By Ted Belman
From now on comments on every post must relate to the content of the post.
Comments that don’t relate to the post must go here.
Any person who contravenes this demand will be put on moderation. Also their offending comment will be trashed.
The reason for this demand is so that people who want to read comments which pertain to the post, don’t have to wade through the chatter.
Everyone will be happier.
@ bernard ross:
If so, it should give you & your tag-team partner no grief to come to the point[s], and state them in your own words, instead of expecting a video to do your arguing FOR you.
In any case, the analogy is neither ‘rubbish’ nor ‘ridiculous,’ because — long video or short — the principle behind the analogy is sound. A referenced article or video speaks only for its MAKER until such time as someone identifies some assertion or detail in it that he wishes to use in support of a holding of his own, and actually presents it from that angle. Up to that juncture, any NUMBER of conclusions can be drawn from even the briefest article or Youtube.
Your back-handed way of admitting that I can see you trying to steer the exchange to push your agenda, and have no intention of letting you do so.
Not a scrap of which is anything other than purely circumstantial.
@ bernard ross:
Nor vice versa in YOUR case, it would appear. You’ve persuaded yourself that you’ve ‘proved’ something, when nothing could be further from the truth. All your claims of ‘debunking’ the JC narrative are based entirely on speculation, NOT fact.
At bottom, all of your (& Huff’n’Fluff’s) claims amount to:
A. the argument from silence (as to non-Xtn corroboration);
B. the rumination over how it COULD’ve been faked, how it COULD’ve been back-dated, etc; and
C. the observation that the pertinent imagery had appeared elsewhere before
— all 3 of which such assertions, whether individually or all at once, are not, in any of their natures, EVER logically conclusive.
So far, indeed, no smoking gun; just lotsa coulda-woulda-shoulda. The only thing you’ve ‘proven’ to date is that it’s damned hard to prove a negative
— well, that. . . and that your ego depends, for its Jewish identity, fragile as it is, on an abiding (and growing) hatred of Xtns. That’s it; c’est tout.
@ bernard ross:
Only in a sterile, non-communicative sense. Not, however, in the context of a blogging forum, where readers may wish (and are expected) to argue back — nor indeed in any other forum where other living parties are expected to contend on an ongoing basis. One does not argue with an article. One does not argue with a video. One argues with another arguer.
Facts, by their nature, are created by reality.
Arguments, by their nature, OTOH, are created — or affirmed — by those who actually advance them, offer them, present them.
If you like somebody else’s argument — but merely say (or write), “Ditto for me, Your Honor,” and leave it at that, w/o making the argument your own — the judge is quite likely to toss your case out on its keister; maybe sanction you, as well, for coming into his courtroom unprepared.
Whereby you show that YOUR problem, as always in these matters, amounts to sheer projection — because you missed the point ENTIRELY. No surprises there, of course, since, typically, you’d taken my remark out of its context (now restored above), so you could use it to take the wheel & drive out into a different lane of traffic, in order to push your agenda instead of addressing the point.
In alluding to “personal conviction in the matter,” I was speaking solely of personal conviction in the soundness of the argument you were making or claiming for your own — as evidenced in your familiarity w/ the ins & outs of it — so as to make the argument in your own words & hold forth on it personally in the teeth of all questions & challenges.
I ??? — It’s YOUR case we’re talking about here, not mine! (And your remark was a transparent attempt to deflect attention from that fact.)
You offer no contemporaneously conflicting narratives from same era. And the linked videos & linked articles keep turning out to be nothing BUT speculation (and frequently based on each other).
There is no hard evidence that any of that speculation ever in fact occurred. And there’s nothing ‘delusional’ in noting that. Any objective observer would draw precisely the same conclusion.
Characterizing what I’ve said as “delusions” is merely the way you inadvertently acknowledge that — at bottom — your entire proposition (thus far, anyway) amounts to a handful of wind.
@ yamit82:
Subtext: He can’t write 1000 words of coherent prose
— (and isn’t interested in developing the discipline to do so either).
Because writing is the coin of the realm in the blogosphere.
