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.
dweller Said:
What part of open forum where everyone can voice opinions or but in don’t you understand? You have used that excuse to butt into my conversions myriads of times haven’t you AH???
You christians are always telling others what do think but ignore them yourselves. Do as you say but not as you do fegele ?????
😛 😛 😛 😛 LOLROFLMAO
dweller Said:
What?????? You are really insane!!!!
This is your Jewish proof text???? Not Zeus, Not Mithra shit there is a whole pantheon of Jewish proof texts like yours that you ignored. I wonder why??? Who wrote the Gospel of John? (Author unknown Name placed by the Church at nicea) You claim not to accept the outcomes of Nicea? Or do you just cherry pick those you like and those you don’t? Religion and theology by vote and by accounts a narrow majority won the day… John was not a real person and was not Jewish in fact if anything he was a Jew Hater that would make Luther and Hitler proud.
Jewish source??? 😛 😛 😛 😛 LOLROFLMAO
Let’s play dweller:
Who was John???
Prove it!!!
Prove he was Jewish!!
Prove he wrote what is claimed without error!!
Why should anyone accept John’s version over anyother gospel where there is contradictions? John was unawhere of virgin birth so did it happen or not? Paul rejected the virgin birth claim as did Mark??? Seems you have a narrative fixed and chose from each gospel support for your own positions and ignore the contradictions and have the temerity to call it truth??? Yes you are stupid and intellectually corrupted and dishonest.
My point is that yu cannot base a single doctrinal belief you adhere to that is based on Jewish scripture thought and beliefs. Not a single one of importance. You accept fiction and myth in place of truth and intellectual honesty and integrity.
You have reduced yourself to no more than an intellectual pygmy and an insane one at that.
Your tactic of wearing your opponents down thru sophistry and circular reasoning has not moved Bernard an inch and it drives you crazy. He is totally focused and unmoved by your evasions and obfuscational tactics….Fun to watch 🙂
@ mrg3105:
The Hebrew Mind vs Western Mind
“Hebraism and Hellenism – between these two points of influence moves our world.”
Sources: Irrational Man, by William Barrett; Christianity With Power by Charles Kraft; Hebrew Thought Compared With Greek by Thorleif Boman; Judaism and Christianity – The Differences by Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, Our Father Abraham, by Marvin Wilson, God in Search of Man by Abraham Heschel.
Note: I am not happy or agree with much written in the article but found the comparative illustration useful for discussion purposes.
Not because I agree or disagree with any of it’s points of selection.
@ bernard ross:
The Almighty doesn’t need to be ‘given’ a purpose.
He is the Author of purpose.
God did not ‘breed’ with a woman when He created Christ
— any more than He ‘bred’ with the earth when He created Adam.
Maybe YOUR ‘god’ mates with women.
Mine doesn’t.
— For one thing, He doesn’t have the equipment for it. Nor would it accomplish His purposes to do so (which is more to the point).
Without sin, yes; but he did not fight the Adversary. By resisting temptation (as Adam before him had FAILED to do), he tempted haSatan to violate his lawful authority.
“They”??? — you know of somebody else who affirms what I said?
What ‘lie’?
Well, you most assuredly ARE ignorant — also thick as brick — so “they” must be on-track.
Not so. Had Jews “quickly rejected it,” he wouldn’t have been killed.
Harmless, marginal types don’t get ‘removed.’
Potent, substantive ones — whose presence threatens the wielders of power — DO.
It would appear that Logic wasn’t your strong suit. (What a shock.)
@ yamit82:
Nothing about the mechanics of making babies either.
So?
Pursuit commanded by God indeed.
But the assumption here that the pursuit is commanded to be an ‘intellectual’ one is entirely your own.
Not that you’re the only one to buy into that silly, farblonjet proposition.
@ mrg3105:
Don’t need ‘luck’ looking for it.
Don’t need to look.
Don’t need ‘proof.’
Don’t LACK for proof.
I’ve had the proof — direct proof, consistent proof, conclusive proof, the BEST proof there can possibly be — for well over half-a-century:
He punishes my sins.
Q.E.D.
@ yamit82:
Probably died before the flood. But it IS worth exploring where she came from if you continue to insist, as you do, that an assertion w/o a basis to be found in the scriptures must be a ‘lie.’
You don’t know they preexisted Adam. Nor do you know that they were humans OR ‘humanoids.’
Maybe they were destroyed with the Flood.
An ‘allegory’ of what?
In any case, as I’ve told you several times, there is no reason to assume that something understood to be symbolic (allegorical, metaphorical, etc, etc) may not be ALSO quite literal as well.
If they didn’t take anything literally before Exodus 1, they’d be implying a curious beginning for the Jewish people. . . .
But I don’t believe in that — and never have.
THAT’S strictly your characterization, not mine.
Again, that’s YOUR characterization — and that of the vile creep who introduced & persists w/ that language here
— which only goes to show that neither of you shlemazls is clear on the difference between the orifices on the FRONT of a woman’s body with the one on the BACK of it, and what each is (& isn’t) there for.
Not to ‘defeat’ the Adversary (who actually defeats HIMSELF).
JC never ‘fights’ him at any point in the narrative; not this time anyway (maybe upon his return; I’m less clear on that).
By resisting all of Soton’s temptations, however, he created a situation where the Adversary was himself tempted to exceed his lawful mandate this one time.
Why? I think I’ve made clear what I think of quiz shows. . . .
@ yamit82:
BEFORE I CONTINUE W/ THIS EXCHANGE, I WANT IT CLEAR THAT I AM SIMPLY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS; NOT ‘PUSHING’ ANYTHING ON ANYBODY HERE. I DON’T DO THAT — ANYWHERE.
EVERY SO OFTEN SOMEBODY ACCUSES ME OF THAT CRAP. AND YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABOVE MAKING THAT MORONICALLY DISINGENUOUS ALLEGATION YOURSELF. THE FACT IS THAT IF YOU WERE NOT ASKING ME THESE QUESTIONS, THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR ME TO REPLY ABOUT IT OR OTHERWISE MENTION THE MATTER.
The answer to your [above] question is that I figured it out, pieced it together, based on elements in the gospels & some of the epistles. Also elements in the Apostles’ Creed — which ANTEDATES the Nicene Creed (and contains NO averral of JC’s ‘divinity,’ ‘incarnation,’ etc) — provide significant clues.
Yes, He does use that word. But this does not mean he was a man returned to the state which Adam same had left behind when he disobeyed. If it did mean that, then Noach would not have died. He was blameless & upright in relation to the world; that does not, however, make him sinless, theologically innocent.
If he were the latter, would he have been capable of getting drunk (along with everything that went with that)?
Like Avraham, he walked w/ El Elyon and trusted Him, and his trust was counted to him as righteousness, in anticipation of the redemption which was to come.
The redemptive work of JC is done. (One of his final phrases before leaving his body on the cross was, “It is accomplished!“)
— It remains only for a man to accept it; to put in his claim for the benefit.
