A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
So much for your brilliant clarification of bible doctrines...
Now let me say something:
If God and/or His law requires the death penalty, and we have a legitimate and honest Godly authority in place to enforce those laws, ensuring protection of the innocent and equality before the law, then by all means lets carry out the sentence. I have no objection to being Moses' appointed executioner if no one else will take the job. No problem pal. Hand me the sword.
I object to the death penalty, especially in the USA, because it is painfully obvious that WITHOUT God, men are corrupt: Cops are corrupt, judges are corrupt, lawyers, politicians, and even juries can't be trusted to convict the right people, and let the innocent ones go.
Don't even try to bring the death penalty back, unless you appoint Christian police, judges, juries, and witnesses, and you can guarantee no false convictions. Today, most of the people in the USA are facing the death penalty because they're black, not because they're particularly guilty of more than what the people arresting, convicting and killing them are guilty of.
But I'll go one further: If God told me to chop the heads off five kings, like in Joshua or Judges, I'd have no problem whatsoever in carrying out my orders. And if God said, hey, drive this spear through those two copulating adulterers, then move over and let me take my best shot. And if a bunch of clowns from the local village raped my sister, and it would set a precadent to prevent such happenings again, I'd gather up the brothers and kill the gang of evil-doers hiding the rapists, just like in Dinah's and Judah's time, or in the time of the Levite's concubine.
Bring on the evil-doers. and pass me that Jawbone of an ass.
Why don't you just admit you are a freemason quack?
You're website is covered with out of date, over the top, exaggerated anti-Christian claims from the turn of the century.
Naive outdated 19th century German 'higher criticism' was all about following Neitche and trying to shake off the dreaded 'Jewish conspiracy' of Christianity. Where did this knee-jerk superstitious hatred of the bible lead?
Nazi Germany, where you are getting your other wierd ideas.
Who the hell are you? You quote Hitler, imply that Jesus and Paul were 'racists' too...man you are a scary guy.
I've met alot of Neo-Nazis in my time, but you have invented a new twist to an ancient slander.
Joined: 30 Nov 2002 Posts: 16 Location: http://www.harrington-sites.com
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:15 am Post subject:
Rouge, because God is foreknowing he would not have inspired men to say stupid things that can and has been used to justify any evil; for God's words inspires good, not evil! Either you are purposely altering the meaning of what I've said, or simply don't understand what you read? For only a fool thinks that Jesus and Paul were anti-Semitic, even though certain scriptures have and can be interpreted thusly.
As far as I'm concerned an interloper has placed the words of John 8:44 in the mouth of Jesus. Nevertheless, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that they only refer to a small faction of the Jews. They are addressed to the Pharisees. A faction which in the days of Jesus the majority of Jews belonged to, and putting aside a few samaritans and karites nearly all Jews today are Pharisees, as well. Thus, John 8:44 can be interpreted as an anti-Semitic statement.
JOHN 8:44 "YOU ARE FROM YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and you choose to do your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
Regarding how the NT did influence the persecution of Jews, see: BLUEPRINT FOR THE HOLOCAUST
http://www.harrington-sites.com/Luther.htm _________________ It serves neither God nor truth to try and rationalize irrational things the Bible says of God.
Your latest post appears quite different from your previous posts, which were to say the least unclear.
I am relieved that you at least deny being a racist.
Quote:
As far as I'm concerned an interloper has placed the words of John 8:44 in the mouth of Jesus.
You might as well say that about the entire book of John. All the speeches of Jesus contained in it are quite different in both flavour and content from the Synoptic gospels. There is no need at all to posit an inerpolation or 'corruption' of John. Aside from the 'three witnesses on earth/heaven' verse, there really is no textual criticism even possible with John. It hangs together as basically a single piece, with built-in safeguards preventing any extensive tampering. You could mention John 7:53 to 8:11, or the last chapter, which seems like an epilogue, but after that what else can you say about John? (In my view the Pericope de Adultera is authentic anyway, and the last chapter was tacked on by the community founded by John.) It seems obvious even to exceptionally thick people that John is a later book and more of an 'interpretation' of the gospel than a true 'eyewitness' gospel. Much of the political / ethnic material such as the your quote about 'the Jews' is obviously an anachronistic expression of attitudes that developed between the two communities (unbelieving Jews and Messianists) long after Jesus had come and gone. There is no need to claim 8:44 has placed words in Jesus' mouth when the whole book has done that.
Quote:
Nevertheless, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that they only refer to a small faction of the Jews.
It is also intellectually dishonest to pretend the majority of Jews were Pharisees. Josephus makes it clear the populace was divided roughly into thirds: Pharisees, (literally 'separatists', a popular movement, but by no means a whopping majority), Sadduces (Sons of Zadok i.e., the wealthy faction claiming true descent from the Aaronite priesthood, and representing both the majority of 'pure-bred' upper class Jews and the middle-class core of racially Jewish society), and the Essenes (probably the large and powerful sect of zealots from which John the Baptist and Jesus had sprung.) This last is the only group not mentioned in the gospels, and the implication is clear: they were the Christians, or at least the first 5000 or so Christians.
Quote:
nearly all Jews today are Pharisees, as well.
What nonsense. Today nearly all Jews are atheists. And even in Israel it is obvious that most Israelis, even the Kibbutzers are capitalists or communists, and much closer to grassroots early Christians than Pharisees. The Pharisees died out by genocidal extinction during the Roman wars. The 'rabbis' who survived reinvented the entire religion around the hard lessons learned from that disaster.
