until the 3rd intermediate
period, after which it was passed around like
a $20 hooker at a Shriners convention...

The Egyptians wrestled it back only to have
the Assyrians take it from them. The Egyptians
took it back only to lose it to the Persians,
who held it for centuries before losing it to
the Greek Macedonians.

> Which again leads to Syria-Palestine as two divisions of a common
> political entity. And Cyprus has been regularly included in the group as
> it was by the Persians. The Seleucids ruled both and a revolt against
> the Seleucids in favor of the Ptolemys started the Maccabean war that
> elevated Judea to a local power. And then Judeans spread their cult
> practices by military conquest.

There's exactly *Zero* evidence for this.

> Everything fits with this model.

Nothing fits your model. It's not even
internally consistent, as you insist that
the bible, the old testament (the LXX) is
the product of hellenistic Alexandria in
the 2nd century, leaving no place for any
religious wars.

And what is this religion you speak of?
Describe it. What did adherents call
themselves? When did they come up with
this name? Why?

Go on, lavish us with details...

I only ask because you insist that he can't
be anything similar to the Jewish religion.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Matt Giwer]

Perhaps I should have said, find one that doesn't.

[Matt Giwer]

On 6/28/2013 6:10 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:

...

>> Which again leads to Syria-Palestine as two divisions of a common
>> political entity. And Cyprus has been regularly included in the group as
>> it was by the Persians. The Seleucids ruled both and a revolt against
>> the Seleucids in favor of the Ptolemys started the Maccabean war that
>> elevated Judea to a local power. And then Judeans spread their cult
>> practices by military conquest.
>
> There's exactly *Zero* evidence for this.

It is a very short summary of the history given by Josephus, a
completely secular history at that. I have discussed this several times.
I have also pointed out his history is not in conflict with I&II
Maccabes but rather makes sense of events recounted by giving the
secular background. Did you miss those posts?

http://www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/wars-of-proxy.html



The Maccabean Revolt was really a Greek proxy War

No matter what you have heard about the Maccabes there is one and only
one source of information on it. That source is Flavius Josephus. All
descriptions of the conflict at variance with Josephus are imaginary.
For completeness and so you can decide for yourself,the text of Book I
is included.

The fact the there are descriptions of it as other than a proxy war is
perhaps the most common problem with reading about the bible and
religious matters. It is rare that the story told about the known facts
matches the known facts. In most every case stories are told within the
context of a narrative which is clearly contrary to the known facts.

Josephus, The Wars of the Jews

BOOK I.

Containing The Interval Of One Hundred And Sixty-Seven Years. From
The Taking Of Jerusalem By Antiochus Epiphanes, To The Death Of Herod
The Great.

CHAPTER 1.

How The City Jerusalem Was Taken, And The Temple Pillaged [By
Antiochus Epiphanes]. As Also Concerning The Actions Of The Maccabees,
Matthias And Judas; And Concerning The Death Of Judas.

1. At the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a
quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about his right to the whole country of
Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they
had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those
that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals.
However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the better, and cast the
sons of Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him
to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into
Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them,
and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force,
and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out
his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple,
and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of
expiation for three years and six months. But Onias, the high priest,
fled to Ptolemy, and received a place from him in the Nomus of
Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple
that was like its temple concerning which we shall speak more in its
proper place hereafter.

The whole country of Syria is not the Syria on today's map. Nor is it
the Syria of a century ago before the French created Lebanon out of
Mandate Syria. It is the Syria of Herodotus. It is the land he called
Palestine-Syria.

Among the many city-states in Palestine was that of Jerusalem referred
to as Judea. The name Jews is derived from Judea. Jews meant only
Judeans not Galileans or Samarians at this time in history. The use of
Jews and Judaism to convey religious meaning had not yet appeared. This
is consistent with the usage of the name in the Septuagint, aka Old
Testament, by Josephus, and in the New Testament. Jesus is referred to
as a Galilean not a Judean, that is, not Jew.

There was a disagreement among the city bosses between continuing with
rule by Antiochus or changing loyalty to Ptolemy. Rather than solving
the disagreement in a civilized manner the advocates of the Ptolemys
drew first blood and expelled the opposition. Judah Maccabe would fight
not only for the side that started the fighting but also for the
Egyptian side. The side that started the conflict eventually won it. The
winning side was not the injured party nor the defender but the
aggressor in this conflict. It can only be described as a civil war in
the same manner as describing the Vietnam war as a civil war.

There is an ambiguity as to just who was in charge of the plunder. It
says Antiochus agreed to put the sons of Tobias in charge of the army
but then attributes the conquest to Antiochus. As Antiochus is known to
have "rented" out his army for a price it is most likely the sons of
Tobias were the commanders of the conquering army. This is of interest
in that Antiochus is later accused of defiling the temple with other
gods. That defiling is thus correctly attributed to the sons of Tobias.

While Onias is described as a high priest the title of neither Tobias
nor his sons is given. However from the opening statement it is
reasonable to assume they were equal to Onias in some fashion most
likely also as high priests. Thus it was not a religious conflict.

An important note here is that it was started by sedition against rule
by the Greek Aristarchus and in favor of the Greek Ptolemy. It was not a
revolt against Greek culture. Further the temple was "defiled" only
after Jerusalem was reconquered.

The idea that defiling the temple was the cause of the war is contrary
to known fact. Almost every recounting today says the defilement started
the revolt. Every recounting today ignores what has been known for two
millennia. Take this as an object lesson against believing what you have
been told instead of researching it yourself.

The high priest Onias heads for Egypt and has a city built for his use.
Clearly this is unlikely the usual accommodation given to a refugee. It
also has a temple indicating the idea of one and only one temple in
Jerusalem had yet to be invented. This continued to be an important city
for the Judeans as late as 76AD when Titus destroyed the city as part of
putting down the revolt in Judea.

How or why it was important in that revolt is unknown. What is clear is
that it was still important after Jerusalem was recaptured by the
faction running that temple and after the Jerusalem temple was purified.
It was clearly not a substitute for the duration of the war.

The bottom line is that at one time there were two temples and two
"Jerusalems" and the second remained important for over two centuries
until it was destroyed.

Which side was in the right of the civil war was right? It was a war
between two Greek empires over a border city-state. Such wars are common
in history.

As to any religious importance atheists don't care as it makes no
difference. If you believe in the religion of the Septuagint this
conflict occurs before the Septuagint appears, and thus before the
invention of the Yahweh cult and thus the religion of Judaism. Had
events unfolded differently the Septuagint would likely not have been
created and thus the Yahweh cult never replaced the Yahweh/Ashara
religion of the people.

Matt Giwer © 2011

[Matt Giwer]

On 6/28/2013 6:10 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
...

>> Everything fits with this model.
>
> Nothing fits your model. It's not even
> internally consistent, as you insist that
> the bible, the old testament (the LXX) is
> the product of hellenistic Alexandria in
> the 2nd century, leaving no place for any
> religious wars.

Show my ANY physical evidence that the Judean Yahweh cult existed
earlier. The only two prior references mention Moses as a demiurge
invoked in the temple for divination and another referring to idols of
pigs in the temple. Those are the only two mentions prior to the
Septuagint stories.

> And what is this religion you speak of?
> Describe it. What did adherents call
> themselves? When did they come up with
> this name? Why?

> Go on, lavish us with details...

> I only ask because you insist that he can't
> be anything similar to the Jewish religion.

It is simple comparison. Lets take some examples. All other cultures
had different gods, different temples and different priests. In all
other cultures these priests had no civil powers at all beyond bringing
charges of blasphemy but only to the civil authorities. Using ALL
violates rule one but significant variance from those two points is
rare. None have written law only custom which varies. Nor did nations
make war in the name of religion.

With the Septuagint there is only one official god of the people and
the civil order. There is written law, the Torah, with hundreds of
"laws" ranging from the practical to the absurd with penalties, often
summary execution*. The enforcement of those laws is by the priests. The
anachronistic histories which could not have been written before the
Greek period recount constant war in the name of religion and forced
conversion.

And the kicker is the Hasmoneans, the Maccabes, declared themselves to
be priest-kings with all of those powers and traditions.

When the Romans took over one important thing they did was take away
the power of the priests to execute people for violation of their
hundreds of laws in the Torah. Taxes could only be collected via the
civil authority from the circumcised -- the important point of forced
conversion. And those taxes were only temple taxes to the priest-kings.

And then according to their anachronistic history the Hasmoneans began
imitating Moses and Joshua and Saul and spreading religion by conquest.
Conversion was defined as circumcision and adopting Judean religious
practices. Circumcision was proof they had to pay temple taxes. By law
of Alexander and Rome those taxes could be collected any place in their
empires from the circumcised.

In any event the Torah with priests having the powers of civil rulers
had a totalitarian state beyond compare.

And that was the Yahweh cult that was invented an unlike any prior
religion. It was something new and also something damnable.


* Consider Ayn Rand's description of a totalitarian state where there
are no many laws everyone is guilty of something. Stalin would weep for
having the powers of the Hasmonean priest-kings.

[The Revd]

In article <mqSvt.80143$1p2....@newsfe25.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> For years I have been talking

Nonsense, pure nonsense.

DIE already, you ugly, stupid, redundant pig.

Is your son still terribly obese, by the way?

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer wrote:

> > There's exactly *Zero* evidence for this.
>
>
>
> It is a very short summary of the history given by Josephus, a
> completely secular history at that.

Josephus is __Below__ Wiki in credibility.
far below. Wiki includes cites which you can
use to verify information, while almost everything
Josephus says is refuted by the evidence.

> I have discussed this several times.

You are on record, here and elsewhere, denouncing
Josephus as the product of overly zealous medieval
european monks.