No need for a long essay (long essays are often snowjobs) — but if your ideas are, in fact, your own, then you share them here w/ others whose ideas are THEIR own. You can always link to or excerpt from other people’s work — in ADDITION — as a supporting “exhibit” or by way of reference. But not as a substitute for your OWN remarks.
Erudition is less important than communication.
There have been too many times in the past when FOLLOWUP on articles you’ve used that way was IMPOSSIBLE, because the author was not here to explain questions or defend against challenges — and you (not being s/he) had not spent the hours (perhaps weeks) which the author had spent researching & editing the piece, and you were thus at a loss to deal with those questions or challenges.
“Requires”??? — hardly. If you don’t wanna read my stuff, it’s no skin off my nose.
1. If somebody wants to dispute something I’ve said, yet hasn’t READ what I said — then it’s he himself who comes off looking like an imbecile; not YoursTruly.
2. If I put something in print without quotation marks around it, then you can bet the mortgage that it is INDEED my stuff. Anybody who says otherwise is a lying sack of shit — twice warmed over.
If that were true, you would not HESITATE to summarize each such clip in your own words and emblazon the ‘debunking’ across the screen in ALL-CAPS and boldface type designed to catch a reader’s eye promptly.
— You’re clearly MOTIVATED to do so; yet you never do.
Clear, cold logic says you’ve got bubkis, bubbeleh.
ROFLMFAOBSST! — In all the years I’ve posted on this board, I’ve ‘plagiarized’ the work of one writer, and one only — and THAT individual (whom I ‘plagiarize’ flagrantly & shamelessly)
— is none other than myself.
The TRUE plagiarist on this blogsite is the poster who claims to have ‘shown’ me to claim others’ work for my own. But he does this only to divert attention (mostly his own) from his own guilty conscience.
If that were the case, then Capt Huff’n’puff here would INSTANTLY put the ‘lying’ post(s) on full display. He’s been challenged, on myriad occasions, to display examples of such ‘lies,’ but has never ONCE put up the goods. He talks a good game.
George Washington couldn’t tell a lie.
Bill Clinton couldn’t tell the truth.
Yamit82 couldn’t tell the difference.
@ yamit82:
Same running time, just under 11 minutes.
If it isn’t as I described it, then summarize it.
@ dweller:
No not the same video must have the same name, You just wasted time writing about something else and not Germain.
Seems you are groping for any life line before you sink totally under your pile of dung.
Watch the videos I supplied!!! Several of them and all Germain and relevant as arguments taking your beliefs and strong convictions… dicing them up into very fine grains of silicone.
You are such a coward you are afraid to watch them, but I knew you wouldn’t because your a scared rabbit and a coward.
@ yamit82:
If this is the actual TITLE of the video, then I have seen it before. And notwithstanding such a title & claim, it does NOT, in fact, provide ‘proof’ of any sort (thin or solid) “that Jesus was NOT real.”
All that it does do is to show that the imagery attendant to the narrative about JC had long been part of the collective consciousness of humanity, as encoded in the very structure of the universe, before his actual advent (matters which I recognized 40 yrs ago, and over which observations I’ve never had a problem).
To go from that, however, to suggesting that it must therefore not be historical & literal as to haNitzri constitutes ITSELF a leap of faith grounded in sheer speculation
— and not a snort more.
Since ‘proof’ in this matter is important to you, I’ll continue awaiting REAL evidence generating that ‘proof.’ Meanwhile, spare me these infantile excursions; they do no more credit to you than to your claims.
yamit82 Said:
the best one is the queeg you first posted, its so appropriate.
your video arguments, I could only watch the shorter ones, were perfect.
yamit82 Said:
his convictions are irrelevant to facts and sound arguments, and so are his personal beleifs. He is prone to making absurd statements but there is no relevance between the soundness of an argument, the existence of a fact AND the person who is asserting. His statement is entirely illogical. His opinions, beleifs, convictions have no relevance to arguments and facts asserted.
Now he is just recycling the same debunked narratives from days ago.
@ bernard ross:
I always though and believed a picture is worth at least 1000 words and it it comes with illuminating commentary why write a long essay when my arguments have already been made by others and in most cases more erudite.
dweller requires you to read his garbage and I require him to see videos. he didn’t write the garbage he wants you to read only quotes from them and claims to bases his beliefs and conviction from them. Each clip takes a chain saw in debunking everything he claims to believe with conviction.
