Religions > Atheism > Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Citizen_Cain" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2005 02:24:39 PM |
| Object: |
Re: (OT) Why "The Passion of the Christ" Wasn't Nom'd for Best Pic |
"curious" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:41F9409D.A134C0AB@nope.com...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/26/oscar.passion/index.html
""Hollywood has spoken. 'Don't mess with us,' is what they're saying,"
said Jennifer Giroux of seethepassion.com. " 'Don't mess with us because
we will not consider your talent if you do anything that is Christian,'
is the message that's coming out.""
Yes, I am sure that's exactly the reason why. It's an anti-Christian
bias.
Her statement makes me wonder if she herself has a little bias towards
Hollywood.
-curious
"Those people" control it, you know... *rolls eyes*
Yea, never mind the fact that the film sucked balls and Mel Gibson is a
fruit loop.
.
|
|
| User: "Napolean Dynamite/ w Deb Hey Deb, Wanna See My Liger? Its Pretty Much My Favorite Animal Bread For Its Skills In Magic" |
|
| Title: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
27 Jan 2005 03:07:19 PM |
|
|
I watched an hour or so and then had enough. I mean how many times can I
watch a guy get whipped, punched, beaten to a bloody pulp, and have his
torso ripped in half? It was way too much and if Mel Gibson thinks he
deserves an award for projecting his bloodthirsty, gory fantasies on to a
movie screen for 3 grueling, arduous hours then he's a kook.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smart Ape - Supports Jews for Jesus" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
27 Jan 2005 04:48:02 PM |
|
|
Napolean Dynamite/ w Deb explained :
I watched an hour or so and then had enough. I mean how many times can I
watch a guy get whipped, punched, beaten to a bloody pulp, and have his
torso ripped in half?
You watch HHH on RAW every week...It's the same thing
--
--- "Damn dirty fleas..."
--- "Ever notice that at the start of a cartoon, Casper has no friends,
and by the end, he has
some. Yet, in the next cartoon, he's friendless again? Therefore, I
think Casper is a
soul-sucking-vampire-ghost."
--- Proud loser of TWO 2004 RSPW Poster Awards
--- Space (Animal) Hero #1 of the 1950's and 60's
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
27 Jan 2005 07:06:36 PM |
|
|
Napolean Dynamite/ w Deb wrote:
I watched an hour or so and then had enough. I mean how many times can I
watch a guy get whipped, punched, beaten to a bloody pulp, and have his
torso ripped in half? It was way too much and if Mel Gibson thinks he
deserves an award for projecting his bloodthirsty, gory fantasies on to a
movie screen for 3 grueling, arduous hours then he's a kook.
I fully agree, not having seen it nor do I intend to, though an orthodox
Christian. If Mel had really followed the example of the 4 Gospels he would
not have produced such a movie. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke concur
that "Having scourged Jesus, Pilate delivered him to be crucified. When they
came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him." Not
more than a dozen verses later he is dead. The focus of their depiction of
the Passion lies elsewhere than in the fascination with blood and gore. For
them it was the victory Christ won in His Passion over suffering, sin, death
and the grave that was paramount.
Denny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
27 Jan 2005 08:42:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:07:19 -0500, "Napolean Dynamite/ w Deb" <Hey
Deb, Wanna See My Liger? It's Pretty Much My Favorite Animal Bread For
It's Skills In Magic> thought hard and said:
I watched an hour or so and then had enough. I mean how many times can I
watch a guy get whipped, punched, beaten to a bloody pulp, and have his
torso ripped in half? It was way too much and if Mel Gibson thinks he
deserves an award for projecting his bloodthirsty, gory fantasies on to a
movie screen for 3 grueling, arduous hours then he's a kook.
Truth be told, I have yet to see The Passion (Penderecki's St. Luke
Passion is better, anyway!).
Neither Gibson nor Moore are going to get any Oscar. The
Academy must not like controversy.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RichA" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
27 Jan 2005 07:03:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:07:19 -0500, "Napolean Dynamite/ w Deb" <Hey
Deb, Wanna See My Liger? It's Pretty Much My Favorite Animal Bread For
It's Skills In Magic> wrote:
I watched an hour or so and then had enough. I mean how many times can I
watch a guy get whipped, punched, beaten to a bloody pulp, and have his
torso ripped in half? It was way too much and if Mel Gibson thinks he
deserves an award for projecting his bloodthirsty, gory fantasies on to a
movie screen for 3 grueling, arduous hours then he's a kook.
Yes, I saw it. It was tough to watch. Welcome to adulthood, you
pathetically childish Americans.
However, you Academy was very open-minded about it;
Hate Mail from Hollywood
Posted by H-Bomb on
Thursday, 27 January 2005 (14:36:22) EST
I never received a response from the Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences regarding our Passion for
Fairness petition. But I did just receieve an e-mail from
an exceedingly hateful Steve Norris, who claims to
represent the Academy. Here's the e-mail.
Quote:
Mr Hynes,
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is in the
business of rewarding outstanding achievements in the art
of film making. We are not in the business of validating
your Christian Zealotry, or for that matter, religious
Zealotry of any denomination.
Your and your fellow Christian Zealots would do well to
do that which you are so skilled at. You know what I'm
talking about: picking out some cartoon character (like
SponeBob Squarepants) in a diversty themed video
presentation and labelling it a homosexual threat to
small children.
I am utterly delighted that our Academy of Motion Picture
Art and Sciences has chosen not to yeild to the Bullying
of you Christian Zealots to award this mediocre film just
because it deals with your particular religious beliefs.
Hey I've got a great idea! Why don't you Christian
Zealots do something totally unexpected? Like for
instance why don't you do something, uh, Christian?
Best Regards,
Stephen Norris
Member: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
Of course, we never said anything bad about "Spone Bob."
He's just lumping us in with other people he's heard
about.
But if there was any question left about the bigotry that
guides Hollywood, let Mr. Norris' remarks put them to
rest.
E-mail Mr. Norris and tell him what you think of anti-
Christian bigotry.
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/
Send Mr. Norris an e-mail and tell him what you think of
anti-Christian bigotry.
Posted on 01/27/2005 12:01:19 PM PST by Kerry Crusher
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny Bravo" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
27 Jan 2005 05:06:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:07:19 -0500, "Napolean Dynamite/ w Deb" <Hey
Deb, Wanna See My Liger? It's Pretty Much My Favorite Animal Bread For
It's Skills In Magic> wrote:
I watched an hour or so and then had enough. I mean how many times can I
watch a guy get whipped, punched, beaten to a bloody pulp, and have his
torso ripped in half? It was way too much and if Mel Gibson thinks he
deserves an award for projecting his bloodthirsty, gory fantasies on to a
movie screen for 3 grueling, arduous hours then he's a kook.
It's by far the highest quality and most widely seen snuff film of
all time. That's got to count for something.
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
.
|
|
|
| User: "Riain Y. Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
27 Jan 2005 06:35:00 PM |
|
|
It should win the "Snuffy" at the Snuff Film Awards! Also the best fiction
character award.
