The Big Bangs
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Re: The Big Bangs
Not much that I can see.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
Re: The Big Bangs
Perfectly thank you. That was a request for you to actually read something that was not composed by Hitler, I am defending no one as I have no need to do so. Without a doubt there have been a number of evil Jews in this world at different times. But they weren't exactly standing on their own were they?
Your bias still permeates all that you write, next thing you will be telling me is that Jesus was not a Jew, a view that I have heard expressed in the past and simply shows that you are not the only blinkered person in the world.
In view of the fact that neither your efforts nor those of Bin Laden etc appears to be preventing the take over of the world by Jews I would suggest that both of you follow the Chinese maxim that 'it is a wise man who accepts the inevitable,' rather than continuing to waste your life.
And you are still dodging my questions about the Indian nuclear wars!
Roy.
Your bias still permeates all that you write, next thing you will be telling me is that Jesus was not a Jew, a view that I have heard expressed in the past and simply shows that you are not the only blinkered person in the world.
In view of the fact that neither your efforts nor those of Bin Laden etc appears to be preventing the take over of the world by Jews I would suggest that both of you follow the Chinese maxim that 'it is a wise man who accepts the inevitable,' rather than continuing to waste your life.
And you are still dodging my questions about the Indian nuclear wars!
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Re: The Big Bangs
is that Jesus was not a Jew
"Only on his mother's side."
--Archie Bunker, c 1971
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
uniface
Re: The Big Bangs
He wasn't.
By any stretch of the imagination.
But that's a matter for another day.
By any stretch of the imagination.
But that's a matter for another day.
Re: The Big Bangs
Total bollocks!
Roy.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
uniface
Re: The Big Bangs
If you're arguing from the Constantinian re-write, you could equate his being born in Judaea with his having been a "Jew." Rather than play with this, though, note that the context of this revision was open ethnic-religious warfare. For Constantine, trying to keep his empire from collapsing into civil warfare, it was politically necessary for Christ to have been the savior of everybody, as for Rabbi Saul. (This in direct contradiction to the plain sense of Christ's own repeated statements). The many goats, cows and dogs of the parabolic farm were thus transformed by this conceptual slight of hand into "sheep."
Fortunately however, the re-writings were done piecemeal, and without central editorial oversight for coherence. Thus John the Baptist, in various places, was Elijah come again, was not Elijah come again, and kind-of was but to no effect. Similarly, "the holy spirit" comes (for the first time) to his disciples in the upper room before Christ's departure, but also (for the first time) to the assembled church (synagogue) on Pentacost.
The Gospels, then, have to be approached as the same kind of literary detective stories as any other text is. From this perspective,
1) One of a number of expressions Christ habitually used when disputing with the Pharisees, was "It is written in YOUR law . . ." This is odd. If he had been (as everywhere alleged) a "Jew," would he not have said "It is written in THE law" ? Or, even better yet, "It is written in OUR (mutual, common) law" ?
This is neither a "misprint" nor a case of garbling by translators, for he is quoted identically in both the Gospels and the Talmud. We have in this, then, an authentic and important clue to who he was.
Our next question is, "Well, how many 'Laws' were there, then ?" After we've worked through what "Torah" connoted to various contemporary parties, we end up with, in context, "the Books of Moses" - the Pentateuch. (I.e., the first five books of the Bible). Our question then becomes, "How many Pentateuchs were there, then. ?" The answer, after some more homework, is two. The Hebrew Pentateuch (in its several variants) and the Samarian (Aramaic) Pentateuch, which differs from it in roughly six thousand details. For a Samarian to use this phrase (YOUR law) in addressing a Pharisee would be not only comprensible, but natural.
2) In the accounts we have of him, Christ is frequently embroiled in disputes with the Pharisees, who accuse him of all sorts of things. Every time he is attacked by them on some charge or other, he immediately and vigorously refutes their allegation. Every time, that is, except one.
This exception is in John 8:48. Here he is "accused" of being a Samarian and having a devil (familiar spirit). The charge of having a devil he denies. On the allegation that he is a Samarian, he is (significantly) silent.
3) One of his best-known sayings is that "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and among his own people." He says this in Samaria.
After saying this, he leaves for Galilee. Where, as events turn out, he does many mighty works - works which he could not do among his own people because of their unbelief.