@ yamit82:
What part of the word, “YOUR,” do you not understand?
He knows what he means by using the term he introduced.
I want to know what he means by it.
What you may or may not understand it to mean is not pertinent to this particular exchange.
@ bernard ross:
John 19:35; 21:24
Not so. They have. And not only rabbis.
There are, and we have noticed them.
Covering your butt, are you? If you’re going to write off the evidences of Jews supporting the narrative, as ‘heresies,’ then what’s the point in even providing you with the evidence?? Your claim is circular, designed to affirm what you want, and deny what you dislike — or define it out of existence. Your intended result is preset. You’re neither honest nor sincere; you’re phony.
Of course not, because it’s not for me to figure out. That’s your responsibility.
It’s your term and you’ve YET to define it as you use it, just as you’ve yet to define the term for which you use it as a substitute, “Jewish sources.”
If I introduce a term to a discourse, then I take the responsibility of defining it so that anybody reading my words can be on the same page with me for the discussion; it’s not only common courtesy, but also a practical necessity.
The only reason you don’t define this awkward phrase as you use it is that you realized only after you’d used it several times, that you can’t (any more than you could the earlier one). But you won’t admit it; it’s just that simple.
No more on the fringe than you. Probably less. (Quite a bit less, if my suspicions regarding you are correct.)
@ bernard ross:
You don’t try ‘pinning me down.’
What you try to do is put words in my mouth. So I correct you in regard to whatever seems most significant to that part of the thread among the myriad misstatements you put in even a single sentence.
And I am still correcting you.
You seem to think that if I don’t correct you right away in re some specific term you use, that you’re home free from that point onward. Wrong.
Sometimes it just means that I haven’t yet seen the extent of your pathology, and haven’t realized yet that you’re using a term quite specifically, rather than just because it’s a handy approximation for the moment.
You are a real nut case; I’m not exaggerating for effect. I think you’re LITERALLY as crazy as YOU think the word “union’ means the virgin birth/conception was sexual.
Not so. The most germane issue at that point was absolutely NOT the “nature” of the begetting, but rather the sheer FACT of it. The nature of it became an issue only later.
When you first used the term, I gave you the benefit of the doubt in that I assumed you were merely using the term “union” in a general sense, and that you understood that I was not speaking of a god as a physical, corporeal being. (That’s WHY I’ve never used the word union in this context.)
It was only by your persistent usage of the term “union” — even after I’d noted several times that this was not a carnal relationship — that it dawned on me that you were INDEED implying a sexual encounter when you used the word union.
At which point I called you on it for the warped, despicable, uncircumcized putz you have shown yourself to be.
Tell us, Slime Bag, which you would prefer to do:
Kiss my ass in Macy’s Window at High Noon on Valentine’s Day.
Kiss my ass on YouTube any day of your choosing.
Kiss my ass on the 50-yard line of Univ of Phoenix Stadium at halftime today.
Just remember: Whichever option you select, you’ll be required to bring disinfectant
— one never knows where some mouths have been.
Yamit, what is this list supposed to be, and how did you compile it?
@ yamit82:
I see that without this fantastical narrative of Dwellers there is no christianity. Everything hinges on linking christianity to the Hebrew bible for credibility. That link is dwellers narrative which you summarized in one sentence. The first link his nitzri as the jewish messiah. However, for that fantastical narrative to have credibility he must have the fantastical narrative of his virgin birth and all depends on givng his god a purpose for going through the ridiculous process of breeding with a woman. Hence we see the invention of his soton narrative whereby his god had to go through all that trouble of mating with women, creating a creature without sin who fights his devil. Whew, I can see why they have to keep constructing one lie after another to keep that house of cards afloat. Of course it can only fly on the basis of the ignorance of those it is directed towards. Jews quickly rejected it as absurd and threw in the the garbage but that rejection caused dwellers antecedents to keep killing Jews, just like mohammed.
yamit82 Said:
😛 😛 😛 😛 LOLROFLMAO
We are going to have to add this to the list of Dwellers descriptions of his “big bang theory” or should I say “big [catalyzing a process of development in the womb of] a woman theory”
dweller Said:
You still have not explained the source of your theological hypothesis and narratives. SOURCE pls.
Here is a theological bone: Was Noah born in sin? G-d called him a righteous man did he not?
Since according to the biblical Narrative all mankind descends from the only righteous man and his family is mankind according to your stupid Pagan Narratives and Greek Thought processes still in sin with no hope of redemption except thru Geezits???.
Where did Cain’s WiFi come from you ask? Since she was killed off in the flood and from the pages of history along with her potential biological line it hardly seems worth exploring the question but there are speculative answers like there were humanoids that pre-existed the creation of Adam like Neanderthals. We know that humans mated with Neanderthals because human DNA shows almost 10% Neanderthal genes.
Jewish sages viewed the whole book of Genesis as an allegory only you Greek christian pagans take it literally. That’s why you can believe in gods shtupping Jewish women and pooping out messiahs whose mission is to defeat devils and ghouls, goblins and what not.
I’ll bet you leave skid marks before you dare respond. 🙂
@ dweller:
Western Approach _______________Hebraic Approach
Life analyzed in precise categories. ____________________Everything blurs into everything else.
A split between natural & supernatu____________________Supernatural affects everything.
Linear logic________________________________________Contextual or “block” logic
“Rugged Individualism”______________________________Importance of being part of group
Equality of persons__________________________________Value comes from place in hierarchies
Freedom orientation_________________________________Security orientation
Competition is good_________________________________Competition is evil (cooperation better)
Man-centered universe______________________________God/tribe/family-centered universe
Worth of person based on money/material possessions/power____________Worth derived from family relationships
Biological life sacred________________________________Social life supremely important
Chance + cause & effect limit what can happen__________God causes everything in his universe
Man rules nature through understanding and
applying laws of science_____________________God rules everything, so relationship with God determines how things turn out.
Power over others achieved through business,
politics and human organizations._____________Power over others is structured by social patterns ordained by God.
All that exists is the material________________________The universe is filled with powerful spirit beings
Linear time divided into neat segments.
Each event is new.___________________________________Cyclical or spiraling time. Similar events constantly reoccur.
History is recording facts
objectively and chronologically.
whether or not details are objective facts.___History is an attempt to preserve significant truths in meaningful or memorable ways
Oriented to the near future______________________________Oriented to lessons of history
Change is good = progress______________________________Change is bad = destruction of traditions
Universe evolved by chance______________________________Universe created by God
Universe dominated and controlled
by science and technology_______________________God gave man stewardship over his earthly creation. Accountability to God.