"Johnny Bravo" <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2vsiv0pv3utoq7nam1hsuan5buh494nqep@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:07:19 -0500, "Napolean Dynamite/ w Deb" <Hey
| Deb, Wanna See My Liger? It's Pretty Much My Favorite Animal Bread For
| It's Skills In Magic> wrote:
|
| > I watched an hour or so and then had enough. I mean how many times can
I
| >watch a guy get whipped, punched, beaten to a bloody pulp, and have his
| >torso ripped in half? It was way too much and if Mel Gibson thinks he
| >deserves an award for projecting his bloodthirsty, gory fantasies on to a
| >movie screen for 3 grueling, arduous hours then he's a kook.
|
| It's by far the highest quality and most widely seen snuff film of
| all time. That's got to count for something.
|
| --
| "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
| of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "~Îń©üßü§~" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
27 Jan 2005 05:25:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:07:19 -0500, "Napolean Dynamite/ w Deb" <Hey
Deb, Wanna See My Liger? It's Pretty Much My Favorite Animal Bread For
It's Skills In Magic> wrote:
I watched an hour or so and then had enough. I mean how many times can I
watch a guy get whipped, punched, beaten to a bloody pulp, and have his
torso ripped in half? It was way too much and if Mel Gibson thinks he
deserves an award for projecting his bloodthirsty, gory fantasies on to a
movie screen for 3 grueling, arduous hours then he's a kook.
I did, but all that reading subtitles sucked. After the Passion I had
a passion for Jenna's Blue Movie.
Nothing like mixing religion with pr0n
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
27 Jan 2005 05:35:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:07:19 -0500, "Napolean Dynamite/ w Deb" <Hey Deb, Wanna
See My Liger? It's Pretty Much My Favorite Animal Bread For It's Skills In
Magic> wrote:
I watched an hour or so and then had enough. I mean how many times can I
watch a guy get whipped, punched, beaten to a bloody pulp, and have his
torso ripped in half? It was way too much and if Mel Gibson thinks he
deserves an award for projecting his bloodthirsty, gory fantasies on to a
movie screen for 3 grueling, arduous hours then he's a kook.
Yet you received a true view of what really happened for a change.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
27 Jan 2005 06:41:31 PM |
|
|
In article <ghuiv01phrcteuthvjpls1ohlq2purgmul@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:07:19 -0500, "Napolean Dynamite/ w Deb" <Hey Deb, Wanna
See My Liger? It's Pretty Much My Favorite Animal Bread For It's Skills In
Magic> wrote:
I watched an hour or so and then had enough. I mean how many times can I
watch a guy get whipped, punched, beaten to a bloody pulp, and have his
torso ripped in half? It was way too much and if Mel Gibson thinks he
deserves an award for projecting his bloodthirsty, gory fantasies on to a
movie screen for 3 grueling, arduous hours then he's a kook.
Yet you received a true view of what really happened for a change.
Even someone who hews to a literal reading of an inerrant Bible
wouldn't swallow that claim: great swathes of the script
were based on the visions of two nuns, one 17th and and the
other 19th century.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
28 Jan 2005 04:35:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:41:31 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
Yet you received a true view of what really happened for a change.
Even someone who hews to a literal reading of an inerrant Bible
wouldn't swallow that claim: great swathes of the script
were based on the visions of two nuns, one 17th and and the
other 19th century.
Granted there are some things that are always necessary in order to make a
movie, but the movie was true to the gospels. That's what the experts say.
What say you now?
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "AKA" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
28 Jan 2005 06:38:54 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jdflv0h6cjcv1vq4l8c26ni44rqq3f8vh3@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:41:31 +0000 (UTC), (Cary
Kittrell) wrote:
Yet you received a true view of what really happened for a change.
Even someone who hews to a literal reading of an inerrant Bible
wouldn't swallow that claim: great swathes of the script
were based on the visions of two nuns, one 17th and and the
other 19th century.
Granted there are some things that are always necessary in order to make a
movie, but the movie was true to the gospels. That's what the experts
say.
What say you now?
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
True to the gospels! So much for being factual.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
29 Jan 2005 08:11:00 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:38:54 GMT, "AKA" <fallon@das.com> wrote:
True to the gospels! So much for being factual.
History written down, just like for the American Revolution.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "AKA" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
29 Jan 2005 08:20:35 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:na6nv0t5rm0kmut2mgl81bu04orf90bdtp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:38:54 GMT, "AKA" <fallon@das.com> wrote:
True to the gospels! So much for being factual.
History written down, just like for the American Revolution.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
You can't really believe that the bible was written as a historical
document. The book was written to create a religion not document a time.
Remind us again about who was jotting down the conversation between jc and
the devil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
30 Jan 2005 08:21:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:20:35 GMT, "AKA" <fallon@das.com> wrote:
You can't really believe that the bible was written as a historical
document.
The bible is not a history book nor is it a book of archeology, math, science,
foreign language, love novel and Cajun cooking.
Yet it contains some of all.
You have but to compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to the bible and note the same in
some areas. Remember, they didn't have television to record exactly the same
words.
The book was written to create a religion not document a time.
The book was written to reveal the love of God which was revealed to the peoples
of the time.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phoenix" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
30 Jan 2005 01:09:40 PM |
|
|
In article <6vqpv0l1mm1mebtgg8ubmfjovquhdin0gg@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:20:35 GMT, "AKA" <fallon@das.com> wrote:
You can't really believe that the bible was written as a historical
document.
The bible is not a history book nor is it a book of archeology, math, science,
foreign language, love novel and Cajun cooking.
Yet you contend all through this thread that the Gospel IS history - a
history as valid as anything written about the US revolution.
Now I see that you do know there is a huge difference. That's about as
intellectually dishonest as a person can get, bub. The indoctrinated
part of you isn't letting you fully entertain any thoughts that might
contradict your "training" - like the Bible isn't a very good historical
source.
Yet it contains some of all.
Cajun cooking? Before the New World and tomatoes were discovered?
You have but to compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to the bible and note the same in
some areas. Remember, they didn't have television to record exactly the same
words.
Wow, as though that was hard to forget.
Even the histories of Egypt, Greek and Assyria that were written before
the Gospel have more clarity and consensus of opinion about facts than 4
short books (more if you include the Apocrypha) about the events of one
man's life. Hell, even the OT is so rife with myth making almost none
of it can be confirmed by the other written histories of the day (which
tend to confirm one another, generally.)
The book was written to create a religion not document a time.
The book was written to reveal the love of God which was revealed to the peoples
of the time.
And yet some still feel that what was needed for a poor, illiterate,
besieged people to hold the frail ends of their life together is valid
for every SUV loving soccer mom today.
