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.
@ honeybee:
‘Gallantry’?— on what planet???
Even a Twinkie can’t so dense as to miss what he’s about. There wasn’t a stitch of ‘gallantry’ in what he wrote, or in anything else he’s written to (or about) you. His persistent demand for the definition of “Twinkie” isn’t about you, and you’d be kidding yourself big time if you let yourself believe it is.
It’s NEVER been about you; it’s always been about ME. He kisses up to you to keep you available as his instrument, his tool for these recurrent attempts of his to marginalize me for my observations of his motives.
He is a malicious, vindictive creep who found himself a “cause” a few years ago — Israel & the Jewish people — to use as an outlet for his hatred. Well, Israel doesn’t NEED that. But again, it’s not even about Israel. “Israel” is his vehicle, just as you are. This is one desperately sick puppy.
‘Gallantry,’ indeed — get real, HB.
@ bernard ross:
I haven’t been following closely your progression till now.
Would you say he plagiarized is attributions?
dweller Said:
The quote you put here was first cited by me and is not the original quote of yours which I matched with the Jews for Jesus site. this shows the lengths to which you will go to deceive. the above quote which I first cited did indeed come from pg 175 of the “universal Jewish Encyclopedia AND from the Jews for Jesus website but it was not the quote I was comparing to your quote. Here is how it really went before your xtian, pauline, revision and “marketing”:
dweller Said:
That was the complete original citation of yours…….
here is what I compared your citation with….bernard ross Said:
the above portion of my quote from the Jews for jesus website was the quote I compared with your plus the footnote which refers to the supposed Jewish source you pretended to quote. The quote I compared with yours ONLY APPEARED ON THE JEWS FOR JESUS WEBSITE AND DID NOT APPEAR IN THE “UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA”.. the portions immediately following the quote I compared with yours appeared both on the JFJ website and the jewish source but that quote did not in any way compare to your assertions which you now pretend to claim as the support for your original quote:
bernard ross Said:
your devious use of my citation, pretending it supported your assertion is typical of your marketing. It is obvious that you never read the source supplied by Jews for Jesus but instead just rephrased the Jews for Jesus statement to form your original bogus “citation”. The reason you used my quote was because there was nothing on pg 175 of your source that resembled your assertion, it only appeared on the Jews for jesus site. therefore, after the fact, you had to run back and use my citation instead of the one which appeared immediately before my citation on the JFJ website which actually most closely resembled your own. You have proven that you quoted the Jews for Jesus website as your source for your still unsupported assertions.
dweller Said:
LOL, its obvious that you got it from JFJ website without reading the source until after I quoted the source, which did not support your assertions. Your assertion was almost verbatim lifted from the JFJ site along with their footnote from pg 174. It is ludicrous to assert that you found this same generic comment hidden among the thousands of pages of the 12 volume “universal jewish encyclopedia” and that the JFJ and you referenced the same page by coincidence and that you both coincidentally cited the same meaningless generic phrase. But you did not even use JFJ citation from that source until after I did but you instead used the JFJ conclusion which only appeared on their site. Even the way you wrote the footnote was done with all the same markings and format as on the JFJ website. What are thchances that Jews for Jesus and you would use exactly the same format for a footnote reference 😛 😛 😛
😛 😛 😛
You have proven yourself to be a serial and chronic liar who knows no limits in deceit.
What a ludicrous and transparent fraud you are.
Using all the same techniques and deceptions as Paul, the church, and Jews for Jesus to fool us all here for years.
LOL, what a pathetic figure..
dweller Said:
duh obviously…. since they hijacked the jewish bible for their foundatinstone they must obviously find a way to prove that their myths are “supported” by the Jewish bible. DUH,, thats why they spent 2000 years burning jewish books, erasing the real history, revising it and killing the jewish witnesses to their continuing crime. Their myths cannot exist without knowledge of the jewish bible and judaism. That is why they spend so much effort to prop up their myths including supplying your Jews for jesus cult with arguments to counter the Jews. this does not prove that the myths existed nor that the creators of the NT were commited Jewish writers as you assert. those who spend 2000 years proping up their lies have invested a great deal of energy and resources to revise and recreate their myths. Many of them know more about Judaism and the Jewish bible than Jews themselves, but this only proves the massive extent of their despicable endeavors. Your evidence and support is devoid of fact and relies on christian heresay and myth, you give no historical factual basis nor a basis in jewish writings of the time, you merely quote a dhimmi reformed jewish source of this era whose info is filtered by the environment in which he lives. the fact that you have used this deceptive MO for your citations is proof of your character and makes your claim of being a Jew no more credible than the RC priest who studies hebrew, the jewish bible and judaism in order to revise it and support their xtian agenda. There is no denying their 2000 year effort agianst judaism and the Jews so why would you go to them, as a “Jew”?