Material goods = measure of personal achievement______________Material goods = measure of God’s blessing
Blind faith____________________________________Knowledge-based faith
Time as points on straight line
(“at this point in time…”_________________________Time determined by content (“In the day that the Lord did…”)
bernard ross Said:
bernard ross Said:
bernard ross Said:
bernard ross Said:
bernard ross Said:
dweller Said:
Lets see it , Barbie 😛 😛 😛
dweller Said:
so after reading it they decided to ignore it and throw it in the garbage
😛 😛 😛
A 2000 year period whereby Jewish rabbis have not mentioned that the Hebrew G_D begot a Jewish messiah with a woman, have not attested to Dwellers “FACT”, have not been preaching this FACT in the synagogues, etc etc etc.
but Dweller cannot figure out what “Jewish attestation or support” means…….
but guess where we can find attestation and support for this narrative?
Answer: For almost 2000 years those who called themselves Christians have attested to and supported the narrative of Hebrew G_D begetting a Jewish messiah with a Hebrew woman
The only synagogues I have heard of that preach this obviously christian narrative is the Synaguogue of Jewish psychotics, lunatics and Jews for jesus….. but they represent a fringe group
😛 😛 😛
bernard ross Said:
dweller Said:
😛
dweller Said:
😛 😛 😛
Everyone here who is familiar with your obsessive compulsive need to correct others paraphrasing of your statements knows that you are now compounding lie upon lie.
I specifically emboldened the words “In other words:” which preceded my question to you. I was rephrasing your prior comments in my words and the ONLY disagreement you had with my rendition of your comments was the adjective Hebrew.
If you had objected to the word “UNION” at that time you would surely have stated that objection as it represented the MOST GERMANE issue of the discussion: that issue being the nature of your gods begetting a Jewish messiah with a woman. For you to be inferring now that the issue the word “UNION” was NOT GERMANE to the discussion is beyond the absurd. To lie to the forum that you were simply ignoring the word UNION in this MOST CONSISTENTLY GERMANE ISSUE is laughable. You have repeatedly been correcting me at every opportunity when I tried to pin you down on giving words to your narrative. I have repeatedly stated to you that the issue of your god begetting Jewish messiahs with women is the only assertion of the NT you present here that I need to know to determine that it is a fairy tale and NOW you say it is NOT GERMANE? 😛 😛 😛 😛
Contrary to your ludicrous assertion here it appears that the only point of contention is the nature of the process expressed by the word UNION. It appears that it is exactly THAT WORD which is the MOST GERMANE of our conversation thread which refers to your god begetting Jewish messiahs with women.
Perhaps you can substitute more variations in the brackets in place of the word UNION to which you now object?
the Hebrew G_D [ mated with a] Hebrew woman which resulted in the virgin birth of the Jewish messiah.
The Hebrew G_D [had a union with a] Hebrew woman which resulted in the virgin birth of the Jewish messiah
The Hebrew G_D [catalyzed a process of development in the womb of a] Hebrew woman which resulted in the virgin birth of the Jewish messiah.
Tell us Dweller, which version is correct… If you would like to substitute other words or phrases in the brackets please feel free to do so.
dweller Said:
Logos!!!!
dweller Said:
The Oral Law is explaining of how existing Commandments must be kept. The Rabbis have made enactments based on the Commandments.
The Case Against Individualistic Interpretation
An individual Israelite had to be prepared to give up his/her life and not transgress certain commandments.
Nevertheless the Bible emphasized the communal responsibility of the whole nation.
They were to become,
A KINGDOM OF PRIESTS, AND AN HOLY NATION [Exodus 19:6].
[The word translated here as PRIESTS can also mean “rulers” but the point is the same].
The emphasis is on the nation as a whole.
The Community of Israel accepted an obligation to enforce the SAME Law on all members of the Community!
The Torah was given to the whole of Israel as a group and they were commanded to be mutually responsible for each other in keeping it.
From a common sense point of view if the Almighty said something it had a specific meaning.
The Torah was given to the whole community to be kept by all members of that community.
It is not logical that one person should keep Pesach on one day and someone else on another, that one person eats kosher meat and another something else, that one person considers intercourse with certain women permitted and another forbids it.
This sort of behavior may be OK in a democratic secular society where everyone has different religions.
Originally however the Torah was given to the Israelites as one whole.
The religion created the nation, obligated every member of that nation, and if anyone publicly transgressed the commandments they were to be punished by the community.
Throughout the Bible G-d speaks to the nation and about the nation.
The individual (king, prophet, etc) is important in so far as they form part of the nation and are connected to it.
They occupy their positions for the sake of the Hebrew people.
There is a collective responsibility.
The Community was obliged to enforce the Keeping of the Sabbath.
One could be put to death for desecrating the Sabbath!
But what exactly would constitute Sabbath desecration?
Look in the Bible. It is not so clear.
It must however have been clear to someone.
The Almighty would NOT have given us commandments if HE did not expect us to keep them.
Judges and Sages Commanded to Interpret the Bible
[In point of fact most of the Rabbinical injunctions are hinted at in the written Scriptures according to grammatical niceties and quirks of the Hebrew Language. A good portion of the Talmud is dedicated to clarifying the Law according to what the Biblical verses indicate.
Even if this was not so however we would still be obliged to do as the Rabbis say.]
In case of doubt the Israelites were commanded to go to the authorities and Sages that would exist in their time.
In case of doubt concerning any matter of the Law and its practical implications one had to make an effort (“ARISE”) and go to the recognized authority that existed.
The Priests, Levites, and/or simple Israelite Judge, whoever was in charge at the time, would make the decision usually after consultation with the others and in accordance with accepted tradition and well know laws of logical deduction applied to Biblical verses and derived from them. This was the foundation of what later became the Talmud.
Even if one went to the Sages to decide how a commandment should be carried out and did not agree with what the Sages said you still had to obey them. This was the commandment.
The Ten Tribes were Exiled for Inventing their own Religious Beliefs!
It says:
Notice no heaven no hell, no savior, no messiah, rewards and punishment in this life and rewadrs were that the Israelites would prosper and punished in that they would not prosper. G-d demands above all obedience to his laws and that requires of we Jews to study his words to derive the layers of meanings within them, The written Torah is short on words and explanations and THIS IS AN INTELLECTUAL PURSUIT COMMANDED BY G-D!!!! No touchy feely BS of you ignorant Pagan christians like yourself.
In philosophy, term logic, also known as traditional logic or Aristotelian logic, is a loose name for the way of doing logic that began with Aristotle and that was dominant until the advent of modern predicate logic in the late nineteenth century.
Torah can not be translated. This is not because some words may lack appropriate vocabulary equivalents in other languages, but because other languages lack the depth and use different characters to represent concepts and ideas found within letters, words, sentences and paragraphs. This only becomes apparent when the ‘written’ Torah and the ‘oral’ Torah are taken as a single construct.
Yet even translating the Talmud doesn’t achieve ‘translation’.
One actually requires a different mode of cognition.
To know God means just that, to know He was, is and will be. Not the way TV evangelists ‘know’ God.
As it happens, although the Torah is not a Science book, there is within it a scientific proof of God’s existence. Good luck looking for it 🙂
@ mrg3105:
To one who is lost in his intellect, that may well be. Objectively speaking, however, it is nothing of the sort.