> I have also pointed out his history is not in conflict with I&II
> Maccabes

So you're cherry picking from the bible. "This part
is true, as it's in line with my theories, while all
these other parts don't so they're not true."

Pathetic. Grade schoolers would know better...

> Did you miss those posts?

Which brings us back to square-one:

There is absolutely ZERO support for your ideas.

None what so ever.

> No matter what you have heard about the Maccabes there is one and only
> one source of information on it. That source is Flavius Josephus.

So the only source is notoriously inaccurate and you
yourself have denounced it as the creation of medieval
monks.

again, square-one: Not so much as a shred of support.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
>
> > Nothing fits your model. It's not even
> > internally consistent, as you insist that
> > the bible, the old testament (the LXX) is
> > the product of hellenistic Alexandria in
> > the 2nd century, leaving no place for any
> > religious wars.

>
> Show my ANY physical evidence that the Judean Yahweh cult existed
> earlier.

You're not good at this so I'll point it out
for you:

No matter what answer I gave it wouldn't &
couldn't change the fact that YOU have not
so much as a single shred of evidence to
support a word you'd said.

You're claiming that these Jews were running
around converting everybody by the sword, while
at the very same time (Right here, above) you're
completely contradicting yourself and saying
that their religion didn't even exist.

So, I repeat what you are trying so hard to avoid:

You claim that the Jews were running around
converting by the sword. Converting to what?
What religion? describe it. Lavish us with
details. Tell us when & where this religion
began. Tell us what adherents called themselves.
Tell us when, where & how they came up with this
name.

Stop trying to confuse and distract. Answer the
questions.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Matt Giwer]

On 6/29/2013 2:53 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>>> There's exactly *Zero* evidence for this.

>> It is a very short summary of the history given by Josephus, a
>> completely secular history at that.
>
> Josephus is __Below__ Wiki in credibility.
> far below. Wiki includes cites which you can
> use to verify information, while almost everything
> Josephus says is refuted by the evidence.

You have to wonder about people who give such opinions without ever
having read his material or being able to cite any issue of credibility.
Of course wondering about you would be a waste of time. But surprise me.
CITE what you have read and your problem with it. Considering he is the
ONLY source for most all of his material I expect to be amused.

>> I have discussed this several times.
>
> You are on record, here and elsewhere, denouncing
> Josephus as the product of overly zealous medieval
> european monks.

I have recited a single interpolation with regard to Jesus which damn
near everyone does. A single addition does not negate the rest. You are
not establishing your position by misrepresenting what I have posted.

>> I have also pointed out his history is not in conflict with I&II
>> Maccabes

> So you're cherry picking from the bible. "This part
> is true, as it's in line with my theories, while all
> these other parts don't so they're not true."

> Pathetic. Grade schoolers would know better...

Maccabes is NOT part of the bible. They are traditionally concluded in
Roman Catholic bible with some others under the rubric of
deuterocanonical. If you are a roman Catholic you can are with me. No
one questions the content of them in general. After all the rulers are
there when Pompey arrives and they enter history. The only issue is
whether or not they should be considered part of the bible.

>> Did you miss those posts?
>
> Which brings us back to square-one:
>
> There is absolutely ZERO support for your ideas.
>
> None what so ever.

I am certain only you are not overwhelmed by your own ignorance.

>> No matter what you have heard about the Maccabes there is one and only
>> one source of information on it. That source is Flavius Josephus.
>
> So the only source is notoriously inaccurate and you
> yourself have denounced it as the creation of medieval
> monks.
>
> again, square-one: Not so much as a shred of support.

Yes, you are an idiot. Now rant for the next twenty posts but fail to
get back to the issue. Stick with your Muslim idea that the Samarian
temple was the original Judean temple. The great archaeologist Yassar
Arafat would be proud.

[Matt Giwer]

On 6/29/2013 2:59 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing fits your model. It's not even
>>> internally consistent, as you insist that
>>> the bible, the old testament (the LXX) is
>>> the product of hellenistic Alexandria in
>>> the 2nd century, leaving no place for any
>>> religious wars.
>
>>
>> Show my ANY physical evidence that the Judean Yahweh cult existed
>> earlier.
>
> You're not good at this so I'll point it out
> for you:
>
> No matter what answer I gave it wouldn't &
> couldn't change the fact that YOU have not
> so much as a single shred of evidence to
> support a word you'd said.

Again Josephus whom you do not contradict in his description of the
history of the Judeans.

To remind you of the rules, making a positive assertion requires the
evidence. I merely observe the total absence of evidence of this cult
existing earlier. I merely observe you have no evidence of its prior
existence. I need produce no evidence for that as it is merely an
observation.

> You're claiming that these Jews were running
> around converting everybody by the sword, while
> at the very same time (Right here, above) you're
> completely contradicting yourself and saying
> that their religion didn't even exist.

Apparently you have no idea of the chronology of events in the region,
particularly that the dates of the Septuagint and Hasmonean appearances
are roughly the same. The wars of conversion occurred after the
appearance of both. Google John Hercanus. And then explain how that name
was given to the son of Judah Maccabe. Of course Judah is an Aramaic
version of the Greek Johnnus and Maccabe is nom de Guerre meaning hammer.

> So, I repeat what you are trying so hard to avoid:
>
> You claim that the Jews were running around
> converting by the sword. Converting to what?
> What religion? describe it. Lavish us with
> details. Tell us when & where this religion
> began. Tell us what adherents called themselves.
> Tell us when, where & how they came up with this
> name.
>
> Stop trying to confuse and distract. Answer the
> questions.

To repeat they were forcing conversion to the newly invented Yahweh
cult. Learn the chronology. Josephus wrote that is what happened. It is
a direct contradiction to the "history" presented in the Septuagint. It
is a statement against interests. According to the Septuagint the
regions the Hasmoneans were conquering were already adherents to the
religion of the Septuagint without need of conquest and no way to force
conversion to a religion they already held.

You have had more than sufficient opportunity to present physical
evidence contrary to what I have said. Also to define what you are
claiming and the evidence in support of your claims. I correctly point
out there is nothing directly contradictory to 1&2 Maccabes and Josephus
which give complementary accounts. I also point out the political
reality of the region after Pompey's arrival is perfectly reasonable if
Josephus and Maccabes are a generally correct recounting.

It also explains the animosity of the Galileans, Samarians and Idumaens
to the Judeans and vice versa. According to the Septuagint all four
should have had a common history and ancestry and been allied in a
common kingdom or two. Certainly they would have shared circumcision
instead of it being forced on them, right?

[Matt Giwer]

Ignorant children should have their parents' permission before letting
the world know crackerhood is a heritable disease.

[The Revd]

In article <2UTzt.136868$TJ3....@fx03.iad>,
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

[evasion snipped]

How much does your son weigh now, you horrendous pig?

Why did you feed him nearly to death?

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > No matter what answer I gave it wouldn't &
> > couldn't change the fact that YOU have not
> > so much as a single shred of evidence to
> > support a word you'd said.
>
>
>
> Again Josephus whom you do not contradict in his description of the
> history of the Judeans.

This is just nonsense. not only have I disputed
Josephus many times, but you dispute him now.

Take everything he says on the subject of the temple,
for example. You dispute every last word.

...and you're also on record, right here, for
years on end denouncing him as the invention of
medieval monks...

> To remind you of the rules, making a positive assertion requires the
> evidence.

And you're the one making a positive assertion here. If your
memory fails you and you can't follow even your own half of
this exchange, I suggest you merely re-read what you posted
in this thread. I am responding to your claims, claims which
you pretend to support with a Josephus whom you don't even
accept...

It's called "Cherry Picking." You throw out all of Josephus
except what you believe you can use to "Prove" your ideas,
and then you defend Josephus on those (and only those) points.

> I merely observe the total absence of evidence of this cult
> existing earlier.

So you dispute Josephus, according to whom it most
certainly did. Plus who have this insane "Conversion
by the sword" thing going on -- no religion existed
but they were converting people by the sword.

> I merely observe you have no evidence of its prior
> existence.

And you're lying. No, you're not "Mistaken" as this
is a very old topic and we've been over it quite a
bit in the past. You're lying. You're shifting standards
of "Proof" -- evidence -- in order to dismiss the bleeding
obvious because it gets in your way.

What is there absolutely no evidence for?

Your Alexandrian origins of the LXX, for example. Or your
"Conversion by the sword."

There is ZERO evidence to support any of your theories!

On the other hand, we not only have the Samaritan
temple, it is physical evidence, but it dates to
well before your claimed start of any bible religion,
and the archaeology is totally consistent with
biblical temple worship -- uncovering the coins and
even the remains of the animal sacrifices.

...we also have many, Many, *Many* writings
for the region which demonstrate a clear
progression from earlier pantheists towards the
biblical religion of today.

But, again, what doesn't exist is a single shred
of evidence to support your ideas. You can attack
the evidence which does exist, but that only further
condemns you, as if this evidence is bad then you
are pathetic for failing to achieve anything even
up to the "Bad" quality of this evidence...

It's like you're a midget claiming to be tall even
as you describe anyone under 5'11" as "Short."

It's pathetic.

You, your argument not only falls well below your
own standard of proof, but it falls well below the
standards which you reject from others.

You're making a laughing stock of yourself.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Matt Giwer]

Stupid crackers (redundant) who believe in magic and ghosts are not to
be taken seriously.

[Matt Giwer]

On 6/30/2013 9:42 AM, The Revd wrote:

Tell us about your dear, ass-wiping lord and his wandering gang of
street magicians. And don't forget his con artist daddy who was into
parting seas and slaughtering children whom you love.

Speak up, child. Profess your faith 'cause the bible tells you so.

[Matt Giwer]

On 6/30/2013 5:06 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>
>>> No matter what answer I gave it wouldn't &
>>> couldn't change the fact that YOU have not
>>> so much as a single shred of evidence to
>>> support a word you'd said.