We also have shown dweller to be a plagiarizer and a liar as well. He demand from us that which he is unwilling to do same in return. So much for hypocritical civil libertarians 😛
dweller Said:
I posted the video which clearly shows the relationship between your rant and captain Queegs strawberry rant. One does not submit arguments to someone who is ranting absurdly about his strawberries or his yeshu.
Bernard Ross Said:
surely you could have shown us the reason and logic behind your assertion that your mythological yeshu popped out of the womb of a virgin after a god has a union with her, and……. wait for it….. resulted in a Jewish messiah who, although born of a union of a god and a woman had absolutely no godlike powers (apparently your god had very weak genes and could not even create a half god)
Please show us all the “Reason” that demonstrates your appreciation of logic in this (ahem) “narrative”. I think everyone would be interested to see how you arrive at this with “Reason” and an appreciation of “Logic”. Surely your half god theological manual can aid you in your logical pursuits?
Bernard Ross Said:
they CLEARLY DO constitute arguments obviously to any one reading them. Facts and arguments are not made by who makes them but by the their own nature separate from any person.
dweller Said:
This is your problem as always, you cannot distinguish between facts and personal convictions and beliefs. Facts and arguments have not one shred of reliance on your, or my, personal convictions or beliefs. Personal convictions and personal beliefs are irrelevant and unrelated to the determination of facts or the soundness of argument. To your absurd comment I can only say DUH???? Certainly if you wish to whine about your personal convictions and beliefs I would be uninterested for obvious reasons.
dweller Said:
rubbish, a ridiculous analogy, some of the videos are quite short and to the point unlike your mountains of irrelevant
garbage.
dweller Said:
you offered weak speculations from tainted sources, certainly nothing one could call history, even with your delusions.
your faux “history” has no evidence of ever happening, taking place or occurring. In fact, as so many have pointed out in yamits videos, ….quite clearly, without obfuscation, confusion, complexity, distraction, tangents and red herrings…… there is so much more evidence to the contrary
@ bernard ross:
Even if I could open videos, and even if I could take the time to watch them (two normally unlikely scenarios), they would not constitute an argument . You cannot use these or other devices to make your case. You have to do it in your own words. You can use articles & media in illustration of a point, or as back-up support — but you cannot use them as a SUBSTITUTE for your own argument.
[For perhaps 60% of the things we talk about I could offer a link to the entire Encyclopedia Britannica Online and expect that SOMEWHERE in there it would make my case (instead of my doing it myself) for damned near anything I took a shine to. BFD.]
If you DO presume to use linked articles & media as substitutes for your argument, then it is clear that you do not understand the subject well enough to have any personal conviction in the matter; that rather than expressing your own belief you are merely cheering for a side. And it becomes increasingly apparent in YOUR case all the time.
Thus far, in any event, all I have seen in what you two have said comes down to mountains of speculation as to how history could’ve been faked, backdated, etc, in re JC specifically — but no probative evidence that this is, in fact, what actually OCCURRED.
The notion that I entertain ‘fantasies’ is itself YOUR fantasy.
“Debunked” by whom, pray tell? YOU couldn’t debunk the tooth fairy.
No; actually if he were ‘non-existent,’ that would constitute reason to make MORE, not less, mention of the term, “christian” — and as a self-chosen name too — to ‘cover’ for his purported ‘non-existence.
Xtns are not my ‘associates’ except in the sense that YOU are. (They do have better manners than you, however, and generally exhibit more integrity.)
If they were, as Rabbi Singer states, “monotheists,” then they were NOT idolaters.
Take it up w/ Tovia Singer. The statement to which you were replying came from him.
It seems you DON’T “know what I mean.”
(That’s all right; other readers DO, rest assured.)
There is an entire academic discipline involving the study of Divinity. It’s called Theology. There’s also something called Reason; it’s typically accompanied by an appreciation for logic. When you grow up, you may find you want to activate your own faculty for that.