Another of the favorite conceits of orthodoxy. Certainly there is always value in reading the printed word in its original language; that only stands to reason.
However, to say it cannot be effectively translated is to come perilously close to making of it an IDOL, to taking it away from the common people, and to removing it to the realm of arcana , where it simply does not belong.
Defineyour term, “Greek logic.”
— If you’re going to insist on deploying the phrase, then I am entitled to your definition of it.
The reason your ‘arguing’ with me is pointless is that you don’t make arguments; you make pronunciamentos — which you rarely (if ever) substantiate, even when challenged to do so. Instead of responding with solid examples or evidence of your claims, you merely run on to make other pronunciamentos. It’s no way to conduct an exchange.
Sir, YOU haven’t the remotest idea what I DO or DON’T know about either such matter.
And PresentCompany is free of such confusions, is he? (Perhaps HE was raised on Alpha Centauri?)
If you truly opposed what those two turkeys do, you’d be telling THEM that, not me. Truth be told, you’re no better than they; the only difference is that your mishegasse is compounded by an added factor of incestuous intellectualization which has left you in an analytical cul-de-sac somewhere between your ears.
“The sad truth of [my] futility” as regards that pair was apparent some years ago, but you needn’t suppose I write to persuade them.
They provide a value in spite of their obnoxious intent, as they force me to question myself before replying; they force me to view things I’d heretofore taken for granted, and see them from another angle, even when they are patently insincere (which is typically the case); they force me to flesh out & articulate in writing things I had previously only sensed in a general way. And too, they keep my writing skills sharp. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the benefit I derive from their cretinous ‘eggings-on’ and compulsive clamorings.
Morover, there are more readers of this blogsite than merely those who post on it — and these posts will remain in the archives long after they are written.
You took the words right out of my mouth — but, as before, you directed them to the wrong party. YoursVeryTruly, as it happens, is quite clear on the concept. Never had any issues with ‘whether’ I was Jewish or what made me Jewish. Those who know me will readily tell you my identity was well-established before I ever met the mohel.
Your first clause is problematic — as there are goyim who know Him.
But then, knowing Him has NOTHING to do with studying Him (or studying anything else) — or indeed with any other activity focused on the intellect.
“Knowing Him” means being engaged in a perpetual & ongoing conversation with Him — and understanding that as we are NOT infinite like Him, we are likely, as a matter of course, to have quite a lot less to SAY in the exchange than He. Hence, practically speaking, “knowing Him” comes down to making a practice of listening to Him.
So, since a gentile can know God, there must be something MORE or OTHER (than the knowing of God) to make one Jewish.
And your second clause is narrishkeit — because to prove that one knows God, he would first have to ‘prove’ that God is real — a fool’s errand right from the jump. And (let us be frank) nobody is likely more amused at the proposition than the Father himself.
Still is better, I daresay (notwithstanding that, contrary to your second clause above, the child could never ‘prove’ that he knew God, now OR then).
Certainly a six-yr-old is CLOSER to God, less encumbered by an overdeveloped intellect, the cares of adulthood, etc., than any physics prof. A six-yr-old senses the presence of Evil — viz., wickedness — more immediately than any physics prof (though the six-yr-old is correspondingly less capable of articulating his fear of it, or organizing himself to deal effectively with it).
If I die, perhaps I will.
~ Shavua Tov ~
dweller, some Greeks in the Ancient world got lucky because some really stupid Jews offered up the Torah to replace their silly philosophies. BUT, Greeks being Greeks, they wouldn’t learn other languages.
What you have in the Xtian Bible is babble. Torah CANNOT be translated. And, what is now the Oral Transmission, can not be understood by Greek logic alone.
Therefore arguing with you is pointless. Not only do you not have the remotest idea about Torah, i.e. the culture of the People Israel, you are arguing from a seriously fragmented and corrupted interpretation of this perspective, initially by the Hellenised Jews, later by the Xtianised Greeks, and later still by the even more confused Latins and Germans.
I can’t even say that you are “barking up the wrong tree”, because you don’t even see a ‘tree’ 🙂
And I think its cruel for Yamit and Bernard to ‘egg you on’ like this, engaging in these long and pointless debates. I think its better you know the sad truth of your futility.
As to your claimed ‘Jewishness’. do not assume that having a Jewish mother automatically makes one Jewish. If that was the case, no one would have been left behind in Mitzrayim by Moshe rabbeinu.
What makes someone Jewish is the knowing of God, and the ability to prove it. In this a six year old Jewish child used to be better than a professor of physics, but alas, as we drop to the last level of tumah, as a People this has been forgotten. Apparently God wants to see the effect of a bucket of ice-cold water flung as us in the middle of winter 🙂 Russians claimed it can restore the dead to life 🙂 You should try it 🙂 Anything that doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger…
@ yamit82:
It’s not ‘plagiarism’ to use common phrases. They were common long before YOU laid hands on ’em.
Unlike yourself, I do debate the merits of what I believe (and don’t rely on published writers to do it for me), and when I give somebody a name, it ISN’T as a substitute for real argument but ALWAYS in addition to the argument.
I’d say that’s pure projection, in every particular — right down to the final shot in the sentence.
Did not make it up. How would I do that? (It would have to be based on something.)
Only because the Almighty restrains him. But when he overstepped his mandate, it was not a deliberate, rational decision; he had no choice. His original disobedience had left him compulsive (like man).
However, his compulsiveness had never come into play since his fall — didn’t need to, as he had automatic rights to every soul that died — until he took this ONE soul; and Adonai permitted it, allowed him to take that soul w/ him into Sheol.
The difference between men & angels is not that men have wills & angels don’t.
The difference is that while both CAN sin, only man is capable of REPENTANCE. Only man has a physical, fleshly body to “cushion his fall” (metaphorically speaking). It is his great blessing, and it is this which makes him actually superior to the angels.
Makes it possible for him to live in two worlds — instead of only one, like the angels & the animals.
What ‘powers’ are you talking about me ‘giving’ him?
@ yamit82:
I didn’t. I speculated on how it likely happened:
“This was not about Adonoi ‘breeding’ Himself to a woman; probably something more on the order of catalyzing a process of development in the womb.”
Was that the one with the image of the Virgin Mary emblazened on a grilled cheese sandwich that was buried with it?
Right after you find in the Hebrew scriptures where Cain’s wife came from.
— If you can’t, it’s a . . . . ‘lie.’
I know I’m sane; eminently sane.
How does my statement ‘prove’ that?
I’ve never had any shrinks.
For political reasons, I did time in a Federal Prison, and also for political reasons, did time in various county jails — both of which institutions had staff psychiatrists & psychologists; just as schools & universities do.
I had dealings with them during the course of my stays in those places. But I was never under the direct care of ANY such individuals, there or anywhere else, ever. Moreover, the shrinks in Federal Prison specifically thought me both stronger AND more sane than they.