dweller Said:
a transparent attempt to accuse me of what you are accused. the difference is that there are no examples here of my being derisive, abusive, misogynist towards women on this forum whereas you have a repeated record, of which the use of the word “Twinkie” is merely the latest and most obvious. your record and mine speak for themselves and I leave that comparison for the other posters here to decide between the two of us as to who is the misogynist women hater here.
dweller Said:
Your “jewish” source, which you have now found after being caught using Jews for Jesus site and lifting their footnote, has already discredited their opinion in their own mission statement as I already quoted here earlier:
bernard ross Said:
this reform Jewish source was like many other brainwashed sources whose main mission was to escape the xtian nutters bent on slaughtering jews and burning their books. This was not a statement of historical fact as the author gave no such specific references for such in the following footnotes. But rather a reflection, like your own, of the environment in which the repeatedly abused jews lived. The author died in 1946. We have evidence of Elizabeth and Julius Ceasar outside the christian church but there is no evidence of the early christian gospel characters as portrayed in the NT. A 2000 year history of hostile revisionism should be enough to persuade a real Jew of the nature of the source. This is why you must be deceptive in pretending to cite credible sources. You used as your primary source the Jews for Jesus website from which you lifted their footnote which did not in fact corroborate your assertions.
However, your point wrt to the NT being created by “committed Jewish writers”, although unsupported in evidence is not even relevant. We have examples today of “committed Jewish writers” spreading known lies about Israel and the jews which resemble the christian blood libels of old. These same Jews are in a christian and secular environments which restricts their information in the same way that the christian network of 2000 years filtered the information to the population, christians and Jews alike. Therefore, even Jews can spread the christian myths, especially frightened Jews of the diaspora bit their opinions are not backed by historical fact. The question remains as to why an educated Jews would use such sources for his information, but your reliance on Jews for jesus gives that answer.
here is a more sensible source for your NT myths supplied by yamit which is Jewish and which is using historical fact as its basis unlike the “jewish source” you pretended to cite when you actually quoted from Jews for Jesus website.
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
why would a self professed Jew use christian sources and Jews for Jesus rather than Jewish sources?
dweller Said:
His submissions were sufficient to prove his points, he has done it here countless times, each time you come back with the same tired Jews for Jesus arguments that he has already totally debunked. sometimes quoting chapter and verse is clear enough, it is the christian interpretations you so love which revise the Jewish bible.
dweller Said:
already repeatedly shown and proven here over years with no need to repeat the operation because you pretend it never happened. Paul was demonstrated to be intentionaly deceptive in order to propagate his agenda, you called his deceptions “marketing” which is exactly the same MO you use when promoting your Jews for Jesus agenda. That is why I usually humorously refer to your lies as “marketing”.
dweller Said:
YOU are NOT the first Jew so your analogy is your usual deception. you have thousands of years of Jewish sources to read and give credibility and instead you choose sources which have thousands of years of libeleing, swindling, defaming, torturing and even slaughtering Jews. What sort of “Jew” would use Mein Kampf as a source?
dweller Said:
christianity has made a 2000 year project of “knowing their way around Judaism”. They have made countless efforts to shore up their conflicts with the Jewish bible in order to prop up their mythical narratives. Burning Jewish writings and sources was one of their methods of removing the Jewish truth and killing the Jewish witnesses to their lies was another. This is their proven MO and therefore as a source for Jews they must be considered highly suspect. However, they appear to be your source through the Jews for Jesus cult whose site you use as your source.
@ Huff’n’puff:
Four claims — each-and-every-one of them dead wrong. (Also off-point.)
I said HB was the snitch.
Wrong again; never happened. Told you, I don’t snitch.
YOU prove it all the time by the vehemence of your response.
I should be nobody to you. (I know, I know; you’ll say that I am nobody to you, but that’s bravado) — but the evidence is otherwise, and you know it.
Who & what I am should roll off you like water off of a duck’s back. It doesn’t.
YOU ‘appointed’ me.
Shitty poker player too, apparently.
So you admit to being a psychopath? (That ‘s what it means to have no conscience.)
“Normal people???” — ROFLMAOBSST!
@ Huff’n’puff:
You wrote a completely different word without thinking; it wasn’t merely a spelling error, but an error in diction, and one which affected meaning.