Of course, for that to happen, your maliciousness will have to relinquish the driver’s seat and go to the back of the bus; a sacrifice you may not be feeling up to.
That’s all you’ve got, isn’t it. . . . No discourse, no argument, no case. Just a handful of moldy strawberries you hope will divert attention from the fact that you’re running on empty.
Pitiful.
@ bernard ross:
I think this should be of interest to you;
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63603917/comment-page-1#comment-63356000149638
@ yamit82:
a must see for dweller, the much more sensible and logical explanation for his yeshu fable…. too bad he cant see it or hear it……. he will have to continue to live in darkness following his yeshu to the dark side.
dweller Said:
he has been pounding you senseless but you dont realize it because you were senseless to begin with….. spouting your ludicrous yeshu tales of jewish messiahs popping out of virgins who had a “union” with a god ….
dweller Said:
more gratuitous NT quotes from your pulpit?
dweller Said:
perfect example of projection, you appear to have run out of garbage to post on this discussion of yeshu fairy tales as you keep repeating the same old baloney along with your bible thumping quotes while Yamit keeps posting more and more relevant and interesting facts about the big lie.
Get a collar and a proper pulpit and come out of the closet..
@ dweller:
@ bernard ross:
Real Proof that Jesus was NOT real 😛 😛 😛
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljRKhZ81aqY
@ yamit82:
good simple videos which make dwellers mountains of obfuscating garbage a laughingstock
@ yamit82:
he cannot, quite conveniently for him, watch or listen to videos. His mother superior has him on a short lease. he is not interested in support or evidence only, like so many other preachers, in marketing his yeshu fables and citing his gospel.
dweller Said:
Dweller logic 😛 😛 😛 😛
dweller Said:
the repository of knowledge lives in a library and is not allowed to watch videos.
dweller Said:
nice avoidance trick, you said you get your beleif in yeshu from intuition after your fables of getting it from jewish sources was debunked and your christian sources rendered incredulous. It still comes to the same thing, your yeshy fables come from your intuition(mind fantasies), adoration of mythical sayings and the incredulous christian narratives. you have a god in a union with a woman popping out a jewish messiah, nothing has changed in spite of your tangents, obfuscations, mountains of irrelevant garbage…… you are still left with the same fairy tale which has less facts than goldilocks talking bears.
dweller Said:
LOL, a christian is a follower of jesus! 😛
I dont care what myths you follow but your rendition of a Hebrew G_D in a union with a woman popping out a Jewish messiah reminds me of an incubus. couldn’t you find a different bible to plague with your grafting and leave the Jews alone with their bible intact?
Bernard ross Said:
everyone can see it is self evident; then whose bible did the christians use as the base of their mythology? did you not recognize the Hebrew bible in their “old testament” or are you once more being dishonest and avoiding the truth of your collectives MO?
dweller Said:
LOL, you like to make it appear complicated but the dictionary gave me a correct definition of christian, follower, hijacking and fetish. We all know they use the hebrew bible and we all know the christians libeled, tortured, swindled and slaughtered the Jews for 2000 years. No rocket science here, nothing to know… I dont need to read goldilocks to pass judgement on whether the 3 talking bears are factual. I dont need to be a brain surgeon to see that there is no evidence except through the christians who have a long history of lying about Jews.
no need to make this complicated, yamit has given you many links and videos which you are not allowed to, or incapable of, viewing. He has given so much debunking evidence and you keep running in circles with your NT in hand, reduced to an Elmer Gantry citing his gospels. I notice your incidents of citing the NT have increased. Its not a source taken seriously here, even though you do.
dweller Said:
you appear to ignore all the links and videos which debunk your pulpit fantasies and keep repeating your fantasy mantras in circles. Perhaps you have alzheimers with a small memory retention and forget that you repeat the same old silly tales already debunked; or are you hoping we will forget your pulpit fiction.
dweller Said:
the non existence of your mythological yeshu is the reason and only your incredulous christian associates tout your myths.
dweller Said:
it does not matter how cult followers viewed their mythical idol. There is no evidence or support for the existence of your nitzri, plain and simple…..
dweller Said:
LOL, cite the pagan, or christian, myth which corroborates your assertion. is there a manual for half gods?
dweller Said:
LOL, Dweller lost his strawberries again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlV3oQ3pLA0
@ dweller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcPiUGGd25s
@ dweller:
Jesus Christ – History or Myth? Zeitgeist Excerpt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZFV6WxaVSA
@ dweller:
Jesus Christ – History or Myth? Zeitgeist Excerpt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZFV6WxaVSA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgpSwBVdBbI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcPiUGGd25s
@ yamit82:
You have not established that they are not factual; nor have you established that they are ahistorical.
