You never even responded to the questions abovem, which are:
1) So, YOU think that "Hebrew commandment and Jewish mitzva" are
NOT
redundant?
2) You think "Jew and Hebrew" are antonyms?
3) You believe, with your fellow Jew hater TCross, that "A wider
gulf
exists between the
religions of the Hebrew and the Jew than between the religions of
the
Hebrew and the Muslim"?

fart-checker@hotmail.com wrote:

I have never said any of those things.

Of course you didn't say them. Your fellow Jew hater said them.

Terry Cross wrote:

That is slander, Deborah. Yes, I have criticized Judaism, but that is
not the same as being a "Jew hater."

So, you can dish it out, but you can't take it, right?

My dear, you are
an ignorant Jew hater, and you have proved it time and again.

Most people here have criticized Islam. Does criticizing Islam make
those people Moslem haters?
Many people here, including me, have criticized Christianity. Does
criticizing Christianity make us Christian haters?

I don't really give a rat's ***** what you criticize, Jew hater, so long
as you criticize from a basis in fact. Your posts show you have no
knowledge of Judaism, and your latest little ventures into ancient
history show you to be as educated in that area as well.

When you sling labels around like that with no regard for the truth,
you diminish their value for truthful usage. You also diminish your
own credibility.

Calling you a Jew hater doesn't diminsh anyone's credibilty, because
you are a Jew hater.

Now let us see you take an honest swing at the questions above.
TCross

"Honest"? That's rich, coming from a lying bigot like you. Let's see
you take "an honest swing" at the post you've been sidedodging for a
week.

From: dsharavi @hotmail.com
Newsgroups: alt.messianic,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Bad Old Jehovah vs. the Loving Jesus
Date: 18 May 2006 14:37:44 -0700

[TCross snippage restored]

TCross wrote:

The rabbis taught that "your
neighbor" is only the nearest Jew or Hebrew.

Wrong again, as usual. J meant it for what it was then. FYI, it was the
rabbis who expanded it further, as the following was expanded beyond
Israel:
"Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that
whoever destroys a single life, Scripture considers it as if he
destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, Scripture
considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one man,
Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no one
should say to his fellow, 'My father was greater than yours.... [T]he
King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, made each man in the image
of Adam, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow. Therefore every
single person is obligated to say, 'The world was created for my sake"'
Mishna Sanhedrin 4.5

Also, FYI: as with "Hebrew commandment(s) and Jewish Mitzvot", or
"Mishna and Talmud", "Jew" and "Hebrew" are synonymous. If
you're not sure of the usage, either look it up, or don't use it,
so that you will avoid producing such compound howlers as:
"A wider gulf exists between the religions of the Hebrew and the
Jew than between the religions of the Hebrew and the Muslim."
- tcros...@hotmail.com, May 15 2006 11:30 pm

To the non-Jews, you can even sell the meat of animals that have died
from disease.

Cite.

You do not push Gentiles into a pit, but if they fall in
a pit, you do not pull them out.

Cite.

I wonder why I have a feeling I might know what's coming. If, of
course, either of the two cites are produced.

You have shown that a story can be changed by the addition of
presumptions that do not exist in the story.

As TCross amply demonstrates, time and again, and proceeds to
demonstrate once more, by adding her presumptions to the story, which,
of course, don't exist:

As I have said before, the Gospels contain inconsistencies.

Imagine that. Just like the bible!

Those few
verses about following the Law are not consistent with the incidents in
Jesus' life as they are told in the Gospels.

Produce examples from the synoptic gospels.

Follow the law regarding Kosher food? Jesus threw it out.

Cite.

Stoning adulterers? Not Jesus.

Already dealt with. You were, as usual, wrong.

Neurotic about the Sabbath? Again, not Jesus.

Cite.

Mosaic easy divorce? Not Jesus.

A prescription for easy adultery. Wait, J made that OK, too, didn't
he? Now there's an inconsistency in the Laws of Jesus. First, he
expands the Mosaic definition of adultery to encompass the remarriage
of any divorced man or divorced women. But he does away with the
penalty for adultery, so that Law of Jesus is meaningless.

And Jewish divorce was never easy, unlike divorce under shari'a,
where, even today, a husband has merely to pronounce taliq three times,
and his wife is no longer his wife. (The obverse, alas, isn't valid,
even today.)

Many issues, one at a time, Jesus elbowed Moses aside and
set his own laws.

Wrong again, as usual. In fact, J expanded on several of the Laws of
Moses and made them far tougher than they had been.

Now read the story as it
is told with only the details that are in the story. You will see:
Jesus confounded a stoning.
Incidentally, according to many on this board, Jesus should also have
said:
"Hey, you know that we cannot stone people any more as we should
because those awful Romans are making lawful practice impossible. You
are trying to trap me, but I know the Roman Law: Jews cannot execute
anyone legally.

Wrong. The Sanhedrin had the power to execute a Jew convicted of crimes
under Jewish law for which the penalty was death.

Then the chief prists were lying:

No, John the Greek sone Yisrael was lying.

John 18:31
Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to
your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to
put any man to death:

A twofer:

1) The Sanhedrin had the power to execute a Jew who was convicted of
crimes
under Jewish law for which the penalty was death. J, however, committed
no crime under Jewish law for which the penalty was death. The only
"crime" alleged against him was "blasphemy" for calling himself
either the "Messiah, Son of the Blessed One", or "the Messiah,
Son of God", or just the "Son of God". Not a crime under Jewish
law.

2) It's the height of absurdity to presume that Pilate, the harshest
of Judean praefects, would have released to Jewish adjudication a man
who was calling himself, or being called, a messiah. While not a crime
under Jewish law, it WAS a big deal to the Roman government, which had
crucified Judah of Galilee, an earlier self-proclaimed messiah, and
thousands of his followers.

A rabbi noted that probably one of the early sights which Jesus may
have seen as a young child were lines of crucified Jews along the
roads, following the failed revolt of Judah of Galilee (Frontline, From
Jesus to Christ: The First Christians).

So you run along with your silly provocations and let
me be. And - have a good day, eh?"
Jesus did not say that, either. I wonder why?

Azoy, TCross drait zich va a forst in rossel.

Whispering and using private languages in public is very bad manners.

Then why do you do it?

But in this case, all the human beings will understand you, even if the
Gentiles don't.
TCross

That you're "in a muddle" (drait zich vi a forst in rossel) is
abundantly clear to most.

Now go and study.

Deborah