>> Again Josephus whom you do not contradict in his description of the
>> history of the Judeans.

> This is just nonsense. not only have I disputed
> Josephus many times, but you dispute him now.

Why is it you cannot comprehend the difference between disputation of
certain points and total rejection? And the disputation is regarding
what the Christians appear to have added or the believer
misrepresentation of what he wrote? It is a difference one should grasp
by age twelve or so.

> Take everything he says on the subject of the temple,
> for example. You dispute every last word.

As a matter of fact I have used two of his statements to exclude the
location of the temple being on what was declared the "temple mount" a
century and a half ago. That is called ACCEPTING his statements.

> ...and you're also on record, right here, for
> years on end denouncing him as the invention of
> medieval monks...

You are free to find those posts to refresh your memory or read them
for the first time so you can cease misrepresenting what I have posted.
In any event as I have been posting what I am saying now for five to six
years it is difficult to conceive you innocently misremember material
prior to that.

>> To remind you of the rules, making a positive assertion requires the
>> evidence.

> And you're the one making a positive assertion here. If your
> memory fails you and you can't follow even your own half of
> this exchange, I suggest you merely re-read what you posted
> in this thread. I am responding to your claims, claims which
> you pretend to support with a Josephus whom you don't even
> accept...

The first half of this exchange is about the profoundly religious
foundation of "biblical" archaeologists as clearly stated in their own
writings regardless of their protestations to the contrary.

The next level is regarding real Palestinians v imaginary Philistines
citing Herodotus.

Next you jump into the exchange declaring "nothing fits" without
reciting or referencing a single bit of evidence to the contrary which
leads to where we are now.

Have you lost track of which thread you are responding to?

> It's called "Cherry Picking." You throw out all of Josephus
> except what you believe you can use to "Prove" your ideas,
> and then you defend Josephus on those (and only those) points.

What specifically beyond the mention of Jesus are you claiming I have
thrown out? You are claiming I am doing that. It is incumbent upon you
to recite just what you are talking about because I have no idea what
you are talking about.

When you fail to correctly recite anything you are free to explain why
you cannot do so.

>> I merely observe the total absence of evidence of this cult
>> existing earlier.
>
> So you dispute Josephus, according to whom it most
> certainly did. Plus who have this insane "Conversion
> by the sword" thing going on -- no religion existed
> but they were converting people by the sword.

Why is it you refuse to read? I said forced conversion to the Yahweh
cult which is what Josephus recounts. I agree it is not really so much a
religion as a framework for today we would call a totalitarian state.
But maybe this is where the Bolsheviks got the idea to regulate every
aspect of Soviet life. After all, as Putin said, the party central
committee was 80 to 85 percent jewish. In that regard calling the
Hasmoneans totalitarian is not an anachronism but rather the Bolshevism
is "biblical."

>> I merely observe you have no evidence of its prior
>> existence.
>
> And you're lying. No, you're not "Mistaken" as this
> is a very old topic and we've been over it quite a
> bit in the past. You're lying. You're shifting standards
> of "Proof" -- evidence -- in order to dismiss the bleeding
> obvious because it gets in your way.
>
> What is there absolutely no evidence for?
>
> Your Alexandrian origins of the LXX, for example. Or your
> "Conversion by the sword."
>
> There is ZERO evidence to support any of your theories!

You claim I reject Josephus entirely yet I cite him as the source for
conversion by the sword. How can I do both at once? Whatever you
(mis)remember about what I did many years ago, this is what I have been
saying for six to seven years.

As to Alexandria, as I have said many, many times that is just a guess.
What is not a guess is that the books first appear in history in Greek.
You know that. You know there is no evidence there was anything prior to
the Greek. And of course you know only a forgery claims there was
something older than the Greek which is a common tactic in any fraud.

Where do you think the Greek books were written? Judeans spoke Aramaic.
Judeans wrote in Aramaic. Why are you suggesting they wrote these books
in Greek?

> On the other hand, we not only have the Samaritan
> temple, it is physical evidence, but it dates to
> well before your claimed start of any bible religion,
> and the archaeology is totally consistent with
> biblical temple worship -- uncovering the coins and
> even the remains of the animal sacrifices.

Had the Parthenon not been so thoroughly looted and regularly used over
the centuries, had it been dug up by archaeologists, it would also have
coins and evidence of animal sacrifice. So do most temples from Persia
to Italy.

What are you claiming about the temple in Samaria that relates it to
Yahweh worship? And as Josephus recites they were forced to convert to
the Yahweh cult one reasonably expects to find at least one temple
related to their worship practices prior to conversion.

So please tell me just what intrinsic to the temple suggests the Yahweh
cult existed there prior to John Hyrcanus?

> ...we also have many, Many, *Many* writings
> for the region which demonstrate a clear
> progression from earlier pantheists towards the
> biblical religion of today.

If there are you are the only person who knows of them. What excuse
will you give for refusing to quote and cite and explain three manys
worth of writings?

In the past I have noted there is no clear statement of monotheism
prior to Islam. If that is what you are referring to then I sort of
agree. There lots of manys worth of pan and poly theistic writings prior
to the Koran.

Now if you mean the idea that there is only one unknowable god of which
the other gods are knowable "emanations" the oldest expression of that
is in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It appears in some of the earliest
Greek writings from the 5th and 6th c. BC. But these hardly qualify to
be described with three manys.

So please enlighten us all as to these many, many, many writings which
you have read and can discuss here. Of course this will not be the first
time you have dodged the issue.

> But, again, what doesn't exist is a single shred
> of evidence to support your ideas. You can attack
> the evidence which does exist, but that only further
> condemns you, as if this evidence is bad then you
> are pathetic for failing to achieve anything even
> up to the "Bad" quality of this evidence...
>
> It's like you're a midget claiming to be tall even
> as you describe anyone under 5'11" as "Short."
>
> It's pathetic.

Why is not the original Septuagint in Greek count as evidence of it
original language?

Why do you consider what you misremember about my position of Josephus
years ago evidence against what I have been saying for over half a decade?

> You, your argument not only falls well below your
> own standard of proof, but it falls well below the
> standards which you reject from others.
>
> You're making a laughing stock of yourself.

Giggle on.

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer wrote:

> Why is it you cannot comprehend the difference between disputation of
> certain points and total rejection?

you're cherry picking. Period.

I'm reminded of one researchers opinion on
the statements of Lee Harvey Oswald after
his arrest for the murder of JFK. I forget
the researchers name (but he's made the
rounds, so there's a chance you've heard him
yourself), but he claimed to find that Oswald
actually told the truth more often than not.
That, he gave honest answers most of the time
to the police, and when he did lie his lies
were all consistent -- placing him away from
the murder weapon.

Get it? Oswald wasn't lying randomly, he was
denying responsibility for the murder of the
century.

In this same vein the lies/mistakes in
Josephus, the bible and religious tradition
in general all follow a similar pattern: The
exaggerate the importance & antiquity of
Jerusalem, it's temple and the roll that "The
Jews" had while downplaying (out-right denying)
the antiquity and significance of Samaria and
it's temple.

While the best physical evidence we have says
that Herod's temple couldn't have even existed
at the time of Herod (and if it took decades to
build it wouldn't have even been ready for
Jesus to have disrupted it as the N.T. claims),
but the RIVAL Samaritan temple has to date to
the 5th century BC(E), much older than Josephus
claims.

In Samaria we have the temple and the all important
alter. We have a story of it's founding which so
closely mirrors Solomon and his alter which preceded
the temple that one clearly had to be the basis of
the other. We have the archaeology -- the physical
remains of sacrifices -- matching the religious
temple practices of the bible. We even have
contemporary coins depicting same.

...we also have the archaeology testifying to
the riches & importance of ancient Samaria. And
you yourself testify to the fact that many so-called
ancient texts mentioning Israeli kings are actually
referencing Samaria! The ancient's are boasting of
victory over Samaria at a time when Jerusalem would
have been an insignificant mound.

Assuming any city of Jerusalem even existed, it
couldn't have been more than a quarter of the size
of the present day OLD CITY. Not a quarter of the
size of today's Jerusalem, but a quarter of the size
of the old city... roughly as big (or smaller) than
what we call the "Temple mount" today.

EVERYTHING is consistent in it's lies and
disinformation, including Josephus: It
all denies the facts of Samaria and promotes
a history for Jerusalem & Judea which even
you dispute at every turn.

No the evidence -- the physical evidence --
isn't the best, not after centuries of
religious archeology and politics, but there
is physical evidence, while you on the other
hand have absolutely nothing.

You fall far short of the alternative. It
may not meet your standards, but it vastly
exceeds what you offer in support, so if it's
not enough than you have *Nothing*.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

Then again, god botherers have been talking, reading and writing
nonsense for thousands of years.

[Martin Edwards]

On 30/06/2013 11:37, Matt Giwer wrote:
> On 6/29/2013 7:47 AM, The Revd wrote:
>> In article <mqSvt.80143$1p2....@newsfe25.iad>,
>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For years I have been talking
>>
>> Nonsense, pure nonsense.
>>
>> DIE already, you ugly, stupid, redundant pig.
>>
>> Is your son still terribly obese, by the way?
>
> Ignorant children should have their parents' permission before
> letting the world know crackerhood is a heritable disease.
>

Almost Heaven, West Virginia.....................