I can understand the Jews of 3 C.E. grasping at any hope they could
find. I can't excuse the lazy people of 2005 for having too many
children for the planet to sustain in the name of some dead guy, for
coming to Jesus because he promises "a hundredfold" in return (which
means they'll get rich soon, right?), for excusing their hatreds by
interpreting them as god's hatreds, for practising the typical Xtian
hypocrisy of thinking that god has blessed them if they haven't suffered
or been killed or made poor....
What? Are you about to tell me that your 2B Strong aren't all
worshipping the same god? That some are misinterpreting the "divine"
text?
You are, aren't you. Does that mean that your world army of 2B Strong
might be a fiction, too?
bel
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
30 Jan 2005 04:59:54 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:09:40 GMT, Phoenix <avianatrix@yahoo.com> wrote:
The bible is not a history book nor is it a book of archeology, math, science,
foreign language, love novel and Cajun cooking.
Yet you contend all through this thread that the Gospel IS history - a
history as valid as anything written about the US revolution.
Uhhh, not quite. What I've stated endlessly on this ng is that the bible and the
AR have the same quality of data to substantiate itself. Both have word of
mouth written down by eye witnesses, documents, archeology, artifacts, etc. Not
an eye witness remaining from either. Not a videocam from either. The only
difference is that offered by the fact that one is 2000 years and the other 200
years old.
Do you know if George Washington signed the D of I, or his farm foreman for him?
Now I see that you do know there is a huge difference. That's about as
intellectually dishonest as a person can get, bub.
You've got to understand my comment first.
The indoctrinated
part of you isn't letting you fully entertain any thoughts that might
contradict your "training" - like the Bible isn't a very good historical
source.
I'm sure the bible isn't a good historical source, but some of what it says is
definitely historical.
Yet it contains some of all.
Cajun cooking? Before the New World and tomatoes were discovered?
Tomatoes? Cajun cooking? Shirley you jest?
You have but to compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to the bible and note the same in
some areas. Remember, they didn't have television to record exactly the same
words.
Wow, as though that was hard to forget.
Even the histories of Egypt, Greek and Assyria that were written before
the Gospel have more clarity and consensus of opinion about facts than 4
short books (more if you include the Apocrypha) about the events of one
man's life.
The Christian events occurred in a desert wilderness around a aimless Roman
garrison. There were no historians around.
Hell, even the OT is so rife with myth making almost none
of it can be confirmed by the other written histories of the day (which
tend to confirm one another, generally.)
Ok, here we have another atheist showing how little she understands about what
the bible says.
The book was written to create a religion not document a time.
The book was written to reveal the love of God which was revealed to the peoples
of the time.
And yet some still feel that what was needed for a poor, illiterate,
besieged people to hold the frail ends of their life together is valid
for every SUV loving soccer mom today.
??? What God revealed is about life after life, not suv's. I thought you
realized that.
I can understand the Jews of 3 C.E. grasping at any hope they could
find. I can't excuse the lazy people of 2005 for having too many
children for the planet to sustain in the name of some dead guy, for
coming to Jesus because he promises "a hundredfold" in return (which
means they'll get rich soon, right?)
No, that's exactly what it doesn't mean. Not surprising that you don't
understand.
, for excusing their hatreds by
interpreting them as god's hatreds, for practising the typical Xtian
hypocrisy of thinking that god has blessed them if they haven't suffered
or been killed or made poor....
Again, no.
What? Are you about to tell me that your 2B Strong aren't all
worshipping the same god? That some are misinterpreting the "divine"
text?
The text reveals God's plans for mankind and the salvation of his soul.
Worshipping the text is clearly got you confused.
You are, aren't you. Does that mean that your world army of 2B Strong
might be a fiction, too?
Nope.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
03 Feb 2005 11:46:36 AM |
|
|
PUKE wrote:
What I've stated endlessly on this ng is that the bible and the
AR have the same quality of data to substantiate itself.
And I've reminded you endlessly that **THIS IS A LIE** (but of course,
whenever the issue of your lying comes up, you simply lie that you
never lie and then run away, thereby proving what a lying coward you
truly are).
The American revolution is attested to from **MULTIPLE NON-ANONYMOUS
INDEPENDENT SOURCES**. This mythical god and this mythical Jesus are
not.
There are archaeologically-recovered tangible physical items from the
American revolution. There are no such objects supporting this
mythical god and this mythical Jesus.
We have portraits, painted during their lifetimes, of some of the
people involved in the revolution. This mythical god and this mythical
Jesus are not represented in this way or in any other way **WITH
CONTEMPORARY ART**.
There are graves of those involved in the revolution. Not a single
grave of any of the main purported Biblical characters exists.
The American nation exists as a result of the American revolution. We
don't just have people testifying that it exists, we actually have the
physical land mass with an unbroken history back tot he event itself.
There is nothing comparable to demonstrate the existence of any Jesus
or any god.
Get it now, you lying moron?
Do you know if George Washington signed the D of I,
or his farm foreman for him?
As you've been informed multiple times by me and others, but are
apparently too stupid to grasp, George Washington never signed the DoI,
so this question merely serves to confirm what a fundamentally
braindead and congential idiot you are. get it now fuckwit?
I'm sure the bible isn't a good historical source,
but some of what it says is definitely historical.
The reason we know it's historical in parts, you monumental *****, is
because those parts have been **TANGIBLY** confirmed from independent
sources. Jesus and God have not.
Historical novels are historically correct in parts. Does that mean
the whole novel is true, you clueless asswipe?
The Christian events occurred in a desert wilderness
around a aimless Roman
garrison. There were no historians around.
And this supposed god of yours was too incompetent to leave undeniable
proof of his existence and of his son's visit. Yeah, right. What a
gullible dimwit you are.
Ok, here we have another atheist showing how little she
understands about what the bible says.
As your ungodly cowardice in thread "Running Scriptural Circles Around
Duke" opened on Sep 27 2004 (http://tinyurl.com/3z47u) proves, **YOU**
are the one who knows nothing about the Bible. Once you saw how badly
your worthless ***** was being whipped in that thread, you skidaddled as
you always do. No surprises there. Duck ***** will out - by the
nearest door.
??? What God revealed is about life after life,
Please do detail it - I dare you.
The text reveals God's plans for mankind
Please do detail it - I dare you.
It's time to skip this thread now Duck *****, like you always do. 50
unanswered questions, which you now admit you lied about when you said
they were plagiarized, 16 documented lies which you cannot refute, over
100 threads from which you fled in cowardly disgrace. Your god must be
real proud of you.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
03 Feb 2005 12:42:30 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
PUKE wrote:
What I've stated endlessly on this ng is that the bible and the
AR have the same quality of data to substantiate itself.
And I've reminded you endlessly that **THIS IS A LIE** (but of course,
whenever the issue of your lying comes up, you simply lie that you
never lie and then run away, thereby proving what a lying coward you
truly are).
The American revolution is attested to from **MULTIPLE NON-ANONYMOUS
INDEPENDENT SOURCES**. This mythical god and this mythical Jesus are
not.
There are archaeologically-recovered tangible physical items from the
American revolution. There are no such objects supporting this
mythical god and this mythical Jesus.