(Nor have you established the factuality or historicity of Eliyahu or Avraham or Shmuel when asked.)
All you’ve done thus far is run ’round in circles pushing your fantasy agenda of ‘debunking’ something you can’t even get your head around. And the prodigious strenuousness of the effort is more than a little amusing.
I dig Jesus — he is the jewel in the crown of Jewish civilization — but am not a Christian. (Sorry to disappoint you.)
The “Jews” and the “Xtns” are BOTH wrong. They both assume, each in his own presumptuous way, that THEY are the “Xtns” or “Jews” referred to in the verse.
SOME goyim (doesn’t say “Xtns,” but men from the nations & tongues) will indeed come to SOME Jews
— not, however, to your kind of ‘Jew,’ in ANY event, I daresay.
@ yamit82:
Resort to a dictionary in specialized matters, and you get nowhere. It’s not like looking up the definition of “capability,” or the pronunciation of “telephone,” or a synonym for “rapid.”
One of the attributes of divinity is infinite self-existence — “always been; always will be,” etc.
A ‘god’ of ANY sort is self-existent: Cannot be created; cannot be destroyed. If anything CAN create a ‘god,’ then what was created was NOT, in reality, a ‘god.’ If anything CAN destroy a ‘god,’ then what was destroyed was NOT, in reality, a ‘god.’ This is fundamental; absolutely no way around it.
A HALF-GOD CANNOT DIE — ANY MORE THAN A HALF-WIT CAN REASON
— (know what I mean?)
Another attribute of divinity is omnipresence: He’s everywhere at once, and at all times, cannot be confined to specified locations to the exclusion of others; has no spatial limitations of any sort. Therefore, is strictly a spirit; cannot be physical, cannot be material.
Jeshua’s mission necessitated — expressly required (inter alia) — that he not merely die, physically die; but be actually killable, physically killable. By men; finite men. That wasn’t an optional feature but an integral requirement; it came w/ the job description.
No way his mission could be performed, then, by a divine being of any kind, cast, description, or degree. Capiche?
@ mrg3105:
But not the whole of it? How recently?
I use the computers at the public library. As a courtesy to to other patrons, I don’t use sound, and the present state of closed-captioning technology leaves quite a lot to be desired. Sometimes I use computers at the local state university, but they frequently block plug-ins of all kinds (hacking is a problem); so videos are out entirely (even w/o sound) in those instances.
Once in a blue moon, I can make my way over or around these hurdles, but the Singer video is nearly 2 hrs long, and there’s no way I can set aside that much online time for it; not these days anyway. Maybe at some point, I’ll be able to; not now. Have seen Singer’s stuff before, however; usually essays. (Yamit always likes to pull it out, expecting it to do his arguing for him.) So I’m not altogether unacquainted w/ his p-o-v.
And I know that even SINGER acknowledges that the early ‘Christians’ viewed Jeshua haNitzri as Moshiach, but not as ‘God.’ The way he stated it, as I recall, was, “the original Christians were monotheists,” or words to that effect.
So he’s saying NT was written by those who knew the Oral Law that became the Talmud?
Frankly, as I said earlier, I don’t think it’s possible to grasp NT in any depth w/ or w/o Talmud, if the reader doesn’t share the frame of mind that the authors had in writing it.
That’s what is known stateside as a “cop-out.” One needs to read the contents to be able to discuss it intelligently from ANY point-of-view.
Working with that broad brush again, I see.
Old line Xty IS dying. Restorationist Xty, however, is very much alive.
Indeed. Often from the least expected quarters. . . .
@ honeybee:
Always do.