Would that make you feel even better than telling yourself I was a fegeleh? It was sometime during the late 1950’s, fool. I was probably no more than 5 years older than the kid on the show and schools were closed that day because of a heavy snow storm. I must say, you have a magnificent sense of humor. . .
Repeat: It is neither compulsive nor a fetish, and I am fully confident that the posting record will bear ME out. If you think otherwise, produce the record and we’ll see. I think you’re just overly sensitive. Personally I’m always happy to be corrected when I make an error of diction (deliberate OR inadvertent) if the correction would keep me from being otherwise misunderstood.
Horseshit. It’s anybody’s call who catches it. Get a clue.
If that’s true, I’ve been missing countless OTHER, lesser opportunities to do so that I routinely overlook.
You don’t know that; all you KNOW is that they don’t speak up.
Lotsa possibilities. Maybe they didn’t read the article. Maybe they read the article, but not the replies. Maybe they read the article, and some replies, but not that one. Maybe they read that reply but they missed the error without realizing it was an error.
Maybe they saw it was an error, but somebody else noticed it first and pointed it out. Maybe they noticed the error but were afraid of getting chewed out by the ungrateful, insecure, small-minded dingbat they thought to correct — especially since he was somebody whose approbation they needed — so they yielded to fear & chickened out. Any number of possibilites. ¿Quién sabe?
If I ‘can’t help myself,’ there can’t be much value in pursuing the matter, can there?
My comment DOES speak for itself, but ‘paranoid psychosis’ is just your psychobabbly spin on it. I’m not here ‘because’ you’re here.
— I’m here in spite of your being here.
That’s makes me something of an anomaly around this site (as well as a target). But I can handle it.
@ Huff’n’puff:
Well, of course I haven’t. And of course I can’t — not in the available time. Scott Nelson may have taken five hrs (or, for that matter, five months) to research, draft & edit his essay. And you want me to reply to it in five MINUTES??? And then how do I follow up with questions to him if he’s not here?
Do I do that with you? — Do I take somebody else’s essay for my own argument and lay it on you? — NO. I write my own words and make my own arguments.
I told you: If you want me to debate Scott Nelson, get him online, so I can question him, and we’ll go from there; I’m game. If you want me to debate you, then you make your case (or anybody else’s case, I don’t care) IN YOUR OWN WORDS — and I’ll respond in MY own words. But I won’t address you on behalf of him — or him on behalf of you.
So far, you’ve made no case for Paul as ‘liar.’ You’ve talked ABOUT doing so, but you haven’t DONE it. That’s the bottom line.
Unless they are a delusional sick liar like you, they can see that YOU haven’t raised any points.
No. Once again, the only thing you’ve done many times frontward and backward up and down is to SAY that you made the case for Paul as ‘liar.’ But you’ve never actually done it. I’ve been WAITING for you to, so I can respond.
What ‘text’ are you talking about? If you mean Paul’s text, that won’t do. You must say what you think of it and why. That’s the argument — YOUR text (alongside the verses). But I’m still waiting to see your text ‘speak for itself.” I’ve seen other people’s texts in this matter, but not yours.
Dunno what this remark is supposed to mean. It’s unattached to anything in your post. I’ll have to have some immediate context to address it.
@ Huff’n’puff:
No. I told you, Rom 3:10 is theological, but the reference to Psalm 14 was rhetorical, not doctrinal.
He did nothing of the sort. And you’re fullovit on both counts. (This is your idea of an argument?????) — All you’re doing here is paying off your bar bill with BR by using the word “swindled” in a sentence. You prop each other up; sick, and so transparent.
I’ve quoted Mark Twain on myriad occasions — for his writing style and his sense of humor. But I’ve never used him as an ‘authority’ on ANYTHING. If you think I have, then PRODUCE THE POST.
At your service. All it took was one click at bottom of that page, where it reads, “Return to outline.” It’s obviously Nelson’s own website. But even if it really had NO stated attribution, you could have still let it be known that it wasn’t your own work by putting it in quotes or linking to it. You did NEITHER.
Another flat-out lie. Your post (#13, prev pg) leaves no doubt that you lifted much of his argument, along WITH the scripture quotes.
@ bernard ross:
I don’t belong to any church; never have —but if there is one that has homos who fondle little boys, you should be right at home there.
@ bernard ross:
“Replicated” my response??? That’s a direct quote from the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia ITSELF, jerk. I quoted a much larger chunk of it earlier.
If it was on JFJ website, then they got it from the BOOK, same as I did — you imbecilic twit.
@ mar55:
SHOW me the ‘lie.’
The biggest lie here is the claim that I’ve ‘lied.’