We have portraits, painted during their lifetimes, of some of the
people involved in the revolution. This mythical god and this mythical
Jesus are not represented in this way or in any other way **WITH
CONTEMPORARY ART**.
There are graves of those involved in the revolution. Not a single
grave of any of the main purported Biblical characters exists.
The American nation exists as a result of the American revolution. We
don't just have people testifying that it exists, we actually have the
physical land mass with an unbroken history back tot he event itself.
There is nothing comparable to demonstrate the existence of any Jesus
or any god.
Get it now, you lying moron?
He has been told this many times, yet continues in his insistance that 4
accounts written by unknown authors in an unknown location at an unknown
time is equivalent to the evidence for the AR - perhpas if not battle
sites were known, or none of the people who participated wrote letters
od diaries, or no declaration of indpendance existed, or ackowledgemnt
of such by the UK rtc - and that is just the sort of primary sources
that his Jesus myth lacks totally. Including people who wrote about it
in the hundred years after, it becomes obvious Duke is not mistaken, he
is lying
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
04 Feb 2005 10:26:31 PM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
He has been told this many times, yet continues in his insistance
that 4
accounts written by unknown authors in an unknown location at an
unknown
time is equivalent to the evidence for the AR - perhpas if not battle
sites were known, or none of the people who participated wrote
letters
od diaries, or no declaration of indpendance existed, or
ackowledgemnt
of such by the UK rtc - and that is just the sort of primary sources
that his Jesus myth lacks totally. Including people who wrote about
it
in the hundred years after, it becomes obvious Duke is not mistaken,
he
is lying
I know. No one has come down harder on poor Puke than me, but lately
I've started seeing him in a new light. Oh, he's still a coward, a
liar and a hypocrite, but in truth, he's exactly like a young child who
gives the superficial impression, from time to time, that he's quite
grown-up in some respects. However, you can see when you observe him
just a little more closely that he really is only a child. Maybe he's
regressed (assuming he ever progressed). After all, the Bible seems to
suggest that childlike gullibility is the only way to get to Heaven,
and no one is more childlike or gullible than the Duck *****.
B.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
30 Jan 2005 11:39:49 PM |
|
|
They were surrounded by us Jews, who knew how to write and kept immaculate
historical documents. We have many writing from many different rabbis from
that time period, but none from Jesus! Just what kind of Jew was he? He
didn't know how to write???
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:69oqv058pskkiih9sib456komtkk2pqpkp@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:09:40 GMT, Phoenix <avianatrix@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| >> The bible is not a history book nor is it a book of archeology, math,
science,
| >> foreign language, love novel and Cajun cooking.
|
| >Yet you contend all through this thread that the Gospel IS history - a
| >history as valid as anything written about the US revolution.
|
| Uhhh, not quite. What I've stated endlessly on this ng is that the bible
and the
| AR have the same quality of data to substantiate itself. Both have word
of
| mouth written down by eye witnesses, documents, archeology, artifacts,
etc. Not
| an eye witness remaining from either. Not a videocam from either. The
only
| difference is that offered by the fact that one is 2000 years and the
other 200
| years old.
|
| Do you know if George Washington signed the D of I, or his farm foreman
for him?
|
| >Now I see that you do know there is a huge difference. That's about as
| >intellectually dishonest as a person can get, bub.
|
| You've got to understand my comment first.
|
| > The indoctrinated
| >part of you isn't letting you fully entertain any thoughts that might
| >contradict your "training" - like the Bible isn't a very good historical
| >source.
|
| I'm sure the bible isn't a good historical source, but some of what it
says is
| definitely historical.
|
| >> Yet it contains some of all.
| >Cajun cooking? Before the New World and tomatoes were discovered?
|
| Tomatoes? Cajun cooking? Shirley you jest?
|
| >> You have but to compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to the bible and note the
same in
| >> some areas. Remember, they didn't have television to record exactly
the same
| >> words.
|
| >Wow, as though that was hard to forget.
| >Even the histories of Egypt, Greek and Assyria that were written before
| >the Gospel have more clarity and consensus of opinion about facts than 4
| >short books (more if you include the Apocrypha) about the events of one
| >man's life.
|
| The Christian events occurred in a desert wilderness around a aimless
Roman
| garrison. There were no historians around.
|
| > Hell, even the OT is so rife with myth making almost none
| >of it can be confirmed by the other written histories of the day (which
| >tend to confirm one another, generally.)
|
| Ok, here we have another atheist showing how little she understands about
what
| the bible says.
|
| >>> The book was written to create a religion not document a time.
| >> The book was written to reveal the love of God which was revealed to
the peoples
| >> of the time.
|
| >And yet some still feel that what was needed for a poor, illiterate,
| >besieged people to hold the frail ends of their life together is valid
| >for every SUV loving soccer mom today.
|
| ??? What God revealed is about life after life, not suv's. I thought you
| realized that.
|
| >I can understand the Jews of 3 C.E. grasping at any hope they could
| >find. I can't excuse the lazy people of 2005 for having too many
| >children for the planet to sustain in the name of some dead guy, for
| >coming to Jesus because he promises "a hundredfold" in return (which
| >means they'll get rich soon, right?)
|
| No, that's exactly what it doesn't mean. Not surprising that you don't
| understand.
|
| >, for excusing their hatreds by
| >interpreting them as god's hatreds, for practising the typical Xtian
| >hypocrisy of thinking that god has blessed them if they haven't suffered
| >or been killed or made poor....
|
| Again, no.
|
| >What? Are you about to tell me that your 2B Strong aren't all
| >worshipping the same god? That some are misinterpreting the "divine"
| >text?
|
| The text reveals God's plans for mankind and the salvation of his soul.
| Worshipping the text is clearly got you confused.
|
| >You are, aren't you. Does that mean that your world army of 2B Strong
| >might be a fiction, too?
|
| Nope.
|
|
| duke
| *****
| Matthew 22
| 14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
| *****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
30 Jan 2005 11:41:32 PM |
|
|
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/antisemitisminthenewtestament.html
ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Shmuel Golding
In recent years, many books have been written on the subject of
anti-Semitism. Most of those books blame the church for its hostile
teachings which encouraged ignorant devotees to harass, and even to
violently assault Jews in the name of Christ and his church. Many Christian
writers have openly acknowledged this fact and have called upon the church
to make amends.
Yet, apologize as they may, none of them attack the root cause of Christian
anti-Semitism, which in my opinion lies in the New Testament itself. One
writer from the gentile camp, who dares admit to this in his book The
Misery of Christianity, is a former pastor by the name of Joachim Kahl. A
writer from the Jewish side, Jules Isaac wrote a book entitled Jesus et
Israel, in which he maintained that anti-Semitism begins with the New
Testament. Apart from two voices, very few have been bold enough to place
the blame where it belongs.