4) The Story of The Woman Taken in Adultery is a small can of worms in itself. It was not recorded in the older Greek traditions, and was, in fact, adopted from a Syrian tradition - and rather late in time. Thus various Bible translations put it in different places.
Do a little more homework, and an interesting fact emerges. The Samarians, around 30 AD, were as ferocious in "law-enforcement" as are today's Taliban. A woman taken in adultery there was in genuine danger of being stoned to death. According to the consensus of numerous notices in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmudim, however, the same charge at the Temple at Jerusalem would have provoked only ribald humor (if even that).
Did the Samarians have a Temple then ? Various historians flatly contradict each other on this. According to the Samarians themselves, they did.
Be this as it may, it is interesting enough to note in passing that, in either place, such a woman's sole judge was her husband.
5) A truly disproportionate number of the important figures in the early history of "Christianity" turn out to have been either Samarians or from Samaria. These include Simon Magus, Justin Martyr, the followers of John the Baptist and any number of others. Additionally, the Nag Hammadi corpus of Christian Gnostic writings are translations, via Greek, from Aramaic (Syriac/Samarian) originals. How what was supposedly the remote outback came to be so prominently involved in the story is not explained.
6) If Christ had been, as alleged, a "Jew" (i.e., his own worst enemy), by no stretch of the imagination would he have spent three days "fellowshipping" with the Woman at the Well and her relatives at Sychar (very near what had been the capital of Israel when it was an independent kingdom at odds with Judaea). And this despite the transparently interpolated "Salvation is of the Jews" in the same account. The Judaeans themselves at this point in time not only had no "salvation" to offer anyone, but were in dire need of it themselves (as their various attempts at revolt from the rule of the Herodian gangsters demonstrates. In Biblical usage - if not in revisionist "theological" usage, Salvation equates with national political and religious independence).
On the other hand, since he plainly stated that he had been sent only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, this is precisely what we would expect him to do. (Recall the woman's wondering question, "Are you greater than our father Abraham who gave us the well ?")
The statements (allegations) made about Christ by the narrator(s) favor your position. The interior coherence of his own statements and their contexts favors mine.
Fortunately however, the re-writings were done piecemeal, and without central editorial oversight for coherence. Thus John the Baptist, in various places, was Elijah come again, was not Elijah come again, and kind-of was but to no effect. Similarly, "the holy spirit" comes (for the first time) to his disciples in the upper room before Christ's departure, but also (for the first time) to the assembled church (synagogue) on Pentacost.
The Gospels, then, have to be approached as the same kind of literary detective stories as any other text is. From this perspective,
1) One of a number of expressions Christ habitually used when disputing with the Pharisees, was "It is written in YOUR law . . ." This is odd. If he had been (as everywhere alleged) a "Jew," would he not have said "It is written in THE law" ? Or, even better yet, "It is written in OUR (mutual, common) law" ?
This is neither a "misprint" nor a case of garbling by translators, for he is quoted identically in both the Gospels and the Talmud. We have in this, then, an authentic and important clue to who he was.
Our next question is, "Well, how many 'Laws' were there, then ?" After we've worked through what "Torah" connoted to various contemporary parties, we end up with, in context, "the Books of Moses" - the Pentateuch. (I.e., the first five books of the Bible). Our question then becomes, "How many Pentateuchs were there, then. ?" The answer, after some more homework, is two. The Hebrew Pentateuch (in its several variants) and the Samarian (Aramaic) Pentateuch, which differs from it in roughly six thousand details. For a Samarian to use this phrase (YOUR law) in addressing a Pharisee would be not only comprensible, but natural.
2) In the accounts we have of him, Christ is frequently embroiled in disputes with the Pharisees, who accuse him of all sorts of things. Every time he is attacked by them on some charge or other, he immediately and vigorously refutes their allegation. Every time, that is, except one.
This exception is in John 8:48. Here he is "accused" of being a Samarian and having a devil (familiar spirit). The charge of having a devil he denies. On the allegation that he is a Samarian, he is (significantly) silent.
3) One of his best-known sayings is that "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and among his own people." He says this in Samaria.
After saying this, he leaves for Galilee. Where, as events turn out, he does many mighty works - works which he could not do among his own people because of their unbelief.
4) The Story of The Woman Taken in Adultery is a small can of worms in itself. It was not recorded in the older Greek traditions, and was, in fact, adopted from a Syrian tradition - and rather late in time. Thus various Bible translations put it in different places.