[Martin Edwards]

On 30/06/2013 22:43, Matt Giwer wrote:
> On 6/30/2013 9:42 AM, The Revd wrote:
>> In article <2UTzt.136868$TJ3....@fx03.iad>,
>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> [evasion snipped]
>>
>> How much does your son weigh now, you horrendous pig?
>>
>> Why did you feed him nearly to death?
>
> Tell us about your dear, ass-wiping lord and his wandering gang of
> street magicians. And don't forget his con artist daddy who was into
> parting seas and slaughtering children whom you love.
>
> Speak up, child. Profess your faith 'cause the bible tells you so.
>

Even the Holy Family (stipulated for the sake of argument) had to
perform a sacrifice for Our Lord to redeem Him from what would formerly
have been His own sacrifice. Then some time after that, no,
wait...............

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/1/2013 2:01 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 30/06/2013 22:43, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On 6/30/2013 9:42 AM, The Revd wrote:
>>> In article <2UTzt.136868$TJ3....@fx03.iad>,
>>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [evasion snipped]
>>>
>>> How much does your son weigh now, you horrendous pig?
>>>
>>> Why did you feed him nearly to death?
>>
>> Tell us about your dear, ass-wiping lord and his wandering gang of
>> street magicians. And don't forget his con artist daddy who was into
>> parting seas and slaughtering children whom you love.

>> Speak up, child. Profess your faith 'cause the bible tells you so.

> Even the Holy Family (stipulated for the sake of argument) had to
> perform a sacrifice for Our Lord to redeem Him from what would formerly
> have been His own sacrifice. Then some time after that, no,
> wait...............

Come to think of it if they had smothered him at birth it would have
satisfied the theology of redemption through sacrifice. In fact a first
trimester abortion would have too.

Such a waste with all the messy production values.

[Revd]

In article <%D1At.221641$HT3.2...@fx06.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> On 6/30/2013 9:42 AM, The Revd wrote:

>> In article <2UTzt.136868$TJ3....@fx03.iad>,
>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> [evasion snipped]
>>
>> How much does your son weigh now, you horrendous pig?
>>
>> Why did you feed him nearly to death?

> Tell us about your dear, ass-wiping lord and his
> wandering gang of street magicians. And don't forget his con
> artist daddy who was into parting seas and slaughtering
> children whom you love.

What "lord", you babbling fool? What "daddy"?

Enough with these silly diversions. Just tell us why your
son is so fat. Ok?

http://www.justmugshots.com/florida/tampa/2609415

Looks familiar?

[Odysseus]

In article <7JRxt.123389$R94.1...@fx02.am4>,

Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23/06/2013 22:21, Odysseus wrote:
> > In article <nAwxt.104224$re5....@fx10.am4>,
> > Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >

> >> Neither of us know what Herodotus called [Philistines]. My Ancient

> >> Greek is elementary and I have only read him in English. Again,
> >> perhaps a Classicist could help.
> >

> > I'm no classicist, but Perseus has "in the part of Syria called
> > Palestine" translated from _en tE, PalaistinE, SuriE,_ (where _E,_
> > represents eta with iota-subscript) in I.105. I don't find "Philistine"
> > in their English text of _The Histories_ (by A.D. Godley), but if you
> > have a book & chapter reference from another translation it should be
> > easy enough to find the corresponding Greek.
> >
> No, fine, I trust you. It does leave us with a bit of a mystery though.
> What exactly /was/ the etymology, as it could not have been anything
> meaning "Philistines"?

Sorry, I thought the above implied someone had seen "Philistine" as such
in a translation of Herodotus. Anyway, there's no entry for _PalaistinE_
in LSJ. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, it derives from
the Hebrew _Pelesheth_, Philistia.

<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Palestine>

The spelling of the hellenized form might have been influenced, through
attraction or folk-etymology, by _palaistes_, wrestler or adversary,
from _palaiO_, to wrestle or contend. (Apparently not the same root as
_palaios_, old, the source of our "pal(a)eo-" prefix, whose verb form is
_palaióO_, to age.)

--
Odysseus

[Matt Giwer]

Looks like the traditional depiction of Jesus mourning the state of
sinners.

So tell me, does this make you of the Mosaic perversion?

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/1/2013 12:44 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Why is it you cannot comprehend the difference between disputation of
>> certain points and total rejection?
>
> you're cherry picking. Period.

But you failed to give your excuse for your inability to recited
examples. Mere assertion is what children do.

> I'm reminded of one researchers opinion on
> the statements of Lee Harvey Oswald after
> his arrest for the murder of JFK. I forget
> the researchers name (but he's made the
> rounds, so there's a chance you've heard him
> yourself), but he claimed to find that Oswald
> actually told the truth more often than not.
> That, he gave honest answers most of the time
> to the police, and when he did lie his lies
> were all consistent -- placing him away from
> the murder weapon.
>
> Get it? Oswald wasn't lying randomly, he was
> denying responsibility for the murder of the
> century.

Nothing to do with the evidenciary material relating to this subject.

> In this same vein the lies/mistakes in
> Josephus, the bible and religious tradition
> in general all follow a similar pattern: The
> exaggerate the importance & antiquity of
> Jerusalem, it's temple and the roll that "The
> Jews" had while downplaying (out-right denying)
> the antiquity and significance of Samaria and
> it's temple.

Of which you fail to present an excuse for your inability to present a
single example. Perhaps if you read his material some day you would not
make such irrelevant generalizations. We both know you have never read it.

The conquest and forced conversion has nothing to do with exaggeration.
It has everything to do with being contrary to the Septuagint.

> While the best physical evidence we have says
> that Herod's temple couldn't have even existed
> at the time of Herod (and if it took decades to
> build it wouldn't have even been ready for
> Jesus to have disrupted it as the N.T. claims),
> but the RIVAL Samaritan temple has to date to
> the 5th century BC(E), much older than Josephus
> claims.

The best physical evidence we have are contemporary mentions of its
existence. They are widely scattered and from barely related sources.
And as you know what is called Herod's temple is simply his renovation
of it regardless of its state of renovation. There are cathedrals in
Europe that took centuries to complete which were in use almost from the
beginning as soon as there was temporary roof in place. What in the
world would a completed temple have to do with anything?

So far as I have found Josephus makes no claim as to the age of the
Samarian temple. Again, you have not read his material. It is annoying
when you make things up.

And you have no excuse for not reciting the evidence it had a
connection to Yahweh. Appears obvious if conversion had to be forced it
was to replace whichever gods were worshiped in Samaria.

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer wrote:

> But you failed to give your excuse for your inability to recited
> examples. Mere assertion is what children do.

I gave several examples, beginning with the
Samaritan temple dating to the 5th century.

...again.

It's not like any of this is new. Every few
months you repeat the same bullshit, you receive
one or more responses only to crawl away and then
come back, pretending it never happened before.

The Samaritan temple not only dates to well before
the time period which you require, but we have
absolutely no reason to doubt it's religious
affiliation. The archaeology reveals finds totally
consistent with biblical practices, when the bible
does appear on the scene the north/south rift is
clearly in full swing (requiring it to pre-date the
bible) and even today the Samaritan religion is a
close match to biblical Judaism, while Judaism is
not.

There is NOTHING missing from this picture which
isn't missing from just about any ancient temple,
yet you don't doubt the identification of any of
them, the religion attributed to them.

The difference between the Samaritan temple and
the temple of Artemis? Well, we have a vastly
superior case in the example of the Samaritan temple.
After all, we have an unbroken link in the present
day Samaritans, a religious continuity, any adherents
to the ALLEGED cult of Artemis vanished long ago...

See that? You fail your very own standards.

You're ridiculous.

> > I'm reminded of one researchers opinion on
> > the statements of Lee Harvey Oswald after
> > his arrest for the murder of JFK. I forget
> > the researchers name (but he's made the
> > rounds, so there's a chance you've heard him
> > yourself), but he claimed to find that Oswald
> > actually told the truth more often than not.
> > That, he gave honest answers most of the time
> > to the police, and when he did lie his lies
> > were all consistent -- placing him away from
> > the murder weapon.
>
> > Get it? Oswald wasn't lying randomly, he was
> > denying responsibility for the murder of the
> > century.

> Nothing to do with the evidenciary material relating to this subject.

You lack the intellectual capacity to remove
the dishes from the sink BEFORE you pee in it...

But thanks for being so transparent, again. I don't
have the patience for an argument right now, so I'm
glad you made it easy with, what, you're astounding
hypocrisy and you transparent attempts at moving the
goal post whenever your idiotic ideas are threatened.

Go on, keep insisting that the other side has
insufficient evidence, because no matter how you
describe the evidence it still exists, while you
have absolutely NOTHING.

You're a midget calling everybody else "Short," and
you look all the more comical for doing it... and
even more comical for not noticing.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Revd]

In article <n5uAt.6462$BX2....@fx01.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> On 7/1/2013 4:24 PM, Revd wrote:

>> Enough with these silly diversions. Just tell us why your
>> son is so fat. Ok?
>>
>> http://www.justmugshots.com/florida/tampa/2609415
>>
>> Looks familiar?

> Looks like the traditional depiction of Jesus
> mourning the state of sinners.

Is it *your* sins he's mourning?

Some life you had, huh? Some job (pfft), some family (ouch!).

> So tell me, does this make you of the
> Mosaic perversion?

Your inferiority complex is *really* giving you a hard time,
huh?

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/2/2013 5:53 AM, Revd wrote:
> In article <n5uAt.6462$BX2....@fx01.iad>,
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/2013 4:24 PM, Revd wrote:
>
>>> Enough with these silly diversions. Just tell us why your
>>> son is so fat. Ok?
>>>
>>> http://www.justmugshots.com/florida/tampa/2609415
>>>
>>> Looks familiar?
>
>> Looks like the traditional depiction of Jesus
>> mourning the state of sinners.
>
> Is it *your* sins he's mourning?
>
> Some life you had, huh? Some job (pfft), some family (ouch!).

Are you unaware that adults view talk like yours as juvenile? How can
you be unaware of this?