The ONLY reason you make the claim is that you feel threatened — by the truth.
You are a disgrace to conservatism.
@ bernard ross:
The classic definition antedates the net by over a quarter century. What you ‘have’ is nothing. And that’s all yu’re gonna get.
She IS a Twinkie. More significantly, she’s content to remain one.
Oh, right. That makes lotsa sense. “HB as a male homosexual” — LOLROF.
Forget it, slimey. You’re just not getting it out of me. You don’t get to control the direction of discourse.
That’s right. Because it’s none of your damned business.
It is obviously nothing of the sort. I’m not the misogynist around here. And never have been.
NOR do you know that I’ve smeared anybody. I’ve shown you the meaning of the word smear, and you’ve YET to show how anything I’ve said or done here so much as remotely fills that bill — while I have clearly shown YOU to be a Past Master of smearing.
“Gay”? — only if, by that, you mean cheerful & carefree.
“Young”? — (I guess I should be flattered.)
“Effeminate” — ROFLMAOBSST!
It’s obvious what you want, but you can’t get it from me. Toldja, slimey: You’ll just have to find something else to suck on. Either that, or change your nasty ways.
@ bernard ross:
Any writer of history — real or counterfactual — will tell you that’s one helluva lot harder to do than it sounds. It may have occurred in isolated instances at the time of COMPILATION (4th century) — not at the time of actual, 1st century DRAFTING (whose authenticity has been pored over & generally confirmed). I’ve long suspected some tampering in a few places. But there’s no way that sort of thing could be sustained over major parts of the writings. More significantly, though, NT is a largely metaphysical document, not subject to such concoction. Wigoder seems to concur:
“Modern scholars are of the view that attitudes of the period of the editing were interjected into the [existing] Gospel stories.”
[Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion (1999), Zvi Werblowsky, Geoffrey Wigoder, eds., p. 502]
So your primary problem is that the sources are Christian? I gave you a Jewish one but you found the numbest of reasons to ignore it. Here are some direct quotes from it:
“In its present form, the New Testament is written in Greek, although it is possible that some of the books were originally in Aramaic. Most of the writers of the various parts were Jews … The authors drew more or less from contemporary Jewish ideas, ethics, legends, parables, and sayings.
“The New Testament cannot be understood without a knowledge of the Judaism of the times, a fact recognized by both Christian and Jewish scholars. Thus, in the case of many of the sayings of Jesus, it is possible to arrive at a more exact meaning by reconstructing the original Aramaic or Hebrew in which they were uttered. Because of the large proportion of Jewish ideas and the fact that so many Jews participated in its writing, the New Testament may be reasonably regarded as a part of Jewish literature… [p. 174]
“…The New Testament was much read in the early church, restricted to the clergy during the Middle Ages, and restored to the people by the Protestant Reformation. Modern antisemitism tries to eliminate the New Testament as a Jewish literary product from the religious life of mankind with almost the same fervor as it seeks to ban the Hebrew Bible…” [p. 175]
[Rabbi Ernst I. Jacob, in The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol 8 (New York: Ktav, 1969)]
Then there is this:
“The Greek in the New Testament includes some Hebrew phrases and idioms because most of the New Testament writers were Jews.”
[World Book Encyclopedia, 1995 ed., vol. 14, p. 287]
@ bernard ross:
Nonsense. I challenged his countless failures to ever make an argument. All he did was cite chapters & verses, w/o arguing a position or interpretation at all.
The only discussion he EVER offered consisted of other people’s remarks plagiarized often in their entirety. Those writers might’ve spent 5 hours (or even 5 months) drafting the article which he offered as his own argument — and I’m supposed to spend 5 MINUTES responding? to somebody who isn’t even available for questioning???
When he’s ready to make his case in his own words, it will be my fondest delight to demonstrate how to convert a brief into confetti.
What ‘rebuttals’??? There was nothing to rebut. He never made a case. You would know that if you had followed the thread. I am STILL waiting for him to make a single argument in the matter.
WHAT ‘arguments’??? SHOW me some!! He never made any, ‘convincing’ or otherwise.
You see? — Your dirty little secret is that you’re so insecure in your Jewishness that you DAREN’T allow yourself an open mind to explore the matter. You’re terrified of the prospect. All you’re doing here is reestablishing your tuchas-lakhing bona fides w/ Huff’n’puff by supporting his
paper -thin claims.
WHAT ‘DECEITFUL BEHAVIORS’ OF PAUL’S?