Do a little more homework, and an interesting fact emerges. The Samarians, around 30 AD, were as ferocious in "law-enforcement" as are today's Taliban. A woman taken in adultery there was in genuine danger of being stoned to death. According to the consensus of numerous notices in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmudim, however, the same charge at the Temple at Jerusalem would have provoked only ribald humor (if even that).
Did the Samarians have a Temple then ? Various historians flatly contradict each other on this. According to the Samarians themselves, they did.
Be this as it may, it is interesting enough to note in passing that, in either place, such a woman's sole judge was her husband.
5) A truly disproportionate number of the important figures in the early history of "Christianity" turn out to have been either Samarians or from Samaria. These include Simon Magus, Justin Martyr, the followers of John the Baptist and any number of others. Additionally, the Nag Hammadi corpus of Christian Gnostic writings are translations, via Greek, from Aramaic (Syriac/Samarian) originals. How what was supposedly the remote outback came to be so prominently involved in the story is not explained.
6) If Christ had been, as alleged, a "Jew" (i.e., his own worst enemy), by no stretch of the imagination would he have spent three days "fellowshipping" with the Woman at the Well and her relatives at Sychar (very near what had been the capital of Israel when it was an independent kingdom at odds with Judaea). And this despite the transparently interpolated "Salvation is of the Jews" in the same account. The Judaeans themselves at this point in time not only had no "salvation" to offer anyone, but were in dire need of it themselves (as their various attempts at revolt from the rule of the Herodian gangsters demonstrates. In Biblical usage - if not in revisionist "theological" usage, Salvation equates with national political and religious independence).
On the other hand, since he plainly stated that he had been sent only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, this is precisely what we would expect him to do. (Recall the woman's wondering question, "Are you greater than our father Abraham who gave us the well ?")
The statements (allegations) made about Christ by the narrator(s) favor your position. The interior coherence of his own statements and their contexts favors mine.
Re: The Big Bangs
I give up! So Jesus wasn't a Jew the Samaritans weren't Jews, the Chief Rabbi isn't a Jew.
Now, about the radiation etc in India ot have you abandoned that discussion?
Roy.
Now, about the radiation etc in India ot have you abandoned that discussion?
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16036
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Re: The Big Bangs
You mean he volunteered to be circumcised and he wasn't even Jewish? Now that's what I call a sacrifice!27And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
But by all means let's back to pre-historic nuclear war in India.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
Re: The Big Bangs
Thank you Min!. If Uni wants to follow up on that ridiculous debate please tell him to start a new thread than I can ignore it and we can then stick to the 'serious' science. Like ancient nuclear warfare! 
Roy.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
uniface
Re: The Big Bangs
According to the Talmud, you are correct.Digit wrote:Samaritans weren't Jews
Re: The Big Bangs
http://www.bible-history.com/Samaritans ... istory.htm
http://www.bible-history.com/Samaritans ... ritans.htm
http://www.livius.org/saa-san/samaria/samaritans.htm
And if what I wrote is typical of how you interpret English I can now understand how you obtain such weird ideas.
Now give it a rest or start another thread and return to the subject that you started. INDIA!!!
Roy.
From above. Thus they were, and remain to this day, a Jewish sect in the same manner that Shite and Sunni are Muslims.# they accept only the Law of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) as authoritative, and have a slightly different text of these books. The Prophets and Writings are not recognized as divinely inspired.
http://www.bible-history.com/Samaritans ... ritans.htm
http://www.livius.org/saa-san/samaria/samaritans.htm
And if what I wrote is typical of how you interpret English I can now understand how you obtain such weird ideas.
Now give it a rest or start another thread and return to the subject that you started. INDIA!!!
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
uniface
Re: The Big Bangs
Irrelevant, immaterial and disingenuous weaseling.
According to the Talmudim, they are genetically impure ; their very touch is contaminating.
According to the Talmudim, they are genetically impure ; their very touch is contaminating.
Re: The Big Bangs
INDIA!!!!!
Roy.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
-
uniface
Re: The Big Bangs
An interesting connexion !
David's "mighty men" were Na'arim.
A caste of Brahmins in India are the Nayirs (various spellings).
There's an interesting parallel between them in a number of respects.
David's "mighty men" were Na'arim.
A caste of Brahmins in India are the Nayirs (various spellings).
There's an interesting parallel between them in a number of respects.