But if you want to know something about the ‘obsession w/ virgins,’ then it would seem that you’d be making a mistake to not INCLUDE virgins in your inquiries.
@ bernard ross:
What a crock. You’re so fullovit, it oozes from your pores. You KNOW you can’t prove anything I’ve said to be a ‘myth.’ But more significantly, it would constitute an (unwarranted) act of charity to designate your misrepresentational accounting of what I do as ITSELF a myth. (The more honest name for your spurious summation is a steaming pile of putrescent pig plop.)
I do not EVER “quote” my intuition. A quote entails words (and/or numbers), and intuition is NEVER communicated in words — so how would I go about ‘quoting’ it?
Nor have I presumed to offer ‘proof of the facts’ of what I say. Proof is most typically YOUR thing, not mine. You like to DEMAND ‘proof,’ because you are utterly unable to discuss these matters on their own terms — so you routinely demand ‘proof.’ (How better to derail, deflect, or redirect the discussion?)
I may offer an observation of mine that is GROUNDED in intuition, and attended to by simple reasoning. But that is not offered as ‘proof,’ only something to think about, and perhaps discuss.
Of course you don’t; why SHOULD you? When you know nothing , you can claim anything. And PresentCompany’s ignorance is nothing short of breath-taking.
Pagan ‘gods’ were corporeal. They had bodies — flesh bodies when it suited them. They were INTO phuqing humans. Why? — because they weren’t the real article, and everybody knew it. They were clearly ‘created’ in the image of Man, instead of vice versa .
They were w/o integrity, and had all the weaknesses, foibles & insecurities that finite men have — only writ large & accompanied by the powers of nature (and super-nature). They were subject to hatred, vanity, jealousy, cruelty, spitefulness, lying, deceit, duplicity, breaking their word — the whole 9 yds.
They had affairs not only w/ humans of the opposite (and same) gender, but also w/ other gods & goddesses, as well as w/ the ‘divine’ spouses of those other ‘divinities’ — and that’s not to be overlooking the animal kingdom (oh, yes; if it moved, they weren’t above phuqing it or getting phuqued BY it). . . .
Ruach elohim (ruach haKodesh), OTOH, the eternal Spirit of God — which had hovered over the face of the waters before the universe was created, and which conceived The Christ in the womb of the virgin Mary — is not corporeal, nor physical, nor gendered (let alone, ‘sexual’), inasmuch as a self-existent, truly everlasting Being has no need to perpetuate Itself. “God is a SPIRIT…” Jn 4:24
YOU don’t even know what’s IN the Hebrew Bible, Sir. So YOU can’t know what ‘grafting’ (or ‘attempted’ grafting) is/isn’t in play either, or even significant; let alone, what does/doesn’t constitute a ‘myth’ in this matter. YOU are a pridefully empty-headed ignoramus presuming to hold forth on matters YOU know less about than brain-surgery.
Not nearly so windy, nor so consistently so (as the archival record will amply show) as yours.
Then too, if you find the length of my posts too much for you, nobody’s holding a gun to your head insisting that you read them. You have my full & unreserved permission to ignore me. (Consider it a standing authorization, which you can whip out at any time as a guaranteed consent.)
@ yamit82:
Horseshit, and horseshit.
A single exception to the rule I laid down (WRT Jewish writ lit) is all you would’ve needed, if you had a case.
And if you had such an exception, you’d’ve wasted no time hauling it out & pounding me senseless w/ it, accompanied by fanfare & flourishes. You’d’ve been all over me like a cheap suit w/in the space of a fetal heartbeat.
You’ve got nothing. You know it. I know it. And you know I know it.
Forget this dumb-assed game, and consider the real question: what other reason could there be for leaving significant things unrepeated, if not as a consideration to the party stuck w/ the memory work?
@ dweller:
I don’t have to but I can but since you made such a stupid and incorrect statement with no authority falls under the category of opinion which I inferred is a load of crap.
Opinions should have some foundations that can be tested otherwise it’s your stupid opinions against any other opinion. Now I will submit my opinion: I submit it a load of crap as you are. Just prove your case and I will concede.
You can’t but I can mine, just letting you know in advance. 😛 AH
@ yamit82:
Projection, pure & simple.