>> So tell me, does this make you of the
>> Mosaic perversion?
>
> Your inferiority complex is *really* giving you a hard time,
> huh?
>

Inferiority complex and related Freudian gibberish was shitcanned as
nonsense by DSM III. Get your ass into the 1970s.

But cowardice has been a long identified weakness of personality and
hiding behind an anonymous remailer because you don't have the balls to
tell the world who you are is what you call pathetic.

So are you one of the genital mutilators of the Mosaic perversion or
not? Are you really another murderous zionists?

Hey, Adolph! You missed one!

[Revd]

In article <oJxAt.196$Jf7...@fx09.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> On 7/2/2013 5:53 AM, Revd wrote:

>> Some life you had, huh? Some job (pfft), some family (ouch!).

> Are you unaware that adults view talk like yours as
> juvenile?

No, they don't.

>> Your inferiority complex is *really* giving you a hard time,
>> huh?

> Inferiority complex and related Freudian gibberish
> was shitcanned as nonsense by DSM III.

Nonsense. You suffer from a *huge* inferiority complex,
which, one must say, is entirely justified.

> Hey, Adolph! You missed one!

Further proof of your *huge* inferiority complex. And, just
for the record, even if there were no Jews around, you would
*still* suffer from that inferiority complex, and it would
still have been jusified.

http://thumbs.mugshots.com/gallery/images/2/09/1d/Matthias-Edward-Giwer_mugshot.223x223.jpg

The poor boy! He's the real victim here, you know.

[Neil H.]

In article <kquhfb$lvc$1...@pcls6.std.com>,

Revd <peeling@the_peeler.com.org> wrote:

> In article <oJxAt.196$Jf7...@fx09.iad>,
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

>> Hey, Adolph! You missed one!

Hilarious. Giwer is trying to portray himself as an educated,
intelligent adult... but scratch him just a little, and he
explodes with the most idiotic, vulgar, juvenile, racist
retort... not to mention that he's supposed to deny the
Holocaust, no?

> Further proof of your *huge* inferiority complex. And, just
> for the record, even if there were no Jews around, you would
> *still* suffer from that inferiority complex, and it would

> still have been justified.

Giwer would still suffer from that inferiority complex even
if he was the last man on earth.

> http://thumbs.mugshots.com/gallery/images/2/09/1d/Matthias-Edward-Giwer_mugshot.223x223.jpg
>
> The poor boy! He's the real victim here, you know.

Who is this guy? He seems very rabid.

[peeler]

In article <kquvfa$k6l$1...@pcls6.std.com>,

Neil H. <neilis...@not-home-today.org> wrote:

> In article <kquhfb$lvc$1...@pcls6.std.com>,
> Revd <peeling@the_peeler.com.org> wrote:

>> In article <oJxAt.196$Jf7...@fx09.iad>,
>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

>>> Hey, Adolph! You missed one!

> Hilarious. Giwer is trying to portray himself as an educated,
> intelligent adult... but scratch him just a little, and he
> explodes with the most idiotic, vulgar, juvenile, racist
> retort... not to mention that he's supposed to deny the
> Holocaust, no?

The real motto of Holocaust deniers is "The Holocaust never
happened, and da Jooos deserved it".

>> http://thumbs.mugshots.com/gallery/images/2/09/1d/Matthias-Edward-Giwer_mugshot.223x223.jpg
>>
>> The poor boy! He's the real victim here, you know.

> Who is this guy? He seems very rabid.

Giwer's son.

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/2/2013 12:34 PM, Neil H. wrote:
> In article <kquhfb$lvc$1...@pcls6.std.com>,
> Revd <peeling@the_peeler.com.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <oJxAt.196$Jf7...@fx09.iad>,
>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hey, Adolph! You missed one!
>
> Hilarious. Giwer is trying to portray himself as an educated,
> intelligent adult... but scratch him just a little, and he
> explodes with the most idiotic, vulgar, juvenile, racist
> retort... not to mention that he's supposed to deny the
> Holocaust, no?

It is just another stupid religion for the ignorant and superstitious.
It hardly matters what one says about any believer as they are all
worthless.

Jews are followers of Judaism meaning they are believers. They are not
a race -- that is a NAZI idea -- therefore what I said cannot be racist.

There is nothing idiotic about ridiculing any believer. It is what
rational people do for their own good.

>> Further proof of your *huge* inferiority complex. And, just
>> for the record, even if there were no Jews around, you would
>> *still* suffer from that inferiority complex, and it would
>> still have been justified.
>
> Giwer would still suffer from that inferiority complex even
> if he was the last man on earth.

How can one suffer from freudian gibberish?

>> http://thumbs.mugshots.com/gallery/images/2/09/1d/Matthias-Edward-Giwer_mugshot.223x223.jpg
>>
>> The poor boy! He's the real victim here, you know.
>
> Who is this guy? He seems very rabid.

Someone who has to truck with any of you believers.

Take your holocaust and shove it. They could have converted to
Christianity but they did not. One stupid religion to another. When
people get screwed for their own religious choices they should have the
self respect not to whine about it.

Religions undergo extinction events. This savage genital mutilating
Yahweh cult is way past its expiration date.

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/2/2013 8:35 AM, Revd wrote:
> In article <oJxAt.196$Jf7...@fx09.iad>,
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/2013 5:53 AM, Revd wrote:
>
>>> Some life you had, huh? Some job (pfft), some family (ouch!).
>
>> Are you unaware that adults view talk like yours as
>> juvenile?
>
> No, they don't.

If that were my son the height of incivility would be to bring in
family as part of a personal attack. I find it odd you would come up
with a commercial website instead of a government website and think you
have such a vile personal attack.

But then believers are like that.

>>> Your inferiority complex is *really* giving you a hard time,
>>> huh?
>
>> Inferiority complex and related Freudian gibberish
>> was shitcanned as nonsense by DSM III.
>
> Nonsense. You suffer from a *huge* inferiority complex,
> which, one must say, is entirely justified.

Again, no one can suffer from freudian gibberish that was shitcanned
with DSM III. These days everyone knows Freud was a crook and con
artist, a criminal who should have been in jail. Talk your way to mental
health. That is no different from Scientology. Hubbard deliberately
copied Freudian methods. Do you not know this?

>> Hey, Adolph! You missed one!
>
> Further proof of your *huge* inferiority complex. And, just
> for the record, even if there were no Jews around, you would
> *still* suffer from that inferiority complex, and it would
> still have been jusified.

One cannot suffer from the gibberish of a con artist. Why do you think
it would have any effect on me? Just because Jews swallow that crap from
a favorite son?

So we have established you are of the Mosaic perversion and believe in
plagues in Egypt and part seas and all of the biblical Israel crap. You
probably even believe your genital mutilating cult is moral when in fact
it is nothing but a primitive ritual/taboo cult. Beyond judaism we have
to go into the hinterland of the most primitive places in the world to
find ritual/taboo religions.

Why not simply declare yourself an atheist so you will not feel
compelled to defend "biblical" Israel and all magic Jews believe in? You
would be better for it.

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/2/2013 4:11 AM, JTEM wrote:

> The Samaritan temple not only dates to well before
> the time period which you require, but we have
> absolutely no reason to doubt it's religious
> affiliation.

Regardless of anything I may have ever said about Josephus the solid
evidence is the extremely unlikely case that Josephus would make up a
story of conversion of the Samarians by the conquest.

One, there is no need to say anything at all.

Two, it contradicts the Septuagint in a fundamental way.

Three, you are choosing the fanciful, magical Septuagint over the only
information on the subject from a known source.

Four, whatever I have done has no bearing upon the nature of the temple
and the religion prior to forced conversion.

Five, by definition in all traditions of the Yahweh cult and throughout
the entire Septuagint circumcision makes the Jew. Josephus specifically
mentions the conquered Samarians were forced to circumcise.

[Martin Edwards]

You are laying yourself wide open. Even the dim intellects of our
present interlocutors will tumble this one. Nazi anti-Semitism was not
religious, but racial. Jews who had converted to Catholicism were
sometimes grassed up by fellow Catholics and executed. The fact that
that homo sapiens does not have "races" was of no import. Many believed
the opposite and still do.

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Samaritan temple not only dates to well before
> > the time period which you require, but we have
> > absolutely no reason to doubt it's religious
> > affiliation.
>
>
>
> Regardless of anything I may have ever said about Josephus the solid
> evidence is the extremely unlikely case that Josephus would make up a
> story of conversion of the Samarians by the conquest.

Everything we can check on, everything we are capable
of proving or disproving shows us that Josephus gets it
all wrong, at least as far as religious history goes.

Josephus, for example, claims the Samaritan temple
wasn't even built until, what, more than a century
after it was really built?

And, again, all the lies/errors/etc are consistent
here. They are not random. They all exaggerate the
antiquity and significance of Jerusalem (the south)
while flat-out denying the antiquity & significance of
Samaria.

Which is weird, because the archaeology tells the
exact opposite story. And you always agree with
the archaeology, except for the bleeding obvious
conclusion!

Samaria did have a temple. Samaria was rich and
important. The archaeology shows this. You even
argue that it was home to an Egyptian palace! And,
according to you, several (of the very few) ancient
references to an Israel or an Israeli king found
on monuments are actually references to Samaria.

> Two, it contradicts the Septuagint in a fundamental way.

Like Josephus, the inaccuracies/lies/etc of the
Septuagint are not random. They all deny the
antiquity and significance of Samaria while point
to (what you have always argued is) a false history
for Jerusalem and any southern people/tradition.

> Three, you are choosing the fanciful, magical Septuagint over the only
> information on the subject from a known source.

I'm not choosing either, and neither are you.

You don't choose Josephus, you cherry pick from
him. You uphold anything you think you can
twist into support for your ideas, and you reject
everything else... which is most of Josephus.

> Four, whatever I have done has no bearing upon the nature of the temple
> and the religion prior to forced conversion.