@ bernard ross:
Now THAT weasel-walk is the real poop here. One might find humor in one or two uses of such a remark. Not in a couple dozen. Then it’s clear the user has a problem distinguishing the front side of a woman’s body from her. . . . backside.
Not clueless; I’ve had your number for years, buster.
You assume the READERS are clueless and that they don’t see you for what you are. But every so often, what’s hiding in you pops right out of you (or should I say poops right out of you?), and everybody gets a clear picture of what was in there all the time.
It’s not the first time you’ve inadvertently exposed yourself.
@ bernard ross:
To the bright ones, yes. To the dullards like you, of course not; but that was a foregone conclusion anyway.
But the real question of the day is, do you really believe calling it ‘ludicrous’ will make Jews (or anybody else) think of you as Jewish? Sorry, but it doesn’t work like that.
No more than Adam did; of course not. (You’re really kinda slow with this stuff, aren’t you?)
If he’d had special powers he couldn’t have accomplished his mission. Told you: It could not have been performed by a ‘god.’ Nor would he have ‘inherited’ genes from the Most High, who is not a physical being (let alone, a ‘sexual’ one), so where would ANY ‘genes’ have come from, other than his mother?
But then they all had human traits: vanity, jealousy, hatred, spite, envy, deceit, duplicity, arrogance. They cavorted sexually w/ each other & each others’ spouses — of both genders; also w/ their own children; also w/ animals.
Definitely a “better deal” from your perspective; indeed, right up your. . . alley. . . as it were.
Takes a little something MORE than that, however, to be a father.
— Or didn’t they explain that to you when you were consulting the experts at Marvel Comix for parenting skills and Divinity Studies?
@ dweller:
How did you describe it with link to your description?
Biological impossibility in humans….. I go with story Mary was a filthy whore who got knocked up by a Roman soldier and the story was concocted to cover her ass literally from being stoned to death and Joseph made to look like a cockhold in public humiliation. The grave of his biological father found in Germany.
A rational person faced with the competing narratives if they were sane would choose the later and in the later there is some evidence of it being true.
Find such a basis in Jewish scriptures! If you can’t it’s a lie and you are a fucking liar. Remember the POSTULATES I ENUMERATED!!!! IF IT CAN’T BE BASED ON HEBREW SCRIPTURE IT HAS NO FOUNDATION IN TRUTH. Greek Egyptian, Persian and Roman Mythology Yes for sure, for certain but not Hebrew scriptures or Hebrew thought then nor now.
You believe yourself to be sane???? Proves you are divorced from reality and in denial. Your shrinks would not agree you are sane would they??? No lying now Liar!!!
You just plagiarized my oft stated descriptions of you fegele. So like a stupid child you have been reduced to repeating my stated opinions of you at adversaries you can’t debate on the merits or lack of them. Not only are you a stupid AH who can’t defend his beliefs on their merits you are infantile & puerile besides being a fegele.
dweller
BR
Satan was an agel messenger of G-d and could not operate on his own even if he had the will and power to do so. To give him such powers as you describe limits G-d and is the exact opposite of Jewish thought and belief. You know that perfectly well yet you choose the pagan concept over the Jewish one. Proving you are nothing more than a Pagan christian anti Jew. Can’t dance at two weddings simultaneously. Every facet of your stated beliefs is G-d limiting, proving it has no Jewish theological base.
Yes or No do you accept as valid the revelation at Sinai?. What in your opinion was the significance to Naaseh v nishmah? That the commandments and covenant were to be forever??? Show me references from the Tanach describing a spiritual savior King Messiah?
Jewish doctrine is only based on the Torah and commandments, stories are nice as are midrahim and agudat but have no doctrinal authority in Judaism only the commandments!!!! I don’t care about no Messiahs and Judaism is not predicated on such myths if it ain’t in the Torah it has no authority in beliefs….. The prophets only speak of a Utopian age but not the end of history or a Messiah as you christians have invented. We have no heaven no hell and no promise of an after life. It’s not in the Torah. Does the Tanach Call Cyrus a Messiah?
christianity is so opposite Jewish thought and beliefs it could not have been spawned and accepted by Jews Never not in beleifs, not in language and certainly all relationship to a spiritual savior who is born of a virgin impregnated by a god dies and is resurrected. Call your beliefs dwellerism doesn’t matter it is not based on Judaism then or now. You don’t even know who are the real authors of your book. You don’t find it curious that your pauline lying dwarf never heard of virgin birth nor Mark and John???
Such a momentous event one might think would hve been noticed and mentioned in their gospels. Not a word or thought and even in the two gospels that mention the virgin birth the narrativs are so different that one might suspect they are talking about two distinct events. Such is the lack of veracity of that stupid book. If that book had any real divine inspiration that divinity must have been a mental retard.
They were ignored by Jews because they were not written by Jews until the 2nd century at the earliest never existed. Even the Talmud was disinterested and references made could not have been the same turd as that mentioned in the NT.
Anything with even the slightest stench of Paganism would be forbidden to the Jews of that time.
@ bernard ross:
Depends on the circumstance. There may be any number of directions one might go with a remark. If you go with one possibility, you pass up another, at least for the time being. There’s always a trade-off to be made; it’s unavoidable.
Don’t give me this shit.
A blog post is not a legal document, where every word not explicitly objected to at any given moment may be assumed ‘accepted.’
The fact that in a given post, I ignore a word or phrase which is not germane to that part of the thread means nothing one way or another — only that I did not wish that it distract from the point(s) presently in contention. (And if I did pursue it, YOU’d eventually get ’round to calling my objection ‘tangential’ or ‘obfuscation.’)
I ignore hundreds of posts in a single blogging session. Sometimes I ignore whole articles and their entire threads. Is this supposed to meand that I assent to everything said in them. Get a life.
If you can find a comment of mine (among the thousands I’ve posted in this matter alone) in which I actually characterized the conception of Christ as a “union” or a “mating,” then produce the unedited post and its intact context. Otherwise, you can walk west till your hat floats, Bozo.
Neither niggling NOR fakery. The “before” part was significant.
But you didn’t even use the word “union” that time.
No, I merely realize just how MUCH of a nut case you really are, that you would press such characterizations.
There’s nothing for ME to ‘tone down.’ The crazy,contemptuous language is yours; it was NEVER mine.
No, I tell no lies here, notwithstanding your lame attempts make something stick.
And “over & over” what you “show this forum” is just what a self-deluded, paranoid sicko you are.
@ bernard ross:
Till you can establish the narratives to constitute ‘fairy tales’ — or produce contemporaneous narratives which contradict them — they ARE indeed entitled to the presumption of veracity
— just as the proposition that (absent contradictory contemporaneous narratives) the one true sovereign Lord of the universe promised Eretz Cana’an to the Jews unconditionally and in perpetuity is entitled to the presumption of veracity.
To the ear of an objective observer the latter is no less preposterous than the former. THAT, however, does not, of itself, render it a ‘fairy tale.’
