(Debunks2005) wrote in message news:<20040409144437.11295.00000119@mb-m15.aol.com>...
Subject: Re: For Chris Larson, Classic Antichrist
From: "Susan Cohen"
Date: 4/8/2004 10:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <GDqdc.3162$F9.1067@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"Leonard Pardin" <leoppard@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:d746a243.0404061656.d0845a0@posting.google.com...
Amen, brother Slade, Jesus was not a Jew.
Which white supremacist site told you this?
If he existed, he was Jewish.
Susan
Jesus is the descendant of King David, and as such, is Jewish, as is His
mother and the apostles of blessed memory. They were not, however, "Talmud
Jews."
Maybe. But not relevant to anything in particular. King David, as I
pointed out, is one of history's great war criminals, and a serial
murderer among the people who lived in Israel.
There was (for yet another example) an occasion when the Hebrews were
dying of a three-year famine, and King David learned it was the
Gibeonites who were causing it by being angry at the Hebrews. The one
thing that would satisfy the Gibeonites was revenge on the house of
King Saul (who was dead by this time). So David grabbed seven of
Saul's grandchildren and handed them over to the Gibeonites to be
killed.
It is remarkable that of those men who died, five were sons of Michal,
the daughter of Saul, the woman David loved and courted when he was
young.
Jehovah had a hand in this operation, apparently calling the shots.
No justice here, no mercy, no human love, no loyalty, no courage ...
nothing of kingly quality. If Jesus was a descendant of King David,
so be it. Look hard enough at a thousand years of anyone's ancestry,
and you are guaranteed to find something smelly.
Does this make Jesus a Jew? Not at all. Jews all over the internet
claim that Jewishness is conveyed through the female ancestry, not the
male. According to that claim, King David could not make anyone a
Jew.
On another score, Jesus supposedly said, "Salvation is of the Jews,"
but the term did not exist in his day. He might have said "Salvation
is of the Israelites," but that is not how it reads in our Bible. He
might even have said "Salvation is of the Judeans," meaning the people
who lived in Judea. But that would include the Sumerian woman he was
talking to, and she was already living in Judea, making her a Judean.
I think the essential factor is not the race we call "Jew" -- it is
the religion we call "Jew," which was the religion of Judea at that
time. It consisted of Sadducees, Pharisees, animal sacrifice, absurd
rules of diet and conduct, brutal enforcements, and a lethal racism.
Of those things, Jesus said, "There is no truth in you." No truth.
None. Nothing but lies, and those priests were sons of the Father of
all lies.
If it had be sorta true, just misinterpreted, Jesus should not have
said "no truth". If it was just a little twisted, he should not have
said they were sons of Satan. He said "no truth". In gratitude, the
Pharisees and Sadducees arrested Jesus and set him up to be crucified
by the Romans. All things considered, I do not think followers of
Jesus should be borrowing from that tradition to build their churches.
Read Matthew again. In the small, fragmentary record we have of the
things Jesus said, a large proportion are taken up with denouncing the
predominant religion of his day -- what we call Judaism. Given that
record, it is no more rational to call Jesus a Jew than to call Martin
Luther a Catholic.
--Slade
.
|