Quote:
JOHN 8:44 "YOU ARE FROM YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and you choose to do your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
Whether this is interpreted literally (like the Catholics do, i.e., referring to an invisible 'Satan' behind the scenes) or as a Zoroastrian dualistic polemic reflecting Babylonian influence is irrelevant. It can hardly be interpreted as it stands as about 'Jews' or the 'Jewish race'.
How could you miss the blatantly obvious reference to CAIN, the first murderer, (and liar: Adam only hid and when caught tried to shuck the blame on Eve. We'll get to that story later). And why such a reference? Because for 500 years there had been an ongoing battle over race lines between pure 'Israelites' who could produce records of lineage, and bogus 'Israelites' such as the Edomites (Esau) who were imported to replace the original Israelites who rebelled and were carried off as slaves to Iraq. When Jesus embraced the 'Samaritans' this was considered an act of war against the 'true' (racial) Israel. The ongoing dispute and war that ensued was worse than the American Civil war.
As to your 'blueprint for the Holocaust' I have no doubt that Martin Luther's ongoing bitter racism against the Jews set the standard for 400 years following. Which is another reason why PROTESTANTISM, not Christianity has some 'explaining' to do.
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:20 am Post subject: Gimme an answer...
Hey Mr. Rogue P..
When you get a minute... get over to the "Savior of All" topic and answer my questions.. or do you flee from the truth? And "textcolors" are fun, but have little to do with TRUTH! (what JUVENILE words... I expect better from one that has SPIRITUAL information to relate)
These discussions arent about who wins, but, are in TRUTH, about finding a deeper understanding of TRUTH.. If you are in competition with me about who wins... you pursue FOLLY...
In JESUS, ...WillieH
Rogue Physicist wrote:
Your latest post appears quite different from your previous posts, which were to say the least unclear.
I am relieved that you at least deny being a racist.
Quote:
As far as I'm concerned an interloper has placed the words of John 8:44 in the mouth of Jesus.
You might as well say that about the entire book of John. All the speeches of Jesus contained in it are quite different in both flavour and content from the Synoptic gospels. There is no need at all to posit an inerpolation or 'corruption' of John. Aside from the 'three witnesses on earth/heaven' verse, there really is no textual criticism even possible with John. It hangs together as basically a single piece, with built-in safeguards preventing any extensive tampering. You could mention John 7:53 to 8:11, or the last chapter, which seems like an epilogue, but after that what else can you say about John? (In my view the Pericope de Adultera is authentic anyway, and the last chapter was tacked on by the community founded by John.) It seems obvious even to exceptionally thick people that John is a later book and more of an 'interpretation' of the gospel than a true 'eyewitness' gospel. Much of the political / ethnic material such as the your quote about 'the Jews' is obviously an anachronistic expression of attitudes that developed between the two communities (unbelieving Jews and Messianists) long after Jesus had come and gone. There is no need to claim 8:44 has placed words in Jesus' mouth when the whole book has done that.
Quote:
Nevertheless, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that they only refer to a small faction of the Jews.
It is also intellectually dishonest to pretend the majority of Jews were Pharisees. Josephus makes it clear the populace was divided roughly into thirds: Pharisees, (literally 'separatists', a popular movement, but by no means a whopping majority), Sadduces (Sons of Zadok i.e., the wealthy faction claiming true descent from the Aaronite priesthood, and representing both the majority of 'pure-bred' upper class Jews and the middle-class core of racially Jewish society), and the Essenes (probably the large and powerful sect of zealots from which John the Baptist and Jesus had sprung.) This last is the only group not mentioned in the gospels, and the implication is clear: they were the Christians, or at least the first 5000 or so Christians.
Quote:
nearly all Jews today are Pharisees, as well.
What nonsense. Today nearly all Jews are atheists. And even in Israel it is obvious that most Israelis, even the Kibbutzers are capitalists or communists, and much closer to grassroots early Christians than Pharisees. The Pharisees died out by genocidal extinction during the Roman wars. The 'rabbis' who survived reinvented the entire religion around the hard lessons learned from that disaster.
Quote:
JOHN 8:44 "YOU ARE FROM YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and you choose to do your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
Whether this is interpreted literally (like the Catholics do, i.e., referring to an invisible 'Satan' behind the scenes) or as a Zoroastrian dualistic polemic reflecting Babylonian influence is irrelevant. It can hardly be interpreted as it stands as about 'Jews' or the 'Jewish race'.
How could you miss the blatantly obvious reference to CAIN, the first murderer, (and liar: Adam only hid and when caught tried to shuck the blame on Eve. We'll get to that story later). And why such a reference? Because for 500 years there had been an ongoing battle over race lines between pure 'Israelites' who could produce records of lineage, and bogus 'Israelites' such as the Edomites (Esau) who were imported to replace the original Israelites who rebelled and were carried off as slaves to Iraq. When Jesus embraced the 'Samaritans' this was considered an act of war against the 'true' (racial) Israel. The ongoing dispute and war that ensued was worse than the American Civil war.
As to your 'blueprint for the Holocaust' I have no doubt that Martin Luther's ongoing bitter racism against the Jews set the standard for 400 years following. Which is another reason why PROTESTANTISM, not Christianity has some 'explaining' to do.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