Father Gregory Baum states that when he read Isaacs book it shattered him,
and so he set about on a task to counter-refute such claims, yet in the
introduction he has to admit that at face value certain passages of the New
Testament do appear to be anti-Semitic, but says Father Baum all such verses
can be explained.
Maybe they can be explained, the scriptures can be stretched this way and
that way to make them say almost anything, but my bone of contention is that
whilst those statements remain in print in the form of a holy book, men will
use them to feed their hatred and the Jew will continue to suffer. Let
history itself be our witness, and let history be the judge as to whether or
not the roots of Christian anti-Semitism lie within the New Testament.
It will not be hard to prove that the roots of anti-Semitism lie in the New
Testament and that its fruits have been plucked and digested by Christians
from the earliest times until the present day.
Bible-intoxicated Christians through the ages have thrown in the teeth of
the Jews the demonic charges of Christ-killers and have fanned the flames
of Jew-hatred using the New Testament for their justification.
There are numerous verses found in the New Testament which have caused the
blood of countless Jews to be shed throughout history. We will examine
these verses and compare them with words said, and deeds committed against
Jews by the church and its leaders.
These anti-Semitic statements were and still are the principal cause of all
persecutions, oppressions and pogroms in which Jews have suffered. These
anti-Semitic accounts in the New Testament have taught mankind to hate the
Jew. As long as the New Testament continues in print (at least in its
present form) the Jew will be hated. Here are but a few verses from where
Christianity borrowed its anti-Semitic sentiments.
The children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 8.12)
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them
that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children
together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would
not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate. (Matthew 23.37,38) Then
answered all the people (Jews) and said, His blood be on us and on our
children (Matthew 27:25). 1 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall
deliver you to councils, and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten (Mark
13.9)
He that believeth not shall be damned (Mark 16.16)
Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do. He
was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there
is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is
a liar and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe
me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And I say the truth, why do you
not believe me? He that is of God heareth Gods words: ye therefore hear
them not, because ye are not of God (John 8.43-47)
Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the
Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so you do. Which of the prophets have not
your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the
coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and
murderers (Acts 7.51-53)
It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you:
but seeing you put it from you and judge yourself unworthy of everlasting
life, we turn to the Gentiles (Acts 13.45-51)
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of
the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses,
teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucres sake ... wherefore
rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; not giving heed to
Jewish fables and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. (Titus
1.10-14).
The Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have
persecuted us; and they please not God and are contrary to all men:
forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up
their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. (l
Thessalonians 2.14-16)
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is an
antichrist, that denieth the father and the son. Whoever denieth the son,
the same hath not the father (l John 2.22,23)
I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are
the synagogue of Satan ... (Revelation 2.9,10)
Behold I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews
and are not but do lie; behold I will make them to come and worship before
thy feet... (Revelation 3.9)
These vicious and treacherous New Testament verses, have given the
impression that the Jews in the time of Jesus were degenerate and cruel and
that they are a deicide race. They have been spread by the church for the
last two millennia, and have not been rooted out of Christian thinking to
the present day. Even those fundamentalist lovers of Israel, only love the
Jews in order to save them from the punishment awaiting them for not having
accepted Jesus. They, as much, if not more than any other Christian today,
believe that the Jew is guilty of deicide and that his Judaism is an old
worn out rag which they wish to replace with their New Testament.
Moses Bazes, author of Jesus the Jew, the Historical Jesus, after
examining the anti-Semitic statements in the New Testament writes:
I believe that because of the anti-Jewish narratives of the New Testament,
the Jews were hounded from one country to another, denied to live as human
beings, denied to work as other people worked, denied to play as others
played, were in no country at peace, in no era at peace and finally
persecuted and massacred. This was all because of the Christian bigotry and
hatred in the name of Jesus. Obviously it cannot be possible to regard
Jesus as none other than the scourge of God for the Jews. The tragic
existence of the Jews during 1900 years in the Diaspora, the hatred they
experienced, the pogroms, persecutions, murders and the destructions they
suffered, must be mainly attributed to anti- Jewish statements in the New
Testament. Christianity introduced contempt for the Jew and is thus
responsible for what happened in the Second World War at the Dachau
Concentration camp in Germany and at the Auschwitz concentration camp in
Poland. What was started at the Church Council at Nicea in 325 CE was duly
completed in the concentration camps and crematories of Christian Germany
where six million Jews perished.
We will now examine the words of some Christian saints and leaders and
notice how their anti-Jewish expressions are based on New Testament verses
listed earlier in this article.
Origen: Their rejection of Jesus has resulted in their present calamity and
exile. We say with confidence that they will never be restored to their
former condition. For they have committed a crime of the most unhallowed
kind, in conspiring against the saviour.
St. Gregory: Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets,
enemies of God, haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their
fathers faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers,
scoffers, men of darkened minds, leaven of the Pharisees, congregation of
demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of goodness.
St. Jerome: ....serpents, haters of all men, their image is Judas ... their
psalms and prayers are the braying of donkeys..
St. John Chrysostom: I know that many people hold a high regard for the
Jews and consider their way of life worthy of respect at the present time...
This is why I am hurrying to pull up this fatal notion by the roots ... A
place where a ***** stands on display is a whorehouse. What is more, the
synagogue is not only a whorehouse and a theater; it is also a den of
thieves and a haunt of wild animals ... not the cave of a wild animal
merely, but of an unclean wild animal ... When animals are unfit for work,
they are marked for slaughter, and this is the very thing which the Jews
have experienced. By making themselves unfit for work, they have become
ready for slaughter. This is why Christ said: ask for my enemies, who did
not want me to reign over them, bring them and slay them before me (Luke
19.27).
St. Augustine: Judaism is a corruption. Indeed Judas is the image of the
Jewish people. Their understanding of the Scriptures is carnal. They bear
the guilt for the death of the saviour, for through their fathers they have
killed the Christ.
St. Thomas Aquinas: It would be licit to hold Jews, because of the crimes,
in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions
of Jews as belonging to the State.
The teachings of Martin Luther:
Know, 0 adored Christ, and make no mistake, that aside from the Devil, you
have no enemy more venomous, more desperate, more bitter, than a true Jew
who truly seeks to be a Jew... a Jew, a Jewish heart, are hard as wood, as
stone, as iron, as the Devil himself. In short, they are children of the
Devil, condemned to the flames of hell.
O Lord, I am too feeble to mock such devils. I would do so, but they are
much stronger than I in raillery, and they have a God who is a past master
in this art; He is called the devil and the wicked spirit.. They have
transformed God into the devil, or rather into a servant of the Devil,
accomplishing all the evil the Devil desires, corrupting unhappy souls , and
raging against himself: in short, the Jews are worse than the devils.
What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?
First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up
should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able
to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honour of
God and of Christianity, in order that God may see that we are true
Christians. Secondly, their homes should be likewise broken down and
destroyed. Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayerbooks and
talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught.
Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threats of death to teach
anymore.