That is flatly untrue. There have been Jews in every generation (and not merely alienated or compromised or assimilated ones) who found truth in the gospels.
You simply don’t know that. WRITTEN Jewish religious history, per rabbinical policy (subsequently abandoned), is quite silent for the first few centuries.
No way the contents could have been taken for fiction. You see, unlike yourself, the Jews actually bothered to read the available writings which later became the NT canon.
@ bernard ross:
And how could they do that? Common literacy is not 2000 years old; in much of the western world, it’s scarcely a few hundred years old — in other parts of the West, quite a bit less. In the Mideast & other parts of the world, it’s one helluva lot less than that (if at all, even today).
When you’ve read the gospels, you’ll have your answer to that question. Not until.
He didn’t. That was somebody Else’s work.
Very obviously, He’s saying get the straight story for yourself; don’t rely on ANYBODY else to give it to you straight. [Du-uh!]
@ bernard ross:
And I keep telling YOU that I don’t believe your claim of ‘not needing’ to read NT as your true & actual reason for not reading it. I think you’re lying. I think you’re terrified of reading it. I think you’ve built up a whole house of cards on a bogey man, which simply cannot afford for you to read NT. And all your elaborate analogyzing to Nazis, thieves, KKK, etc, ad naus., is plainly & simply a crock.
You’re kidding yourself. Aside from one or two others at any given time, the ‘forum’ doesn’t even read your posts in this matter, dude. You’ve become a known quantity, and it’s a thoroughly tiresome & crankish one.
In fact if it weren’t so important to your compulsive ego to keep hoping against hope that something you toss at the wall wrt me will stick, even YOU would be too bored with your own old shticklach to continue with them. As it is, nothing you throw ever ends up sticking except in your own fantasies.
You speak only for yourself. Intelligent persons leave what they do not know for fact as an open question.
“…and would consider it like me both libelous and blasphemous.”
I’ve seen so much libel & blasphemy from you that I couldn’t care less what you think. And I daresay, other readers agree with me in that regard.
There is NO ‘certainty’ of any sort in your remark.
Logic had nothing to do with your remark.
— QTC, in fact, you again are begging the question; viz., you assume as ‘fact’ matters unestablished to BE fact.
I’ve never swindled anybody in my life
— and I’ve not lied on this blogsite.
This isn’t a dinner party; it’s a blogsite. Get over yourself.
I am a Jew here, and there isn’t a shred of doubt in my mind that what I’ve said — in the way I’ve said it — is INDEED thoroughly Jewish.
@ yamit82:
What question was that?
— If the antecedent question is not identified, how can it be ‘fair’???
If you don’t provide the continuity for your own question, don’t expect me to go hunting for it; that’s your responsibility.
Since WHAT is not in NT?
What all readers can readily see is that your QUESTION is not cogent.
@ bernard ross:
Lame and evasive, as usual. If THEY can’t define it, then they don’t understand it any more than you do. The only difference is that most Jews would have more sense than to use such terms at all.
YOU wouldn’t notice ANYTHING you didn’t want to notice.
They have. You’ve got a mouse; use it.
@ bernard ross:
Hinge or no hinge, it’s entirely sufficient unto itself — unless, and until, you can produce contemporaneous accounts of a contrary nature. Till then, it stands.
This from somebody who’s never had the discipline — or the balls — to read it for himself.
Truth to tell, your remarks are the fiction around here. And chutzpadik fiction at that.
Oh, yes, there is. Yet even if there weren’t, what would that prove? It would STILL leave you with nothing more than the argument from silence — which cannot, in its nature, be conclusive.
Suppose you show ME some external corroboration for the proposition that the one true sovereign Lord of the universe promised Eretz Cana’an to the Jews — and moreover, promised it to them unconditionally and in perpetuity.
Moreover, since you won’t even acknowledge that He’s self-existent, how do you know He’s eternal and even able to keep such a promise?
And while you’re at it, tell me why that Lord, if He is omnipotent as you say, should be bothered to keep His word to the Jews (or to anybody else).
— As you’ve noted (many, many times), He can do what He pleases, so why must He be ‘limited’ by the notion that He should keep His word?
Show me one “NT god mating narrative” of mine. Produce the actual, unedited post w/ its unedited context intact.
And how, exactly, would they go about doing that?
Why would you believe them — just because they said it?
Some have. Some have not.
Hardly. They would not be ‘worshipping’ ANY man, and he most certainly never asked
or suggested them to.
THAT Jew had no ‘jew killers’ — but there IS the occasional foreskin-festooned dickhead who slanders him that way.
If you could establish the gospel narrative to BE a ‘fairy tale,’ you might be able to say something like that. But you’ve not done anything of the kind. You’re left with nothing but warmed-over versions of the same empty, crankish claims you always make. You’ve got nothing.
The 2000 years since clearly show that some do; some don’t.
What need would that be? I have no such need as regards other persons recognizing what I recognize. What you believe or disbelieve means nothing whatsoever to me; I can take it or leave it — told you that numerous times.
In fact, the only need I see here is YOUR need to persuade yourself that you are a true Jew after the life you’ve lived until now.
And you think that if you can convince the other bloggers here of that proposition, then you can believe it yourself — because you sense (quite correctly, as it happens) that you have no independent, interior core of identity. Consequently, dumping on anybody who doesn’t conform to the control profile — Huff’n’puff’s — is an integral part of the program. It can’t work though, because his shmutziker little secret is that his OWN interior core is no more ‘Jewish’ than yours. . . .
The truth is, you’re on your own. (As is he.)
And you’re a fake — a fake’s fake.
You’re begging the question again. I’ve never had ANY conundrum whatsoever (let alone, a problem) over Jewish attestation. I’ve asked for your definition of the phrase as you use it, so as to put us both on the same page to discuss it. You fear defining it, because you sense (again, correctly) that if we were on the same page, I’d wind up taking you apart like a jigsaw puzzle.
It’s you who has the problem of Jewish attestation, since you clearly have no clue as to the essence & meaning of ‘Jewish.’ The most you can do is to, effectively, say that ‘it isn’t christian’ — that’s all you can do. Pitiful.
bernard ross Said:
READ MORE
dweller Said:
LOL, when folks write fairy tales of gods catalyzing womens wombs and having jewish messiah sons there is no “entitlement to the presumption of veracity” that it actually occurred and as you can see that not a jew gave those assertions any “presumption of veracity” for the ensuing 2000 years, the Jews continued with their own narrative and ignored the christian narrative as false. They obviously took the authors to be novelists.
dweller Said:
whoever wrote it wrote fiction and this fact still stands:bernard ross Said:
In 2000 years no jewish attestion of support of the NT as factual.
dweller Said:
LOL, do you expect the Jews to be slaughtered by your associates when they say that your stories of gods mating women created our jewish messiah are fiction? In 2000 years no Jew has attested or supported the claim that the G_D of Israel had a son with a women and that son was the Jewish messiah. the Jews have firmly rejected that this ever took place. If they had accepted, attested to, supported or advocated those mythologies as facts they would now have already been worshipping your nitri and his jew killers. Some fairy tale written 2000 years ago is not Jewish attestaion… the 2000 years since clearly show that jews reject this as fact. Only your need for recognition of your nitri allows you to arrive here with your cartoon stories of gods in unions with women and pooping out jewish messiahs. a ludicrous story that only a non jew could market.
nothing has changed show me one jew who has attested to the facts of your NT god mating narratives other than the characters in your fairy tale. blah blah blah… this is fact:
bernard ross Said:
its your problem if you cannot solve your conundrum of what jewish attestation would be over a 2000 year period. I am sure you only have one example of “jewish attestation or support for the NT as factual” over 2000 years and that is your NT (LOL): the fairy tale given to YOU by the christians.