— SHOW ME SOME.
dweller Said:
Classic symptoms of acute paranoia!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlV3oQ3pLA0
dweller Said:
That’s your example? I saw a criminal getting away with a crime and exposed him to the authorities. Called good act of civil responsibility to bring the bad guys to goal.
I just exposed to the authorities how vile a skunk you are. Authority agreed and thanked me. You were and still are the villain. A despicable malignant villain to be sure.
A snitch is
snitch
1. A person who tells on someone.
2. A bum of a person.</strong
Someone who gives up incriminating evidence to people they have no business talking to in the first place. N/A
Someone who freely gives up information about a friend or acquaintance to a higher authority who will use that information against said friend/acquaintance.
You are no friend or acquaintance. I owe you shit!!!!
Someone that lies to save their ass. N/A
But in the past you snitched on me when threatened with moderation and rebuke from Ted.
Like Jesus I did!!!! 🙂
Prove it!!!!!!
dweller Said:
I don’t want to silence you I want to mock you!! You are my entertainment on this blog. You are my dog who I manipulate like a marionette. I know in advance how you will react to every stimuli I supply you. I even know pretty much what you will say in advance. You are my pet dog Fido you are so Pavlovian that you react on cue every time.
I am a better chess player than you and I am a shitty player.
That’s how bad and predictable you are. I rely on your sick obsessive compulsive madness and it works really works. 🙂
It’s not about who I ‘am’; it’s about what I symbolize to you?? Had to think what or if you symbolized anything to me.
This is what I came up with. Evil, Vile, Malignantly mentally ill, a shallow fraud who has little real knowledge and covers it’s weakness or absence by Bloviation , obfuscation, fabrication, avoidance, sophistry and out of context manipulation.
To sum up you symbolize a crazy,sleazy slime,evil and virulent microbe.
A- I have no conscience as you understand the concept.
BN- More inane psychobabble from a sick Turd? Spare us/me, you are repetitive, boring and 100% in error. You ain’t got a fucking clue becausall you know how to do is to project your own mad views on others with out supporting foundations. You belong in an insane asylum not bloviating with normal people on a blog like this. Should we blame your mother for careless and sloppy toilet training???
Psychobabbke friom a nut job like you we must assume the opposite is the truth. You’ve neve clled one right or accurate to date you can prove and substantiate as correct.
Here we can add one more failure to a long list of dweller flops as and earner and as a man.
Shit dweller anyone can see but you that I used the term smirk as a figure of speech you know (symbolically) whether you actually smirk or not is irrelevant I could have esily said self satisfied and arrogant posturing. I did destroy your posturing for hat it was otherwise you would have had no need to make this response but I knew you would try and you have. To no avail. 😛
Save there is no reason to believe anything you say as you have been show to be a fabricator first class. One must assume that a sponge and a bum would have unresolved dental and medical issues.
@Huff’n’puff
Horse plop. His ‘opinion’ is based on his own acknowledged ignorance.
Mine is based on what I KNOW.
He is part of HB’s problem. And so are you. You both feed it.
Nobody on this site — but NOBODY — has placed himself as the “morality judge & jury” over the commenters here as much as PresentCompany, El Señor Gran Inquisidor himself. But the others are as guilty as you for letting you get away with it. It’s only their insecurity as Jews that sets them up to let you.
@ Huff’n’puff
OH, YES, I HAVE.
Once again:
@ Huff’n’puff
Who ‘appointed’ me? Actually, you did
— inadvertently, TBS, but most certainly.
You won’t silence me.
It’s not about who I ‘am’; it’s about what I symbolize to you
— and that’s your own conscience. THAT’S what’s been “making moral judgments” about you. And THAT’s what you’d like to smash.
@ Huff’n’puff
None you’re willing to let yourself see. But then, most of them are self-inflicted anyway. (You are continuing your downward slide.)
Only in your dreams. And I don’t smirk; that’s purely your own projection. In any case, you can’t lay a glove on me and we both know it. You never have; never could; never will.
Told you long ago: I have all my original teeth, and am in superb physical condition for a man of ANY age — let alone, a 70-year old.
Not much really, if you don’t need them for anything other than preventative maintenance.
@ bernard ross:
It’s obvious that you’ve never lived down the misogyny charge laid at your door; can’t say I’m surprised. But you shouldn’t think you can palm it off onto me; doesn’t work like that, shmendrick. Never has; never will.
In any case, I told you before, this projected homo fantasy of yours has no taker here. My soldier friend simply doesn’t salute for types like you. (Don’t take it personally. He knows what he likes, and you just don’t make the cut.)
You’ll just have to find something else to suck on for comfort till the ‘real’ thing comes along.