Lots of heat. No light.
Epithets galore. Nothing more.
Where? specify.
“Self-styled”??? — I called myself a ‘religious fanatic’?
— in what parallel universe?
@ yamit82:
Yes. (At last, a REAL question.) That’s an easy one; would that all real questions were that easy.
The answer is quite simple:
They were intellectuals. They LIVED in their intellect. They were LOST in their intellect.
And the intellect has no direct connection to the Source of objective Reality.
@ dweller:
Therefore anyone who disagrees with you has no common sense, or capability to reason???? Such arrogance, suchPRESUMPTUOUSNESS such stupidity!!!! Keep digging your grave it gets deeper every time you post.
Did it ever occur to you why no two philosophers ever agreed with another?????
@ yamit82:
That wasn’t a question.
That was a statement COUCHED as a ‘question.’
If you wanna make a statement, don’t be candy-assed about it; be up-front.
Meanwhile, if you believe that ANYTHING I’ve said above is not so, then I cordially invite you to show me examples which stand as exceptions to that remark, and thereby challenge it.
Otherwise I cordially invite you to go soak your head.
dweller Said:
Here you go again bloviating … denying, (always denying) but your own words and ideas condemn you. I was just calling a spade a spade, a liar, a fool, a charlatan & if Jewish ( which I don’t believe) then a heretic and apostate. A self styled religious fanatic, and a believer in falsehood and pagan mythologies. A mentally unstable sick POS!!!!!
dweller Said:
Do you make everything up from whole cloth or can you base your stupid comments on some firm authoritative foundations???
@ yamit82:
A strictly false dichotomy — generated by a false leader, a demagogic, power-tripping LIAR, who Huffs & Puffs and does his damnedest to distract a reader from the stark, staring fact that there is not a scintilla of difference between what I’ve said and what he has quoted.
Not a scrap.
Not a smidgeon.
Not a soupçon.
@ yamit82:
No, mamzer, I’m calling YOU a liar.
@ dweller:
warning to the Gentile nations; for, the Prophet Isaiah says to them:
dweller is calling G-d a liar he is smarter je know more!!!
@ bernard ross:
Moreover, Talmud’s ‘norm’ of not repeating certain things is not specific to matters Jewish so much as it is specific to matters (originally) ORAL — as an oral discourse is one which must be memorized, and the fewer things that need to be committed to memory, the lesser the burden on the party charged w/ memorization. Jewish written literature that wasn’t originally oral does not maintain such a ‘norm.’ No reason it would.
There is absolutely no reason why ACTS, as a history, would not continue to call the disciples ‘Christians’ from the point where it first mentions the name all the way until the end of the narrative — if that had, in fact, been their accepted name for themselves; it wasn’t. The reference in 11:26 is clearly a convenient handle for them used informally by outsiders, nothing more.
The very word, Christian, itself does not appear anywhere ever again THROUGHOUT the entire NewTestament, aside from one, solitary, stylized usage of it in 1 Pet 4:16 — and then not as a self-designation of members of a group (nor, indeed, a ‘name’ of any kind ), but purely as a reference to one who suffers persecution because of his faith in The Christ.
Of course if you think there ARE other such references to “Xtn” to be found in NT, I welcome you to show them to me; I dare you to show them to me.
This worn & tiresome, tissue-thin escape hatch of yours is, by now, a well-marked deck that 2 can play with as easily as one. Inasmuch as you are a flagrant, confessed (and quite demonstrably), anti-Christian bigot, your OWN credibility is itself well beyond the pale.
And revisionism can also include historical suppression, as already RECOGNIZED to have happened in other circumstances. Either way, all you have here is speculation.
“Irrelevant” to what? It’s clear that the disciples did not begin calling themselves “Xtns” until a long, long time after the death & resurrection of Jeshua.
dweller Said:
Idiot!!!
“The Entire Word that I command you: that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it.” (Deuteronomy 13:1).
And just to reveal a bit of the Future to our people, G-d immediately added to the preceding Admonishment this specific Prophetic Warning:
Should we believe G-d or dweller the sick loon?
dweller Said:
not exactly….
they follow a god who was born of a union between a god and a woman whereas you follow a man who was born of a union between a god and a woman.