@ bernard ross:
I’ve asked you to define ‘Jewish attestation or support,’ as you use the term.
So far, however, lots of verbiage; lots of song-&-dance.
But no definition.
Yet you keep on using the expression.
You’re a joke.
QTC, I’m the one blogger on Chit Chat who has no trouble understanding the word.
Correct.
No difficulty whatsoever, and you rather obviously ‘understand’ nothing. I arrived at the clear distinction betw Judaism & Xty even BEFORE I ever encountered the Nicene Creed OR the remarks of Nachmanides in the matter. It is YOU (and your fellow tag-team shlemiel) who aren’t so clear on the concept.
What everyone on this site understands is that you’re being evasive . Furthermore, most readers of this site have stopped even reading your posts on Chit Chat, as there is only so much of a crank they can handle, especially after his stuff has long since turned tiresomely repetitive & crashingly boring.
First define your phrase “Jewish attestations and support.”
If you can’t, then your claims are pointless and meaningless.
Ultimately it most certainly DOES so attest. Until you put us on the same page and define the phrase you introduced and continue using, anybody can define it as they please. Ball remains in your court.
Frankly I sympathize with your predicament; you painted yourself into a corner by hauling out that awkward & cumbersome phrase, as well as the equally problematic one before it, “Jewish sources.” But as long as you insist on using the term — in either form, or in yet some other comparable one — you will be stuck with this most intractable problem of your own making.
What we have, at present, to go with is quite simple: NT was written by observant Judean & Anatolian Jews who were disciples of JC, a fact which is freely & ungrudgingly acknowledged by the present-day Jewish community & its cultural AND religious leadership.
Thus far, no contemporaneous literature of the era has been adduced which ‘contradicts’ what those Jewish authors wrote. Accordingly their remarks are entitled to the presumption of veracity, and if you wish to challenge them you (or anyone sharing your position) must bear the burden of proof in the doing.
dweller Said:
I know, you told me, that your latest descriptive version was:
do you really believe that description is any less ludicrous to Jews
😛 😛 😛 😛 LOLROF
dweller Said:
😛 😛 😛 😛
As you are completely devoid of any sense of humor you are unable to discern the facetious ridicule of using the term “pooping” to describe your ludicrous narrative, I also toggle between pooping and popping to spice up the ridicule. When you arrive at a Jewish venue and market your ludicrous narratives of gods mating, fathering, having unions, catalysing the process of development of the womb, with or in women you should prepare yourself for ridicule as befits your ludicrous cartoons. Not to worry as I do that for the other readers as I know you are clueless.
bernard ross Said:
dweller Said:
RUBBISH… everyone here knows that if you do not agree with part of a statement like this you reply to it. You had no problem with the word “UNION” at that time ONLY with the adjective “Hebrew” in front of woman. E,G. the next example I gave you, you clearly disagreed with part of it and so stated AS YOU USUALLY DO.
bernard ross Said:
here you niggled about saying it was “before”, you fake!
If you had disagreed with the word “UNION” at that time you would have said so. You now realize how ludicrous your god and woman stories are to Jews so you are seeking to tone it down and obfuscate the narratives absurdity.
Over and over I show this forum what a liar you are and your ludicrous denials fool no one, only you.
@ bernard ross:
You and Huff’n’puff.
No lie. The statement was yours. I merely addressed the specific point you were ignoring. There is no way I would characterize the virgin birth/conception as a ‘union.’ To say that I did is ITSELF a lie. I repeat: show me a single instance of my using that kind of language (‘union’ or ‘mating’) in such a context. You can’t; I’ve never used it, not once in my life.
And I repeat the characterization once again: the virgin birth/conception was in no way a ‘union’ or a ‘mating.’ No way that could happen w/ a non-physical & non-corporeal and thus non-sexual being having no need for a ‘mate.’
The fact that you persistently refer to the birthing of any child as “a woman pooping it out” — you’ve repeated it nearly 20 times — speaks VOLUMES to your actual (as distinct from feigned) attitude toward women.
@ bernard ross:
QUESTION was fair
— and that this entitled his question to a REAL answer (as distinct from a merely cutesy one). Question deserves a real responsible response……
Since it’s NOT in your NT what is the source if not you????
Don’t expect any answer no less a cogent one from you but all readers should see you for what you are. 😛
dweller Said:
You said the same thing about the word christian and then you denied my submission. Most Jews here understand what the word jewish means in relation to my simple statement
Bernard Ross Said:
If there were any Jewish attestation for the NT and the story of the Hebrew G-D begetting a son with a woman who was the jewish messiah I think we would have noticed over the 2000 years; some rabbis might have written of their attestation and support as we have many jewish attestations including those heresies considered contrary to Judaism, like shabtai zvi, etc.
Bernard Ross Said:
LOL 😛 😛 😛 😛
DUH???? certainly I am not discussing Jewish attestation and support for the NT as non-factual( fiction, fairy tale,mythology, novella,bullshit story, etc etc etc)
If I were making a statement about the non factual fairy tale aspect of the NT I would instead have to state almost the opposite:
There is oodles of Jewish attestation and support for the NT as FICTION.
dweller Said:
it appears that the one word you have trouble understanding in the simple phrase is the word “JEWISH”. apparently you need to know what I mean by Jewish in order to say whether there is any JEWISH attestation or support for the NT as factual. I have come to understand that you have a difficulty determining the difference between Judaism and Christianity. I believe that in the context of my statement that you might be the only Jew on this site or anywhere that would have trouble understanding my statement because they do not understand the meaning of Jewish. Let me help you to understand, the following statement is definitely NOT Jewish:
I believe that every one on this site understands my simple statement insofar as being able to agree or disagree and provide support for their conclusion. I feel no need to define judaism, who is a jew, what is jewish etc etc etc. We all know that leads nowhere which is perhaps why you clung to it. I already went through this with you when you asked me what I meant by christian: you denied my 3 submitted dictionary definitions defining them as followers of Jesus saying they had to follow the Nicene creed and when I submitted that the christians persecuted the Jews for 2000 years you denied they were christians even though they beleived in the Nicene creed and self identified as christians over 2000 years including popes, priests, church orgs. etc. You removed billions of self professed christians from their identification. It is obvious that you do this to obufuscate.