@ bernard ross:
I much appreciate your gallantry and I thank you.
yamit82 Said:
looks like we got a live JFJ mole right here on IP who comes here citing the JFJ website as a source to prove that the NT writers were committed Jews. Your link shows that they probably never existed as described but our mole chooses to get his info from a xtian org masquerading as Jews. HMMM?? reminds me of that “marketing” that Paul used.
yamit82 Said:
Depends on what you mean by free !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ honeybee:
Would free stuff work for you???
yamit82 Said:
There are NO freebees, especially one it come to Queenbees.
@ bernard ross:
Enjoy the read!!!!!
🙂 🙂
dweller Said:
You say you talk to him not me. If he ever existed he is dead as a dodo! Saying you talk to the long dead (20000 years) will I hope get you committed for life in a padded cell with free access to a computer. Try it you will love it.
Plenty of freebees!!!!! You like that 🙂
@ yamit82:
Ask him.
You thought right. What I said was reasoned, deliberate, measured — and richly deserved by its target.
Only in yourself.
honeybee Said:
I pursue this because it exposes his MO. it is not just that he refers to you derogatorily but has also done the same to other women here. It is a pattern whereby he ridicules, abuses, psychoanalyzes those who carry a message especially women. His use of the term goes beyond you, it is about him. His definition of his term is unrelated to you, it stands on its own. When someone uses a word there is no reason why that words definition cannot be supplied.
His whole MO is deception and I just showed how he uses Jews for Jesus as a source of info here; he immediately lied about it and said he got it direct from the source itself but his reference is the exact verbatim reference they used. I am tired of his lying here.
bernard ross Said:
Gentle men: Please think of me as a “hot deep fried Twinkie” the kind you can buy at Stock Shows, Fairs and Rodeos. Crusty on the outside, sweet, soft and gooey on the inside.
I don’t mind dweller calling me Twinkie, and I insult him as well.
mar55 Said:
he has been doing it this week. I have unmasked him as a Jews for Jesus fraud when I showed how he lifted his citation source directly from their website. Like muslim taquiyya he obfuscates his deceptions with mountains of garbage posts and quotes. he calls HB Twinkie, it is a derogatory smear and the reason he focuses on the word smear is that he does not want to get caught in another lie where he stated that he never smears. If he continues to deny his lies then according to his sick mind his lies do not exist, similar to the ostrich. but this is not a normal behavior for a HUMAN BEING.
dweller Said:
Red, black or silver.??????????
dweller Said:
the fantasies are all yours as you are the one using the word “Twinkie”, I merely supplied the definition from the net of the term you sling about as a derogatory smear.
perhaps you are gender confused as well as projecting or perhaps it is a freudian slip when you called a woman a “gay effeminate man” or “an object of homosexual desire”? Perhaps you could clear up the reason why you use this derogatory term to address HB?
dweller Said:
I have the fact of your repeatedly calling her twinkie coupled with definitions of Twinkie from the net. In the absence of your providing what you say is YOUR real meaning the dictionary definition of a gay effeminate man is the most relevant. You say you mean a “certain type of woman” but refuse to say what type of woman you mean. Whatever garbage you pile on it is obviously a misogynist derogatory smear and just one more demonstration of your female hating derision. Gender confusion, homosexuality, celibacy as a cover for homosexuality, pedophilia, are hallmarks of the ideology you serve. It is obvious that you do not supply your personal definition because it either does not exist or it would incriminate you, notwithstanding your usual ludicrous denials.
bernard ross Said:
So far, the one who most clearly satisfies the definition of Twinkie is you. 😛
dweller Said:
this was your statement to me:
dweller Said:
Following is a quote from the Jews for Jesus website:
bernard ross Said:
You are an obvious liar as you lifted their footnote citation verbatim to the exact volume and page number in exactly the same format. This demonstrates that your prime source was Jews for jesus and perhaps you never even saw the actual citation as you never supplied the so called citation from page 174(LOL). More importantly than this subject is that you have shown who you really are and that you have deceived us for years. Groups like Jews for Jesus actively seek to use the same Pauline tactics of deception(“marketing”) which you use in an effort to deceive Jews into conversion to your mythical god. They formulate a rebuttal for all the Jewish arguments against their agenda and provide these for their proselytizing membership. As you immediately went to them as your prime source it is likely that you have always been using them as your prime source and that you are likely a proselytizing mole for them here from the beginning. No Jew would use them as their source unless he were one of them. You are unmasked as a fraud here.