Now whoever wishes to accept venomous serpents, desperate enemies of the
lord, and to honor them, to let himself be robbed, pillaged, corrupted and
cursed by them, need only turn to the Jews. If this is not enough for him,
he can do more: crawl up into their...... and worship the sanctuary, so as
to glorify himself afterwards for having been merciful, for having fortified
the Devil and his children, in order to blaspheme our beloved lord and the
precious blood that has redeemed us. He will then be a perfect Christian,
filled with works of mercy, for which Christ will reward him on the-day of
judgment with the eternal fire of hell (where he will roast together with
the Jews).
In truth, the Jews, being foreigners, should possess nothing, and what they
do possess should be ours.
...Cursed goy that I am, I cannot understand how they manage to be so
skillful, unless I think that when Judas Iscariot hanged himself, his guts
burst and emptied. Perhaps the Jews sent their servants with plates of
silver and pots of gold to gather up Judas ***** with the other treasures,
and then they ate and drank his offal, and thereby acquired eyes so piercing
that they discover in the scriptures commentaries that neither Matthew nor
Isaiah himself found there, not to mention the rest of us cursed goyim..
If I find a Jew to baptize, I shall lead him to the Elbe bridge, hang a
stone around his neck, and push him into the water, baptizing him with the
name of Avraham!.. I cannot convert the Jews. Our lord Christ did not
succeed in doing so; but I can close their mouths so that there will be
nothing for them to do but to lie upon the ground.
I hope I shall never be so stupid as to be circumcised; I would rather cut
off the left breast of my Catherine and of all women.
If we are to remain unsullied by the blasphemy of the Jews and not wish to
take part in it, we must be separated from them and they must be driven out
of their country.
These anti-semitic words uttered by popes, priests, pastors and laymen, were
put into action by unruly Christian mobs and later by Hitlers followers.
Adolf Hitler: I believe that I am today acting according to the purposes of
the Almighty Creator. In resisting the Jew, I am fighting the Lords
battle.
Now let us apply these sayings to deeds committed by Christians who took
their New Testament literally.
The crusaders sword found its justification in the words of Matthew 10.34,
I have not come to bring peace on earth but a sword. The Inquisitors
fire found its justification in the words of John 15.6, If a man abide not
in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them,
and cast them into the fire and they are burned. The cancellation of debts
owed to Jews, found its justification in the parable recorded in Luke 16.
The first blood libel was made by Jesus himself where in Matthew 23.35, he
states that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,
from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of
Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Rev William Hull
At the time of the World Pentecostal Conference in Jerusalem in 1961, Hull,
a Canadian Missionary, wrote two articles entitled Christian Analysis of
Current Events in Israel for Christian News from Israel (published by the
Ministry of Religious Affairs). In these he analyzed political, cultural
and social developments in the country in the light of his unique method of
interpretations. He also discussed the significance of the Eichmann Trial,
2 which was then being held in Jerusalem. That subject had special interest
for him, since at his request he had been appointed by the authorities as
Eichmanns confessor.
Hull visited Eichmann in his cell 14 times, and tried to convert him to a
belief in Jesus as the savior, so that he might atone for his actions.
However, Hulls efforts proved fruitless. Later he wrote a book describing
those conversations with Eichmann, but the content of the talks and certain
statements made by Hull subsequent to those talks, evoked a negative
reaction in various Jewish circles. Criticism was directed mainly at the
extreme Fundamentalist position, in accordance with which Hull had promised
Eichmann that God would forgive his sins if in a written statement he would
declare his acceptance of Christ. In Canada, Hull told the correspondent of
a Toronto newspaper that the six million Jewish victims of the Nazis were
doomed to perish in hell, and would not enter paradise, because they had not
accepted the belief in Christ. Moreover, he said, Eichmanns sins were not
as great as those of the average man who denied Jesus as the redeemer. (From
American Fundamentalism and Israel by Yona Malachy)
German Christians under Hitler
Paul Althaus, a Lutheran theologian of renown in Germany, warmly greeted the
rise of Hitler. He wrote that, The Protestant churches have greeted the
political turning point as a gift and miracle of God.. (Die deutsche
Stunde der Kirche, p.5)
Many times Althaus explained to Christians his preference for the Third
Reich over the former Weimar Republic. We Christians know, he stated,
that we are bound by Gods will to the promotion of National Socialism, so
that all members of the people will be ready for service and sacrifice.
(Kirche and Staat, p. 29)
In a document signed by many Christian theologians it was stated, We as
believing Christians thank God our Father that he has given to our people in
its time of need the Fuhrer as a pious and faithful sovereign, and that he
wants to prepare for us in the National Socialist system of government, good
rule, a government with discipline and honor. Accordingly, we know that we
are responsible before God to assist the work of the Fuhrer in our calling
and in our station in life.. (Ansbacher Ratschlag, p. 145)
Another high ranking Christian theologian, Leutheuser, believed that the
Holy Spirit moves where it chooses, and stated that, more spirit of
religion has come to Germans through Hitler, than through many of the
churches. (Julius Leutheuser. Die deutsche Christusgemeinde, p. 18,19)
This same Christian leader asserts that Germany has been given a mission
from God. The leader and prophet is Adolf Hitler. (SiegfriedLeffer.
Christus im Drittem Reich der Deutschen, p. 13-18)
The Vatican under Pope Pius XII made a Concordat of collaboration with
National Socialism. Hitlers portrait was placed on all walls of Catholic
churches and Sunday schools. Church bells were rang at every Nazi victory,
including the arrest and transportation of the last Jew from every town in
Germany. The Roman Catholic Church never protested against Hitlers
barbarism including the massacre of a million and a half Jewish children..
(Dictionary of Antisemitism, p. 43)
At a Church conference, Hitler affirmed that the Catholic Church has always
regarded Jews as evildoers and had banished them into ghettos. He (Hitler)
is only doing what the Church had been doing for fifteen hundred years..
(ibid, p. 79)
In fact the Catholic youth organisation of Germany was combined with the
Hitler youth following the signing of the Concordat of Collaboration
sponsored by Msgr. Pacelli later to become Pope Pius XII. Together they sang
the Horstwessel Lied in the church vestries Wenn das Judenblut vom Messer
spritzed.. (When Jewish blood runs off the dagger, ibid, p. 109)
In a speech to Polish Catholics, Hitler declared: I as a German Catholic,
ask only what is permitted to Polish Catholics. To be antisemitic is not to
be un-Catholic. The Church used every weapon against the Jews, even the
Inquisition. Christ himself was a pioneer in the fight against Judaism.
(ibid, p. 146)
An interesting quotation appears in the Encyclopedia Britannica under
German Christians:
Protestants who attempted to subordinate church policy to the political
exigencies of Nazi Germany. The German Christians Faith Movement, organized
in 1932, was nationalistic and so anti-Semitic that extremists wished to
repudiate the Old Testament and the Pauline Letters because of their Jewish
authorship. In July 1933 the state territorial churches merged to form the
German Evangelical Church, and in September the German Christian candidate,
Ludwig Muller, became Reichsbishop. Mullers efforts to make the church an
instrument of Nazi policy were resisted by the Confessing Church, under the
leadership of Martin Niemoller. After World War II the German Christian
Church party was banned.