This here, right now, is a fantastic example
of your cherry picking. There is absolutely
no evidence for any forced conversions but it
feeds into your "Nasty Jews" fantasy so you
cling to it like a drowning man to a life
preserver.

And the really screwed up thing here? YOU
DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IT!

You don't believe anyone was "Converted."
You actually believe that the masses were
polytheists and you argue as much at every
opportunity.

See? Your lies are consistent too, just
like Josephus. And they reveal similar
motives. Josephus was out to destroy any
legacy of the Samaritans and you're out
to destroy any legacy of the Jews.

Similar motives, similar behaviors...

> Five, by definition in all traditions of the Yahweh cult and throughout
> the entire Septuagint circumcision makes the Jew.

Circumcision was an Egyptian practice, and you
damn well know, and the Egyptians owned the
Levant for the better part of 2,000 years, which
you also know. And you've frequently argued that
Yahweh was Amun...

Circumcision was ritually practiced, it probably
set apart the upper classes -- nobility and the
priestly class -- from the peasants, and eventually
trickled down the the common man... paralleling
somewhat the mummification and elaborate burials
of the dead.

> Josephus specifically
> mentions the conquered Samarians were forced to circumcise.

And as everything we are capable of verifying on
the subject of Samaria proves Josephus wrong, we
have every reason to doubt that as well...

And, again, YOU argue that Samaria was Egyptian,
that it was home to an Egyptian palace, and the
Egyptians practiced circumcision...

Samaria would not have been a stranger to the
practice.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Martin Edwards wrote:

> Then again, god botherers have been talking, reading and writing
> nonsense for thousands of years.

Only since reading & writing were invented. Before that
they limited themselves to talking & doing.

My gripe isn't with holding beliefs. "Spirituality" is
a very real part of humans -- every bit as real as love,
anger, feeling cold or hungry. It's inside us, wired in
our brains, though actual spiritual experiences tend to
be fairly rare, they can be induced chemically, have been
induced with electrical stimulation and even with the use
of magnets. We also have physical evidence for spirituality
going back to our pre-modern ancestors (Neanderthals and
to a lesser extent Heidelberg Man).

The hardcore atheists -- even the atheists have their
share of dogmatic idiots -- violently protest these
facts, but they are facts. Archaeology does present
evidence of spirituality reaching back some 400 thousand
years (at least twice as far back as modern humans are
credited with), all of recorded history has people
reporting spiritual experiences, and nobody doubts the
ability to induce such experiences through artificial
means (such as drugs).

Unlike endless discussions on the details of anyone's
Abrahamic traditions (be them Christian, Muslim or Jew),
I find reality -- including the reality of the human
spiritual capacity -- utterly fascinating.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[The Revd]

In article <HCQAt.3$EF...@fx11.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> If that were my son

It *is* your son. Can you stop lying for one second?

>> Nonsense. You suffer from a *huge* inferiority complex,
>> which, one must say, is entirely justified.

> Again, no one can suffer from freudian gibberish

You most definitely can, and, yet again, your inferiority complex
is fully justified. You are, after all, an utter and complete
failure, with a diseased personality, zero intellectual achievements,
and a CV that would embarrass an amoeba. It is no wonder that
you exist and operate only on the Internet, a medium which applies
no filters and which suffers everything. In the *real* world, the
sum total of your life is a neat nothing. That is why you so
passionately hate the Jews -- they are achievers, you are a loser.

And no, sorry, I am not Jewish. Do realize that people like you
are despised and abhorred by *everyone*.

[some further rubbish mercifully given the snip]

[Matt Giwer]

Let me get this straight. Stupid ZIONISTS invent the idiotic idea that
Jews are a race. The Nazis COPY that stupid idea. I reject the entire
idea as abysmally ignorant.

What exactly am I open to? Declaring Zionists and Nazis deserved each
other?

I was not the one who decided to call members of religion a race. The
Zionists did. In fact their term was Volk not Rasse. So when the Nazis
latch onto the idea about a German Volk and a Judenten Volk being
different why do you suggest I have to play along with that nonsense?
They were both idiots and the Nazis did not start it.

I can go through history and find people killing people for all kinds
of stupid reasons. I can also find them being inconsistent with their
own stupid reasons. So they got a few Catholics...so?

I am not interested in engaging in any discussion that establishes
special rules for jewish whining and assuming it is any different from
anything else in history.

Besides you need to consider those assholes have been silent for two
days. Don't I get any credit? Look at what I did write and ask wny it
silenced them. We both said they were believers and they quickly said
they did not believe in Jesus. Notice they never denied being of the
Mosaic perversion -- damned spell checker did it again. And then I
jumped immediately to ridiculing the atheist Jew nonsense before they
could retreat. Been here, done this, working on ways to shut them up
faster.

If any of them are still reading they will be back -- three newbies
with only personal attacks -- just to show they are not silent.

[Matt Giwer]

Only Jews engage in such vile attacks while hiding their identity.

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/4/2013 3:46 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Martin Edwards wrote:
>
>> Then again, god botherers have been talking, reading and writing
>> nonsense for thousands of years.
>
> Only since reading & writing were invented. Before that
> they limited themselves to talking & doing.
>
> My gripe isn't with holding beliefs. "Spirituality" is
> a very real part of humans -- every bit as real as love,
> anger, feeling cold or hungry. It's inside us, wired in
> our brains, though actual spiritual experiences tend to
> be fairly rare, they can be induced chemically, have been
> induced with electrical stimulation and even with the use
> of magnets. We also have physical evidence for spirituality
> going back to our pre-modern ancestors (Neanderthals and
> to a lesser extent Heidelberg Man).

All of that means by definition that "spiritual" is in fact physical.
If you practice it isn't all that hard to turn on. It is just a feeling.
In any event I picked up the trick about twenty years ago. It's no big
thing.

[Revd]

In article <P_wBt.31302$RS3....@fx20.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> Only Jews engage in such vile attacks while
> hiding their identity.

Only inferior people write such nonsense as you do.

http://thumbs.mugshots.com/gallery/images/2/8b/d2/Matthias-Edward-Giwer_mugshot.140x140.jpg

The poor boy. What have you done to the poor boy. You
bring suffering, death, and pain everywhere you go.

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > My gripe isn't with holding beliefs. "Spirituality" is
> > a very real part of humans -- every bit as real as love,
> > anger, feeling cold or hungry. It's inside us, wired in
> > our brains, though actual spiritual experiences tend to
> > be fairly rare, they can be induced chemically, have been
> > induced with electrical stimulation and even with the use
> > of magnets. We also have physical evidence for spirituality
> > going back to our pre-modern ancestors (Neanderthals and
> > to a lesser extent Heidelberg Man).


> All of that means by definition that "spiritual" is in fact physical.
> If you practice it isn't all that hard to turn on. It is just a feeling.
> In any event I picked up the trick about twenty years ago. It's no big
> thing.

Call it a feeling, call it a "Sense," it's a *Very*
big deal, huge in fact. Most "Believers" struggle
for years trying to capture exactly that, even if one
the briefest glimpse every so often.

It's a massive deal, and if you can only achieve it
you should be writing step-by-step guides instructing
people how, instead of unsupportable historical nonsense.

You'd make a fortune.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Martin Edwards]

On 05/07/2013 11:10, Matt Giwer wrote:
> Let me get this straight. Stupid ZIONISTS invent the idiotic idea that
> Jews are a race. The Nazis COPY that stupid idea. I reject the entire
> idea as abysmally ignorant.

Your source for this is?

[Martin Edwards]

I, on the other hand, am a graduate of the University of East Anglia and
did thirty years in the blackboard jungle. You are a high school
graduate from Podunk, or what?

[Martin Edwards]

On 05/07/2013 22:05, Revd wrote:
>
> The poor boy. What have you done to the poor boy. You

He looks pretty normal to me. If you have long hair you should wash it,
but still. I have a pretty bob /and I don't care/ who thinks I'm a fag.

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/5/2013 5:05 PM, Revd wrote:
> In article <P_wBt.31302$RS3....@fx20.iad>,
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Only Jews engage in such vile attacks while
>> hiding their identity.
>
> Only inferior people write such nonsense as you do.
>
> http://thumbs.mugshots.com/gallery/images/2/8b/d2/Matthias-Edward-Giwer_mugshot.140x140.jpg

Still no government source and even if true what would booking mean?
Even you folks whose legal knowledge is no greater than procedural TV
shows should know that. Do you not realize we are laughing at you?

Do you not think it was silly enough when you declared you could say
"fat" from a head shot?

> The poor boy. What have you done to the poor boy. You
> bring suffering, death, and pain everywhere you go.
>

Inferior. I have a degree in physics, have managed billion dollar DOD
projects and I can tell you I have held US and NATO clearances. I can
also tell you that when my son was 22 he was making mid $50s working for
a major US telecom.

What have you been doing since you graduated high school? Seriously you
should have outgrown calling fat around the 6th grade. It is unseemly
even for school children.

Do you not realize we are laughing at you?

[Matt Giwer]

I refer to it as just a feeling as it goes not place. I am now feeling
spiritual is no different from I am feeling happy or sad. It is just a
state. It adds nothing to knowledge. It is always the same feeling. It
never increases or decreases. What is the point to saying it is more
than it is?

I also achieved enlightenment in the Tao sense some 30 years ago. I
still hew wood and carry water.

As to making a fortune, if I developed the sales pitch and had no
scruples and nothing better to do with my time then maybe. I've got
enough to keep me comfortable and since I retired back in 1991 at 46 I
really do not see the point in being rich and having to do everything
required to stay rich. Even being into tax free munies takes time.

Granted I missed the "excitement" at first and still do every now and
then but that was also work hard play hard that really would likely have
killed me by now. As it is I have come back from three heart attacks
late last year feeling better than before.