dweller Said:
there is no evidence that it wasnt written years later and backdated in order to create the necessary links to Judaism that christianity needed to strengthen its myths. After all, we already know from 2000 years experience that they were a collective of liars and libelers wrt the jews and have and had a continuing motive for lying to preserve their false “credibility”
dweller Said:
the common knoweldge is that Jews baked blood of christians into matzoh, etc and today the common knowledge is that Israel is apartheidl, murders arab children and bakes christian blood into matzoh. relying on common knowledge when that knoweldge was controlled by the christian network is foolish. We already know the extent to which the christian churches would go to revise the truth. The whole story, including the JC narratives, gospel writers, etc appear to have been made up later to revise “history”.
dweller Said:
they went back and revised “history” and the Jewish bible to support their mythologies. I have no idea except through christian sources that any of the characters in their narrative existed as they wrote. They have spent 2000 years libeleing and discrediting the jews and even today are marketing their libels against the Jews. I do not search in the nazi party for the good nazis who might be telling the truth about the Jews so why should I search for my sources among those who follow the xtian ideologies, in their various forms? It is likely that the writers and stories were made up later and revised many times to try to rub out inconsistencies over the 2000 years. There is no reason why those who lied so much about jews should tell the truth about Jews or Judaism.
@ yamit82:
as usual lots of mountainous obfuscating garbage in this post but the bottom line is that Yamit countless times posted his evidence on pauls deceptions of which you did not question his citations but questioned their interpretations. Your rebuttals were baloney propaganda. I do not need to read Paul to accept Yamits convincing arguments and reject your absurd rationalizations. the fact that you mimick Pauls deceitful behaviors merely demonstrate the ideology to which you subscribe: an ideology as credible as the nazi party and the KKK when it comes to Jews.
dweller Said:
His opinion is every bit as valid as yours unless you disclose what and how you mean the term and on what you base your opinions. He knows HB every bit as well as you do and if I am not mistaken has no negative vibes or opinions of HB but I’m sure only those that are positive. You on the other hand have placed yourself as the morality judge and jury of the commenters on this blog. Since it’s a self appointed position you will forgive us if we reject your views and authority and just tell you to stick you head where the sun don’t shine…..That’s the proper place for you sicko!!!!!!!
We can now expect another wordy flow of comments full of dwellerisms aka know as psychobabble.
Let it flow AH Sicko!!!! 😛
dweller Said:
My My 🙂 what would Jesus say??? 🙂
I thought you could control your emotions?? 😛
Do I detect anger and frustration??? Looks that way, sounds that way is that way!!!!!!!!! 😀
Now he will post pages of denial with tons of psychobabble!!!! 🙁
@ bernard ross:
You “definitely” would not be in a POSITION to have an opinion in the matter since you freely acknowledge (hell, you frantically and persistently protest) that you don’t know the definition in play.
Sorry, but you’re just gonna have to stop fantasizing over me
— you’re just not my type.
But till you DO find the right boy, I propose the following:
Go phuque yourself, scumbag.
@ bernard ross:
Bullshit. Did not cite from a website. Cited from Rabbi Landmann’s encyclopedia.
However, I’ve pulled up the JFJ webpage you cited, and I note that they cite the writings of David Flusser & Alan Segal as well (among others). You got a problem with their opinions too in the matter of the authorship of NT? Or has your personal paranoia got a DIFFERENT excuse to cover THAT little problem?
@ bernard ross:
What ‘ideology’??? Do you really think you know what you’re talking about?
Of course not. You know damned well that I tend to take posts in pretty-much the order they come, and I hadn’t gotten to that one till its ‘turn’ came up.
Didn’t need Xtn (or any other) ‘sources’ to tell me what has been common knowledge for centuries among Jews as much as anybody else. The only elements who seriously question the Jewish authorship of the gospels or most of NT are cranks (both Christian AND Jewish).
Use a little logic (try; it really won’t give you hives or grow hair on your palms): If the NT wasn’t all written till AD 95, and there weren’t even as yet the rudiments of a separate Xtn religion (even beginning to go into the works) for another half-century, then who ELSE but Jews would’ve been available to write the NT elements? — the Rotary Club? the Avon Lady? the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders?
If you want sources, then Google your butt off; you’re sure to find lots of confirmation for what everybody else knows. You have more time for searches & that sort of thing than I do, and it’s probably all over the net. I offered you a book in a 10-vol. series, but you apparently don’t like it because some JFJ website reviewed it favorably or something — as if that were sufficient to invalidate it (perhaps you’d have preferred that they panned it?).