Perhaps you should decide for yourself what you think “Jewish” means and if you then disagree with my statement provide your Jewish attestations and support for the facts of the NT.
Since the advent of the NT I have read of nor been shown any Jewish attestation or support that the NT is factual. Sure there are likely to be fringe groups like Jews for Jesus but there are also fringe groups of Jewish lunatics and psychotics. Surely almost 2000 years is enough time to determine if there is any Jewish attestation or support for the NT as factual. You hinge your whole argument on your belief that Jews authored the NT but even if true that does not attest to Jewish attestation or support of its truth. Therefore, I continue to state that with which I believe every Jew on this site will agree:
bernard ross Said:
if you believe otherwise then submit your examples and reason for your belief, don’t bother with this red herring tactic of asking questions as a distraction. Man up, agree or disagree and state your argument other than the claim that the NT was written by Jews. So far I have only seen you submit the NT being written by Jews as being Jewish attestation to it as factual as opposed to a novel.
bernard ross Said:
bernard ross Said:
Bernard Ross Said:
🙂
And WHO are these imbeciles and perverts who said your god had a union with a woman??? HMMMMMMM.
dweller Said:
🙂
Bernard Ross Said:
Liar alert?
BTW you can also add the following to the many versions of your gospel/NT narrative that you keep marketing here of your god begetting Jewish messiahs with a woman:
dweller Said:
😛 😛 😛 😛 take your pick of your god mating women stories from the menu below but remember to add the latest one:
bernard ross Said:
dont forget to add the latest one 😛 😛 😛
@ bernard ross:
Yes, but you leave your term, “jewish attestation or support,” undefined.
So your assertion is meaningless.
@ bernard ross:
Did not make it up.
As to whether it’s in NT, you’ll have to read it to find out.
There are few things that I write about without enthusiasm & interest.
I’ve never been driven to such a lame averral.
But then, I know who my listeners are, and aren’t.
@ bernard ross:
“Union” is strictly your word. So is “mating.”
No way I would’ve used language even remotely approximating that; no way, no how.
— Show me the specific post where I supposedly said anything like that. (This should be good; can’t wait to see what you come up with.)
Nope. Absolutely couldn’t be a pagan god. Pagan gods were all corporeal & physical, had sexual apparatuses, sexual appetites, and human failings.
The Most High has NONE of those attributes,and it’s an outrage to ascribe any of them to Him.
The Most High does not ‘mate’; nor has He any need for a ‘mate.’
Of course; but’ve already established that you didn’t have the brains of a dime-store dildo.
Horse pucky. It is you who libel Him — as it is YOU who wilfully & persistently attribute lewd and lascivious acts to Him, after being carefully & steadfastly shown that He is neither a sexual nor even a physical being.
Your persistent misrepresentation of my remarks makes patently clear that it is YOUR ‘god’ — not mine — who is the pagan putz
— and who is quite evidently created in your own image.
@ mrg3105:
You don’t read attentively, Sir.
I didn’t say he was entitled to fairness from you. I said his QUESTION was fair
— and that this entitled his question to a REAL answer (as distinct from a merely cutesy one).
You are much mistaken; that is NOT my ‘game.’
There ARE those who post on this site, and on this page specifically, who do INDEED incline toward that little pastime to which you allude.
But I am not among them.
Then again, however, if you could so readily miss the point, as you did, in the remark blockquoted atop this post, then I surely cannot feign shock that you would so easily misread my intentions more generally.
Why would you wish me ‘luck’ at such a task, if you find the house of such limited value?
I daresay the numbers constitute a “few” more than the ‘few’ to whom you refer. You acknowledge, after all, that there are substantially fewer than “few” in your OWN acquaintance.
“God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise.”
Define “evidence” as you employ the term.
Quite so; however, as presently constituted, Israel is no more equipped to testify
— than the Goyim are ready to receive testimony.
@ yamit82:
Not hardly.
But then, he rarely (if ever) does give answers — let alone, real ones.
Lacks the intellectual discipline (to say nothing of the intellectual courage) to do so.
You cannot identify a matter or process by merely characterizing it as the “contrary” of another one unless you positively identify the other one at the same time. He didn’t.
It’s as if somebody asked me the name of my eldest son, and I answered, ‘It’s the name belonging to the one who isn’t the youngest.’
You may find that acceptable.
But my guess would be that if it hadn’t been YoursTruly that challenged it
— YOU wouldn’t have found it very satisfactory either.
@ bernard ross:
Define “Jewish attestation or support.”
Two out of three, so far. Should I be impressed?
{“Factual” was not part of the phrase for which I asked your definition. You only offered it as a distracting substitute for the third, as yet unaddressed, element, “Jewish.” But of course, it CANNOT substitute for it.}
‘Tactic’???
Translation: This is strictly Mr Ross’s OWN weasel-way of trying to cover his exposed arse from the obvious fact that he has left a key element of the phrase — arguably the crucial element in it — undefined.
He assumes that a reader will let this cutesy little exercise of his imply that he has been forthcoming thus far — kind of like the way the Mullahs have been ‘forthcoming’ in negotiating their nuclear ambitions
— and let him quietly slide the rest of the way home. (TEHRAN may have reason to think it can skate, but BR is much mistaken.)
I continue to await the full definition of the term as you use it, Weasel: “Jewish attestation & support.”
@ bernard ross:
I am nothing of the kind. Not on this blogsite I’m not.
What I asked you for was your definition of “Christian sources ” (and for the same reason) since you had introduced the expression into the exchange & used the expression profusely w/o ever defining it. You like playing this game of introducing language that you can use to control the direction of discourse, because the words remain undefined.
Homey DON’T play that shit. . . .
No, I noted that contemporary lexicographers are at best sloppy & at worst disingenuous (to say nothing of breathtakingly arrogant) in that for a technical matter like this, they consulted with everybody EXCEPT those who, as an ideologically definable group, actually apply the term in a systematic way to themselves.
— YOU spent three weeks defending that dictionary drivel because — and only because — you found it rhetorically convenient (despite its intellectual dishonesty).
Meanwhile you never did give me your definition of “Christian sources,” as you use it.
Instead, after receiving MANY such requests for your definition, you finally said of “Christian sources,” that they are “sources which are christian” — a stupifyingly lame remark which was no definition at all, not only because it used the phrase to define itself, but also — & more significantly
— because it expedited your persistent weaseling out of my question (asked numerous times) about those independent, non-church-affiliated scholars who simply specialize in NT studies as an academic discipline: — would they constitute “Christian sources” by your reckoning?
There was never any issue of my not understanding what the dictionary says about ANY phrase — and you knew that all along. The issue was your USE of the expression “Jewish attestation and support” as you use it — and I’m still awaiting your definition. Stop evading the question — and quit insulting a reader’s intelligence.