Are present day Christian attitudes towards the Jews any better? Liberals
say they are, and they continue to call for tolerance and understanding.
But the fundamentalists are hindering and harming the progress that has been
made in Christian-Jewish relationships. By their desire to convert the Jew,
they prove themselves to be the most anti-Semitic of all Christian groups,
for the whole idea of conversion is anti-Semitic.
Christian missionary love for the Jew is a kind of hatred. It loves the
Jew, yet hates him for being what he is. It sees him as blind and in need
of being changed into a believer. When missionary efforts failed, or are
foiled, the love for the Jew quickly turns to hatred and contempt.
We are not deceived by the new Christians of todays hand-clapping
fundamentalists. They teach the same anti-Semitic doctrines as the church
of yesteryear. Their tactics are different but we know that the message is
the same. Any Jew who can pay homage to the New Testament or allow himself
to believe in it, is, in my opinion in the same category as a Jew who tries
to justify Hitlers Mein Kampf or, as one who covers up for the deeds of the
Nazis.
More Jews have been affected, hurt or killed, in the name of Christ and his
church during the last two thousand years than those massacred by the Nazis.
Yet there are Jews, who being so alienated from their own people, have
overlooked this fact and have joined themselves to the church with its
built-in anti-Semitism.
To imagine that this Jewish self curse and curse on their children (Matthew
27:25) was actually uttered by any group of Jews is a violation of respect
for the human intellect and a travesty. Because of the depth and spread of
this Christian belief and the evil it has wrought it is most necessary
to refute and discredit Matthew 27:25 beyond any shadow of doubt.
The Jewish child is the hero of the Brith Milah (Circumcision): the
Bar-Mitzvah and nowadays the Bat-Mitzvah (Confirmation of male and female
children as Subjects of the Commandment); the Passover Seder (Feast of
Mazot); and the Pidyon haBen (Redemption of the First-born son)...
There is scarcely a single religious rite of the Jew that is complete
without the participation of the child. An entire chapter of the Holy
Scriptures, Proverbs, is devoted to the proper upbringing of the Jewish
child - its first seven chapters are addressed to My Son. Even after the
Jews passing from his life the connection between parent and child is
perpetuated through the sons recital of the Kaddish prayer in memory of the
departed parent. Thus, from birth to after death in a never-ending cycle,
the Jew and his child are inseparable. It has always been so since Judaism
began and it will always be so...
As for the Blood curse (Matthew 27:25), oceans of ink have been expended
by bible scholars Christian and Jewish - starting two centuries ago, to
demonstrate that this self-curse and curse on the children of Israel could
never have been uttered. Despite this, rivers of Jewish blood have been
spilled by a blind and unbending fanaticism that persisted, and still
persists, in perpetuating the fiction that the self-curse was actually
voiced. Since the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestant sects
consider every word in the New Testament to be the Word of God, Matthew
27:25 is a dogma of the church.
They care because they know that Adolf Hitlers mendacious claim: I believe
that I am today acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator;
by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the
Lord
has Matthew 27:25 at its base. (A. Hitler, MEIN KAMPF, pg. 65; cf.
E.H. Flannery, op. cit. pg. 2 1 0).
Harenberg continues: It was Rudolf Bultmann who stated in 1921, with the
help of the form critical method which he had developed, that this curse was
never spoken (c.f R. Bultrnann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, Harper,
1963, pg. 282).
The French historian Charles Guignebert wrote in 1935 about Matthew 27:25
directly, and of other passages of the same ilk in the New Testament, as
follows: Few of the sayings of the Gospels have done more harm than these,
and yet they are only the invention of a redactor. (C. Guignebert, Jesus,
op. cit., pg. 470) Hitler used Jesus name quite glibly to justify his
unspeakable crimes.
It was the evangelist Matthew, not a redactor, who invented verse 27:25,
but no matter, the damage is the same regardless of who the inventor
really was. The pity of it is that all anti-Semitic monsters use (and have
used) the poison that is found in Christianitys Holy Book as propaganda
to further their nefarious ends. Hitler was but one of many.
A million of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust were children.
Footnotes:
1. To imagine that this self curse and curse on their children (Matthew
27:25) was actually uttered by any group of Jews is a violation of respect
for the human intellect and a travesty. Because of the depth and spread of
this Christian belief and the evil it has wrought it is most necessary
to refute and discredit Matthew 27:25 - beyond any shadow of doubt.
2. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi SS official in charge of deporting European
Jewry. Germany, 1943. Eichmann was found guilty of war crimes, sentenced to
death and was executed by hanging on June 1, 1962.
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:69oqv058pskkiih9sib456komtkk2pqpkp@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:09:40 GMT, Phoenix <avianatrix@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| >> The bible is not a history book nor is it a book of archeology, math,
science,
| >> foreign language, love novel and Cajun cooking.
|
| >Yet you contend all through this thread that the Gospel IS history - a
| >history as valid as anything written about the US revolution.
|
| Uhhh, not quite. What I've stated endlessly on this ng is that the bible
and the
| AR have the same quality of data to substantiate itself. Both have word
of
| mouth written down by eye witnesses, documents, archeology, artifacts,
etc. Not
| an eye witness remaining from either. Not a videocam from either. The
only
| difference is that offered by the fact that one is 2000 years and the
other 200
| years old.
|
| Do you know if George Washington signed the D of I, or his farm foreman
for him?
|
| >Now I see that you do know there is a huge difference. That's about as
| >intellectually dishonest as a person can get, bub.
|
| You've got to understand my comment first.
|
| > The indoctrinated
| >part of you isn't letting you fully entertain any thoughts that might
| >contradict your "training" - like the Bible isn't a very good historical
| >source.
|
| I'm sure the bible isn't a good historical source, but some of what it
says is
| definitely historical.
|
| >> Yet it contains some of all.
| >Cajun cooking? Before the New World and tomatoes were discovered?
|
| Tomatoes? Cajun cooking? Shirley you jest?
|
| >> You have but to compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to the bible and note the
same in
| >> some areas. Remember, they didn't have television to record exactly
the same
| >> words.
|
| >Wow, as though that was hard to forget.
| >Even the histories of Egypt, Greek and Assyria that were written before
| >the Gospel have more clarity and consensus of opinion about facts than 4
| >short books (more if you include the Apocrypha) about the events of one
| >man's life.
|
| The Christian events occurred in a desert wilderness around a aimless
Roman
| garrison. There were no historians around.
|
| > Hell, even the OT is so rife with myth making almost none
| >of it can be confirmed by the other written histories of the day (which
| >tend to confirm one another, generally.)
|
| Ok, here we have another atheist showing how little she understands about
what
| the bible says.
|
| >>> The book was written to create a religion not document a time.
| >> The book was written to reveal the love of God which was revealed to
the peoples
| >> of the time.