That’s as stupid as presuming to discredit as ‘inauthentic’ the Einstein letter condemning the Irgun just because it was run on some Judeophobic website. I wasn’t citing the ‘website’ — I was citing Einstein. Who CARES who carried the letter (or why)? The letter ITSELF was authentic. It’s the same with Rabbi Isaac Landmann, editor of the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. There was nothing earthshaking in his remarks.
Here’s the one ONLINE reference I’ve got time for, and I’m giving it to you only because Wikipedia is always near the top of the list, and I’m not going hunting:
“The New Testament is an anthology, a collection of Christian works written in the common Greek language of the first century, at different times by various writers, who were early Jewish disciples of Jesus of Nazareth.”
@ bernard ross:
Right. “Of course” it is. After all, you said so. You really do luxuriate in your ignorance, don’t you?
Paul died around AD 67-68. The writings which, together with his, eventually made their way into the NT canon would not be all written for at least another 35 years. And there would not exist even so much as the BEGINNINGS of a distinct & separate “Christian” religion for at least another two generations after THAT. Until that time, the bulk of the movement associated with haNitzri would be made up of JEWS and remain headquartered in the Jewish city of Jerusalem. The first 15 bishops of that city were all Jews.
It wasn’t till Hadrian (inadvertently) destroyed the Jerusalem community of haNitzr’s disciples after the Bar Kokhba Revolt [AD 136] that the movement’s leadership was even available to be taken up by gentiles, who moved to fill the vacuum outside of Judea.
The “deceitful ideology” of which you speak would not begin developing at least till after THAT.
And what “associates in ideology” would those be? Can you give me a letter of introduction? — I’d like to meet them. (Don’t be scared. I won’t tell them just HOW paranoid you are. We’ll keep that our little secret, just between us.)
Why would a REAL Jew seek his sources from ANY collective? — What ‘collective’ did the first Jew seek his sources from?
— Do you think Avram consulted w/ the local Jewish community before packing up the camel train for Cana’an? You think he asked the opinion of the local Rav?
You’re so fullovit. The ‘marketing’ to which I referred would’ve been long over & past by the time the separate & distinct, gentile-run, Xtn religion came into its own at the Council of Nicaia AD 325, well-over 250 years after Paul’s death.
— By that time, Xty had long since cut itself away from its Judaic roots, so there was no longer anything to BE marketed to the gentiles; it was now entirely their show.
@ bernard ross:
It’s no fraud, nor is it intended to be regarded as some kind of equivalency. You see ‘fraud’ only because you’re prejudicially inclined to see ‘fraud.’ But mostly you’re upset that you’re not the only one who gets to play these games of maneuver.
As for the remark itself, Rom 3:10 is INDEED theological, but the linkage to Psalm 14 is rhetorical, not doctrinal. Get a life.
It doesn’t have more authority for YOU than Paul — until you’ve personally read Paul. Till then, you simply don’t know. You know only what Huff’n’puff says.
And when you do get around to reading Paul, remember that a liar is one who deliberately misrepresents what he knows to be the truth.
— Good luck making THAT case about Paul, because to DO that, you’ll have to establish that he knew his way around Judaism, the Jewish scriptures & the Jewish people well enough to credibly misrepresent all-of-the-above. You don’t pick THAT up via a couple of all-niters fortified w/ order-out pizza & a six pack, Jack.
It’s nothing of the sort. I freely acknowledge other people’s work, and don’t lift it unattributed. And you are a thoroughly dishonest creep. Once again, you deliberately cut out everything except the above-bolded sentence at the beginning of the above remark so that you could obfuscate the point in my comment (restored above).
Apples & Oranges. There’s no connection, and you know it. I’ve told you a dozen times now: You don’t get an answer to your demand because you’re not entitled to one. All you’re doing here is trying to give support to poor Huff’n’puff whose ass is obviously draggin’ of late — and making a complete ass of yourself into the bargain.
“Simple proofs”? — when was that?
simple proofs??? — he couldn’t ‘prove’ that a bull doesn’t have tits.
Nonsense. I routinely CHALLENGE his claims, and when he occasionally responds (he doesn’t always) , then I refute those dumb-assed claims.
That is emphatically untrue. But it is a superb description of what Huffy does. In fact, I’ve seen a number of the long & windy harrangues & panegyrics that he’s laid on successive numbers of posters aound here so many times, I damned-near know ’em by heart — and I usually know right where to find them on the net, since they are rarely his own writing.
dweller Said:
Your words define you. Who and what you are!!!!!
dweller decided they had it coming so take that ….ha ha
We who deride you think you have it coming!! What’s good for the sicko AH is good for us!!!!
You’re not losing it you’ve already lost it freako!!!!