Once one accepts the union of the god and woman one should rationally expect that the gods genes were strong enough to produce at least a half god. Two nutty stories quite similar but they went the whole hog and you got cold feet.
dweller Said:
wanting something does not ensure success, sometimes they get by with expelling, torturing, extorting and blackmailing…. the main thing is to keep the crimes covered up by killing the Jews, getting rid of them,keeping them quiet, etc. Right now the problem is that the success of Jews in Israel is an inconvenient truth which makes their lies transparent. Those that create massive lies tend to engage in highly despicable acts.
Bernard Ross Said:
dweller Said:
HMMMMMM?????
the following are YOUR words, not mine, perhaps you can explain how they do not represent YOUR fetish?
dweller Said:
did you get these urges at your convent? 🙂
dweller Said:
I posted it becuae you keep asking the obvious and self evident. I posted it because you dont seem to understand simple words like Hijack.dweller Said:
LOL, you appear to have serious learning difficulties with regards to the simplest of discussions. the christians used the hebrew bible as the basis for their NT do you deny that fact?… its self evident, Hebrew bible cam first then the christians used it for their own purposes of yeshu fables. Which part do you not understand? Is there anyone esle who does not understand the simple statement and definition of words?
Bernard Ross Said:
DUH????????????????
@ bernard ross:
THEY don’t seem to think so. In fact, they disagree most heartily with you. And in that regard they are correct, while you are flatly out-to-lunch. Truth be told, they follow a ‘God.’ I follow a man. Manifestly, there are two DIFFERENT ‘characters’ in question, not one.
“Fetishes”? — none here. It is you who insists that sexual releases are ‘necessary’ to live, and who resents hearing the contrary. Perhaps you have a “sex fetish”? — a sex addiction? What does your headshrinker say (apart from the acknowledgment that he shares the malady)?
Anyway, what’s truly NOT ‘irrelevant’ to the discussion is that PresentCompany’s invincible denseness (evidenced by his aforenoted choice of storage area for his reasoning equipment) is a direct consequence of his own inveterate maliciousness: it quite simply makes a man stupid (a term which derives from the word stupor).
@ bernard ross:
Hypothesis presented as fact. Prove it.
Why? — Because you get off on doing that, and use it as a tool to steer the discourse toward your own agenda.
I didn’t ask you to define “hijack.” That was entirely your own idea. I have, in THIS instance, however, asked you to prove that a ‘hijacking’ occurred, since you seem to think you can make the claim w/o even reading either the thing ‘hijacked’ OR the ‘newly purposed’ product.
dweller Said:
Its’ biggest problem is that it is a lie upon which much of the other lies depend. Having tried to build a bridge to the hebrew bible in order to authenticate its mythology it must explain why the christians have now taken the place of the jews. This is also why the BDS churches are so enthusiastic about libeling Israel because it exposes the lie with fact. Until now christianity said the jews were cursed and the christians replaced them as the chosen but the barren land blooms for ingathered jews and NOT the replacement theology supersessionist christians. Israel endangers the business model of many very lucrative international corporations, it strikes to the very heart of the cluster of lies. christianity must cause the failure of Israel and its backup plan is their destruction by the muslims. They are excellent strategists and well versed in doublespeak, they influence secular europe through their powerful tentacles. The libels of the christians against the jews always preceded their pogroms and genocides. They are in the libeling stage and hiring others to do their dirty work. They empower the muslim narratives because of their need to delegitimize the Jews.
Nothing has changed!
bernard ross Said:
Big deal Yankee boy, everybody is born a virgin. And those “red herrings ” of yours, do they come packed in sour cream with raw onions?
mrg3105 Said:
Your a Aussie, that’s why the Sailing Ship, you were transported.
@ yamit82:
yamit82 Said:
will the real yeshu (Dweller) please stand up….. 😛 😛 😛 😛
dweller Said:
This is his usual MO when he cannot answer a question which will expose his argument as ludicrous….. running away, asking a question back instead of answering..
He makes his god sound like an incubus.
dweller Said:
should we assume that Dwellers god used his whoziss?