|
| >And yet some still feel that what was needed for a poor, illiterate,
| >besieged people to hold the frail ends of their life together is valid
| >for every SUV loving soccer mom today.
|
| ??? What God revealed is about life after life, not suv's. I thought you
| realized that.
|
| >I can understand the Jews of 3 C.E. grasping at any hope they could
| >find. I can't excuse the lazy people of 2005 for having too many
| >children for the planet to sustain in the name of some dead guy, for
| >coming to Jesus because he promises "a hundredfold" in return (which
| >means they'll get rich soon, right?)
|
| No, that's exactly what it doesn't mean. Not surprising that you don't
| understand.
|
| >, for excusing their hatreds by
| >interpreting them as god's hatreds, for practising the typical Xtian
| >hypocrisy of thinking that god has blessed them if they haven't suffered
| >or been killed or made poor....
|
| Again, no.
|
| >What? Are you about to tell me that your 2B Strong aren't all
| >worshipping the same god? That some are misinterpreting the "divine"
| >text?
|
| The text reveals God's plans for mankind and the salvation of his soul.
| Worshipping the text is clearly got you confused.
|
| >You are, aren't you. Does that mean that your world army of 2B Strong
| >might be a fiction, too?
|
| Nope.
|
|
| duke
| *****
| Matthew 22
| 14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
| *****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: Did any of you actually sit through all ofThe Passion Of Christ? |
30 Jan 2005 11:40:39 PM |
|
|
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/twonewtestaments.html
TWO NEW TESTAMENTS
Edited by Hugh Fogelman
Are you aware that there were two New Testaments (NT); the first one
collected in 140 C.E. that reflected the beliefs of the earliest Christians
regarding âthe Christâ and the second New Testament, crafted over the next
3-4 centuries, which change these beliefs and which Christians have
inherited today?
Yes, the 2nd NT replaced the 1st. It added much to change the religious
concepts of âthe Christâ that had been held by the earliest believers.
Pastor Craig Lyons says in his message; âthe New Testament that we have
today is a far cry from what it once was; let alone reflective of the
religious beliefs of the earliest Christians and followers of Jesus. Let me
say it another way: the Christianity of the second through the fifth
centuries is different as night and day from the earliest Christianity of
the first century.â
Pastor Craig Lyons1 says; âMake so mistake about it; these scribes
âcorruptedâ their texts for theological reasons. The sad fact is that
Christians today and those who attempt to be followers of Jesus and âthe
Christâ have inherited a New Testament that is not only a forgery and a
tragic misrepresentation of the religious beliefs held by the earliest
Christians concerning âthe Christ,â but have been led into idolatry because
of it. Even early Catholic Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Eusebius,
Irenaeus, Marcion, and others confirm this when they changed these beliefs.â
Pastor Lyons continues; âThe Christian church scribes altered the words of
their texts to make them appear more distinctly orthodox and by so doing
prevented their misuse by other sects of Christians who adopted deviant
views. Christian scribes of the second through the fifth centuries modified
the words of scripture they inherited. The words and religious beliefs and
doctrines of the earliest First New Testament (140 C.E.), reflecting the
earliest beliefs of the earliest Christians in the first and early second
century, came to be altered in the course of their transcription.â
There were various Christian theological debates of the second and third
centuries involving âChristology;â a period of intense rivalry among various
groups of Christians who advocated conflicting ways of understanding their
religion. By the fourth century, one of these groups, Roman Catholicism, had
routed the opposition, co-opting for itself the designation âorthodoxyâ and
effectively branding all rival beliefs as âheresiesâ and all other Christian
sects as âheretics.â
Those proponents of fourth-century orthodoxy, such as Father Eusebius
insisted on the antiquity of their views and embraced certain authors of the
preceding generations as their own theological forebears. Studies focused on
these earlier Christians -the representatives of a âearliest orthodoxyâ of
the earliest follower and disciples of âthe Christâ and Jesus illustrate the
scribal alterations of the New Testament text originated during the time of
their disputes, that is, in the ante-Nicene age (before the council of Nicea
in 325 C.E.).
The proto-Catholic orthodox Christians used religious literature which they
themselves often changed, created, invented, and altered in their early
struggles for dominance, as they produced argumentative treatises, forged
supporting documents under the names of earlier authorities, collected
apostolic works into an authoritative canon, and insisted on certain
hermeneutical principles for the interpretation of these works.
Zealous Christian scribes who were intimately familiar with the debates over
âChristologyâ and other doctrines made their scribal labors a necessity if
this new flavor of ChristianityâRoman Christianityâwas to survive.
A new religion was being created to replace the faith of the earliest
Christians and followers of Jesus. A New Bible was being written by these
zealous scribes to replace the one used earlier by these earliest
Christians.
This new interpretation of Christianity and its âChristâ needed an authority
to under gird this movement in Rome and this authority was found in their
forgery of the First New Testament and the subsequent presentation of the
later Second New Testament abounding with textual forgeries, additions,
deletions, inventions, etc. It was within this milieu of controversy and
fight for doctrinal supremacy that scribes sometimes changed their
scriptural texts to make them âsayâ what the dominant Roman theology
happened to be at that time.
The New Testament thus became a group of very fluid texts; changing with the
evolution of Roman Catholicism and its religious doctrines as hammered out
at the successive Church Councils.
These books were done most likely in the middle second century. That is why
so much paganism and sunworship is in them...gentiles, not Jews recreated
the Jewish messiah in the form of the sun gods...so that when read today you
are shown portions that just don't fit Judaism. These Christian editors made
Jews out to be stupid and ignorant of their faith. Is that really logical?
Christians have to consider the source, and the Churchâs ignorance of
Judaism from the oral traditions that circulated along with so many other
gospels after 100 C.E. The Christian scribes strayed from Biblical Judaism
and adopted the astral-theological religious ideas which had more in common
with Egypt, Persian, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Pythagorianism, etc., until
they ended up with a âcorrupted Judaismâ which is more commonly known today
as Christianity.
Those ideas were purposefully included in a falsified translation of the
Jewish Hebrew Bible called the Septuagint (LLX) which became the Old
Testament for the Christian Church; thus providing the substrate for all the
quotes of the New Testament; the bottom line being that personified
Sun-worship was applied to the life of Jesus as recorded in the New
Testament.
Repeating, Pastor Craig Lyons said; âMake no mistake about it; these scribes
âcorruptedâ their texts for theological reasons. The sad fact is that
Christians today and those who attempt to be followers of Jesus and âthe
Christâ have inherited a New Testament that is not only a forgery and a
tragic misrepresentation of the religious beliefs held by the earliest
Christians concerning âthe Christâ but have been led into idolatry because
of it.â
The Christian bible, their New Testament, is like a rock that hits the
water. It causes ripples that blur the true picture of Judaism.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Pastor Craig Lyons, M.Div: 902 Cardigan, Garland, Texas 75040
| | | | | | | | | | | |