But any sales pitch would just be the Tao. The monks have it down to a
fine art. And they even tell the seekers there will be no change after
enlightenment and they are telling the truth. It is the perfect scam.

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/6/2013 12:50 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 11:10, Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Let me get this straight. Stupid ZIONISTS invent the idiotic idea that
>> Jews are a race. The Nazis COPY that stupid idea. I reject the entire
>> idea as abysmally ignorant.
>
> Your source for this is?
>

An historian with impeccable credential as an Israeli and as a Jew and
an an academic. A professor of history as Tel Aviv University.

http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373365532&sr=1-1&keywords=invention+of+the+jewish+people


and its companion

http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Land-Israel-Holy-Homeland/dp/1844679462/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373365532&sr=1-2&keywords=invention+of+the+jewish+people

Although a decade or more before the publication of the first book I
was posting that it was nonsense as there was no mention of the idea any
place in history prior to the late 19th c. I do not think this is the
first time you have challenged me to produce my sources nor the first
time I have presented this book instead of reciting the absence of
mention prior to the late 19th c.

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer wrote:

> I refer to it as just a feeling as it goes not place. I am now feeling
> spiritual is no different from I am feeling happy or sad. It is just a
> state. It adds nothing to knowledge. It is always the same feeling. It
> never increases or decreases. What is the point to saying it is more
> than it is?

What value you place on it is irrelevant. The point is
that people DO place an enormous value on it (even if
you don't), and if you can instruct them as to how to
attain this state, this feeling then you can be very
wealthy and they can be very happy.

You can question all day why some kids love Pokemon,
or you can simply accept that it's big business.

...can you think of a bigger business than religion?
And what about drugs? Whole chunks of the illicit
drug industry are centered on people chemically inducing
a spiritual experience.

LSD may be giving it with both barrels, sure, but
ultimately that's what most users were after. Then there's
mushrooms...

> I also achieved enlightenment in the Tao sense some 30 years ago.

So quite with the "History" writing and the antiSemitism, and
start documenting this!

> As to making a fortune, if I developed the sales pitch and had no
> scruples and nothing better to do with my time then maybe. I've got
> enough to keep me comfortable and since I retired back in 1991 at 46 I
> really do not see the point in being rich and having to do everything
> required to stay rich. Even being into tax free munies takes time.

"Chicken Soup for the Soul" made that guy a millionaire
many times over.

What you're talking about, if you can deliver it, would be
worth a lot more.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Neil H]

In article <9ERCt.20739$ny....@fx14.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> On 7/6/2013 12:50 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:

>> On 05/07/2013 11:10, Matt Giwer wrote:

>>> Let me get this straight. Stupid ZIONISTS invent the idiotic idea that
>>> Jews are a race. The Nazis COPY that stupid idea. I reject the entire
>>> idea as abysmally ignorant.

>> Your source for this is?

> An historian with impeccable credential as an Israeli and as a
> Jew and an an academic.

What on earth does "impeccable credential as an Israeli and
as a Jew" mean?

Moreover, since you deny the Holocaust, you accuse numerous Jewish
historians of lying. Why did you choose to suddenly believe this
one Jewish historian?

Lastly, what does he say which supports your statement?

Neil.

[Revd]

In article <7PQCt.19624$Ye4....@fx02.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

>> The poor boy. What have you done to the poor boy. You
>> bring suffering, death, and pain everywhere you go.

> Inferior. I have a degree in physics,

Proof?

> have managed billion dollar DOD projects

Proof?

[Martin Edwards]

I have tried to chip away at G's holocaust denial for years. This is
not the point at issue here. Read Sand. He does not, of course, need
credentials as a Jew. If he travels abroad he will have an Israeli
passport. Sniping at G's slightly wayward syntax is irrelevant. He may
not be as well educated as you. I am almost certainly better educated
than you. None of this is relevant to the points at issue.

[Martin Edwards]

How is this relevant to the topics under discussion? Apart from a few
batty obsessions, he has a fair grasp of most of them, unlike those who
believe in fairies.

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/9/2013 4:36 PM, Neil H wrote:
> In article <9ERCt.20739$ny....@fx14.iad>,
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/2013 12:50 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
>
>>> On 05/07/2013 11:10, Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>>>> Let me get this straight. Stupid ZIONISTS invent the idiotic idea that
>>>> Jews are a race. The Nazis COPY that stupid idea. I reject the entire
>>>> idea as abysmally ignorant.
>
>>> Your source for this is?
>
>> An historian with impeccable credential as an Israeli and as a
>> Jew and an an academic.
>
> What on earth does "impeccable credential as an Israeli and
> as a Jew" mean?

A source who cannot be attacked without physical evidence which is
quite simple. Find a mention of a jewish "people" prior to the 19th c.
It should be trivial if it exists.

> Moreover, since you deny the Holocaust, you accuse numerous Jewish
> historians of lying. Why did you choose to suddenly believe this
> one Jewish historian?
>
> Lastly, what does he say which supports your statement?
>

I am so blessed with idiots. There is not a single academic historian
of any religion or atheist who has been dumb enough to touch the gas
chamber story. And don't just pull a name out of your ass. Include a
link to his professorship at his university.

As to what he says he backs up the title and gives the inventors and
the timeframe of the invention. What do you think he says?

Jews are followers of Judaism only. Atheists cannot be Jews. Get over it.

[Matt Giwer]

But are you satisfied that I have provided corroboration for my assertion?

[Matt Giwer]

I really do not care if you believe me or not. How could I be concerned
what an immature name caller thinks? because I know they are incapable
of it. Anyone can learn more than they ever imagined knowing about me
from my website. That has been online since 1994 and is currently about
1.7 GB of material. Why has not a genius such as yourself had the common
sense to google it before posting to me? Don't miss the animations.

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/10/2013 2:07 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 09/07/2013 21:38, Revd wrote:
>> In article <7PQCt.19624$Ye4....@fx02.iad>,
>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The poor boy. What have you done to the poor boy. You
>>>> bring suffering, death, and pain everywhere you go.
>>
>>> Inferior. I have a degree in physics,
>>
>> Proof?
>>
>>> have managed billion dollar DOD projects
>>
>> Proof?
>>
> How is this relevant to the topics under discussion? Apart from a few
> batty obsessions, he has a fair grasp of most of them, unlike those who
> believe in fairies.
>

He thinks he is defending traditional beliefs about the bible of
course. He simply has no idea that schoolyard tactics no longer apply.

[Matt Giwer]

And the way you are talking about it is why people want it so much
without knowing what it is. That is why kids put up with being students
in Buddhist monasteries and taking all kinds of abuse and meditating on
koans and such. It is something so simple it cannot be taught. One
learns by failing at the koans for enough years and learns they cannot
be answered. That is the point. But people who are searching won't
believe it.

One of these days when you pause in hysterically laughing at yourself
for the effort you may remember I told you and start laughing all the
harder. If you keep looking hard enough you will realize there is
nothing to find and laugh at yourself for looking.

But here is one answer for kinky monks.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

A spanking!

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer wrote:

> And the way you are talking about it is why people want it so much
> without knowing what it is. That is why kids put up with being students
> in Buddhist monasteries and taking all kinds of abuse and meditating on
> koans and such. It is something so simple it cannot be taught. One
> learns by failing at the koans for enough years and learns they cannot
> be answered. That is the point. But people who are searching won't
> believe it.
>
>
>
> One of these days when you pause in hysterically laughing at yourself
> for the effort you may remember I told you and start laughing all the
> harder. If you keep looking hard enough you will realize there is
> nothing to find and laugh at yourself for looking.

So feed me a step-by-step guide, I'll write the
book and cut you in on the profits.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Revd]

In article <uS6Dt.1655$Qp6....@fx04.am4>,

Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 09/07/2013 21:38, Revd wrote:

>> In article <7PQCt.19624$Ye4....@fx02.iad>,
>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

>>> have managed billion dollar DOD projects

>> Proof?

> How is this relevant to the topics under discussion?

Ask Giwer. He mentioned it first.

[Revd]

In article <hE8Dt.59988$hK5....@fx15.iad>,
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

[snippage]

Where is the proof for the "billion dollar DOD projects"
you assert you have managed?

[Martin Edwards]

Holocaust denial, no. In this, and only this, I consider you a crank.

[Matt Giwer]

How would you know if I gave it to you?

Even JTEM is starting to post against crap like yours. The purpose of
demanding "proof" is always to stop discussion. And yet this is a
discussion group. If you question it, discuss it. It should be quite
simple IF you have the ability to understand any evidence I give you. As
you cannot discuss the subject you have no way of recognizing the
evidence I might provide. So what is your point? You are totally
ignorant of the subject.

Your point of course it to defend traditional beliefs about the OT and
the mythical, Hebrews, Israelites, Israel, Abraham, Moses, David,
Solomon and all of fantasies that fill your fevered imagination.

[Martin Edwards]

He may be lying here. I on the other hand, did thirty years in the
blackboard jungle and had to deal with many brands of Christians,
Muslims and some who were arguably insane. Except for his idée fixe of
holocaust denial, most of G's views are worthy of proper debate, even
where they may turn out to be wrong or never be resolved. Some are held
by proper academics, eg Avalos, Price. Schoolboy name calling just will
not cut it, though it obviously cannot be eliminated.

[Martin Edwards]

Okay, it isn't.

[Matt Giwer]

It is simpler and more profitable for you to get a bunch of
"enlightenment" books from the library and rehash them and keep all the
profits. I did not mean to suggest I had anything new.

You mentioned spirituality as you might mention learning to shoot. In
either case I might have commented about the same remarking on how to
gain the skills.

[Matt Giwer]

The question was asked solely in regard to the invention of the jewish
people.

As to the holy holocaust I find it impossible to deal with people who
say there was mass extermination in gas chambers because Jews were
persecuted. The persecution is not in question. Even the US ran
concentration camps during the war. I cannot make the leap from that to
mass extermination of citizens of Japanese origin. Holocaustism is a
tenacious religion.

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/11/2013 2:50 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 22:23, Revd wrote:
>> In article <hE8Dt.59988$hK5....@fx15.iad>,
>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

>> [snippage]

>> Where is the proof for the "billion dollar DOD projects"
>> you assert you have managed?

> He may be lying here.

Notice DOD. Ever seen the size of the US DOD budget? It is hard to
manage anything in DOD that is under 1 million except to train newbies.
It is hardly a brag. The life cycle cost of a project is always a big
number even for cheap hardware. I have no need to lie. Most any senior
project manager can cite similar numbers.

You taught for 30 years. Give me the total number of students you have
educated.

In any event the point was to put the silly little bugger in his place.

[Revd]

In article <RzsDt.56002$aW2....@fx13.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> On 7/10/2013 5:23 PM, Revd wrote:

>> Where is the proof for the "billion dollar DOD projects"
>> you assert you have managed?

> How would you know if I gave it to you?

Where is it?

> Even JTEM is starting to post against crap like yours.

Who gives a fuck?

> The purpose of demanding "proof" is always to stop discussion.

What an utterly idiotic statement. Only a lying idiot and
a coward would say something like that. It's no wonder you
never achieved anything in your sad life.

> The worst mistake Palestinians ever made
> was inventing Judaism.

It's not working. You are *still* inferior.

[Revd]

In article <hDtDt.33098$Eu7....@fx20.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> On 7/11/2013 2:50 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:

>>> Where is the proof for the "billion dollar DOD projects"
>>> you assert you have managed?

>> He may be lying here.

> Notice DOD. Ever seen the size of the US DOD budget? It
> is hard to manage anything in DOD that is under 1 million

You claimed *billion*, not *million*.

> The worst mistake Palestinians ever made
> was inventing Judaism.

It's not working. You are still inferior.

[Revd]

In article <hDtDt.33098$Eu7....@fx20.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> In any event the point was to put the silly
> little bugger in his place.

This silly little bugger? You certainly put him in his
place, right?

http://www.mugshotsonline.com/florida/tampa/matthias-giwer/2038732

> The worst mistake Palestinians ever made
> was inventing Judaism.

[Martin Edwards]

>> Holocaust denial, no. In this, and only this, I consider you a cranktor.

>
> The question was asked solely in regard to the invention of the
> jewish people.
>
> As to the holy holocaust I find it impossible to deal with people
> who say there was mass extermination in gas chambers because Jews were
> persecuted. The persecution is not in question. Even the US ran
> concentration camps during the war. I cannot make the leap from that to
> mass extermination of citizens of Japanese origin. Holocaustism is a
> tenacious religion.
>

Crematorium>short railway>demolished building. Canteen?

[Matt Giwer]

There is a crematorium about a mile from here. Does that mean millions
are being exterminated? Also a railroad line runs not 100 feet from me.
I do not see that leading to millions of exterminations either. Where do
you see them millions?

A question in return.

Up until about 2000 the number of the exterminated total was 6M and the
number at Auschwitz was 4M. Today the number at Auschwitz is 1.5M but
the total is still 6M.

6 - 2.5 = 6

Does arithmetic work that way?

[HQ]

In article <rxuEt.87686$LE7....@fx19.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> There is a crematorium about a mile from here. Does that
> mean millions are being exterminated?

Of course not. But one may wonder why one camp required such
a vast number of cremation furnaces, or why an SS officer
complained that a cremation capacity of 2,650 corpses per day
is insufficient (http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/topf/),
or why one camp required that 900 workers be employed at corpse
disposal (http://www.holocaust-history.org/~dkeren/cremation/aug2-3.shtml),
etc.

These are pretty big numbers for one camp, don't you agree?

Cordially, Q.

[Matt Giwer]

Argument by implication is a form of assuming the conclusion which is a
logical fallacy.

As such you have added nothing and there is still no physical evidence
of gas chambers.

If you were honestly interested not arguing to your near biblical
conclusions you would be looking into maximum needed capacity in times
of typhus epidemics and the man power needed to deal with coal. It is
not clear what the mention of wood loaders means as the ovens were coal
fired. But if wood fired cremation requires over a half ton of seasoned
wood per body. 30 would seem reasonable in times of epidemics. But the
coal fired requires some six hours per body minimum. Epidemics are nasty
particularly when there is no refrigeration for the bodies.

The problem is we know how long it takes to cremate bodies today using
oil and natural gas. Call a local crematorium and ask. This is fixed.
This is reality. Yet you present a document which claims about a half
hour per body. On one hand we have reality. On the other hand we have an
impossible claim. Noting also the cardinal "sin" of misspelling the name
of a senior officer there is no other conclusion but that the latter is
a forgery. Something which recites the impossible cannot be considered
legitimate.

And cremation time is proportional to body weight. Two bodies per oven
takes twice as long. That is also reality. Claims to the contrary cannot
be possible.

===

[JTEM]

Matt Giwer wrote:


> The problem is we know how long it takes to cremate bodies today using
> oil and natural gas. Call a local crematorium and ask. This is fixed.
> This is reality. Yet you present a document which claims about a half
> hour per body. On one hand we have reality. On the other hand we have an
> impossible claim.

current estimates place the time necessary at about 25
minutes. The person you are responding to, or so you
claim, posits 30 minutes per body, thus they are under
estimating the number of bodies which could be destroyed
by this process.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[HQ]

In article <ftNEt.60$xv2...@fx05.iad>,

Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabaynever.rr.com> wrote:

> On 7/14/2013 2:01 PM, HQ wrote:

>> Of course not. But one may wonder why one camp required such
>> a vast number of cremation furnaces, or why an SS officer
>> complained that a cremation capacity of 2,650 corpses per day
>> is insufficient (http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/topf/),
>> or why one camp required that 900 workers be employed at corpse
>> disposal (http://www.holocaust-history.org/~dkeren/cremation/aug2-3.shtml),
>> etc.
>>
>> These are pretty big numbers for one camp, don't you agree?

> Argument by implication is a form of assuming the conclusion
> which is a logical fallacy.

It would be nice if you will just answer the question, namely, why
did this one camp require such an enormous cremation capacity?

> As such you have added nothing and there is still no
> physical evidence of gas chambers.

Actually there is, including cyanide compounds.

> If you were honestly interested not arguing to your
> near biblical conclusions

"near biblical conclusions"?

> you would be looking into maximum needed capacity in times
> of typhus epidemics

But the demand for more crematoriums makes no mention of
typhus epidemics, and the increase of the manpower in the
crematorium to 900 did not take place during a typhus epidemics.

The only document I am aware of which cites a reason for the
cremation capacity gives this reason as "the situation caused by
the special actions". Everyone who read something about the SS
and the Holocaust knows exactly what that means; it certainly
does not mean "typhus epidemic".

Concerning the time required for cremating a corpse, it's quite
trivial to reduce it to 30 minutes or so by using multiple
cremations and inserting new corpses before the previous ones
were entirely consumed. This is admitted to even by Holocaust
deniers, who often quote the Gusen cremation sheets from November
1941. This crematorium had only two muffles, yet the SS
managed to burn in it 94 corpses in one day (see
http://www.holocaust-history.org/~dkeren/cremation/gusen2.gif).
In a camp like Auschwitz, even higher figures could be achieved,
since in Gusen all inmates were adult males -- the most difficult
to cremate (it's easier to cremate females and, of course, children,
than adult males).

See also:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-465703/Bodies-cremated-time-save-money.html

> A question in return.
>
> Up until about 2000 the number of the exterminated total was 6M
> and the number at Auschwitz was 4M.

Um, not really. Leading historians such as Reitlinger and Hilberg
never accepted the 4M figure for Auschwitz (Reitlinger actually
flatly ridicules it). Yet, their numbers for total victims are
on par with the accepted figure. Hilberg given 5.1 million, but
this includes only Jews who died directly from anti-Jewish operations
(and not, for example, Soviet Jews who died while serving in
the Soviet Army, or during the siege of Leningrad, etc.).

Cordially, Q.

[Martin Edwards]

Nonetheless there were crematoria. These were from the occasional death
from pneumonia, or what?

[Matt Giwer]

On 7/14/2013 2:01 PM, HQ wrote:

Amazing how people we never heard of appear whenever faith in the holy
holocaust is in question.

What do you folks do, troll the newsgroups looking for heresy?

[Matt Giwer]

They were for cremation. Remember you have brought this up at least
twice before. I pointed out Rome prohibited cremation so Martin Luther
loved it. I pointed out it indicates nothing more sinister than a
graveyard would indicated. It was a perfectly proper means of body
disposal upon death.

As to pneumonia, no doubt much of that but it takes next to no reading
to discover there were regular typhus outbreaks as the POWs from the
eastern front were adverse to the concept of personal sanitation and
loved their body lice. Thus hair was shaved upon entry just as in every
prison in the civilized world then and now. Thus disinfectants like
Zyklon-B was used in the same proportion to number of prisoners as in
all other camps.

Typhus took huge numbers quickly. Google for pics of Bergen-Belson and
you can find pictures of bodies being dumped into huge pits. This
outbreak started some ten days after liberation and the Brit liberators
allowed the prisoners to drink polluted water. It was a good idea as the
pictures without explanation of the facts are used to illustrate "nazi"
atrocities.

[Matt Giwer]

While phonebooks are out of date I am certain you can find the numbers
of some local crematoria. Call and ASK the time required. The time is
measured. Estimates which disagree with measurements are obviously wrong
by inspection.