[RaccoonFace]

Interesting interview with Aaron Russo by Alex Jones. He talks about the Federal Reserve, New World Order, Feminism and other topics.

He met a member of the Rockefeller family, befriended him and that member told him months before 9/11 that something like 9/11 would happen followed by a fake "War on Terror" with an invasion/war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[RaccoonFace]

(11-03-2015 03:10 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  

Study the history of the Fed - who founded it and why, who controls it today and why and you will know who controls America... hint JP Morgan's Father worked in the City in London making markets in Bank of England bonds and the Bank of England was used to engineer the conversion of the Post WW1 and WWII British colonial empire into the British Commonwealth of Nations financial empire and to this day most international commerce does not take place with out the services of the UK Global risk management capabilities Lloyd's of London:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Rob...Rothschild and financial servants to the Crown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_M_Rothschild_%26_Sons and large ownership stakes in the Fed - not the least of which the Ron and Rand Paul initiatives to audit the Fed keep getting stonewalled as the people and families that control the Fed control the USA - While the UK citizens enjoy cradle to grave social safety nets the USA Middle class is crushed by legal mandates to pay for supporting medicare, social security and Obamacare... while providing a global military capability closely linked to Crown sanctioned initiatives - most cleaning up ancient messes created by the British Colonial Empire in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family ... who really controls the foundation elite institutions of the USA... and much of the world's free markets and global trade. Even the Chinese and Russia need to finance their Global Trade and manage their global risks.

A good documentary about the money powers:

[bijoux616]

Jews are to liberalism as cows are to milk.

Jews haven't had their own country for thousands of years. Democracy doesn't work for them since they have no voting power. Therefor their only working strategy has been to deceive everyone else that something is good for the masses when it isn't. It's really just good for the Jews. Who don't want to be persecuted after they commit their various heists. Liberalism happens to involve big government - big government happens to not only involve taking more money from the masses, it also means less democratic power. This is how the Jews are able to pursue their interests - through deception and corruption. And that's why they prefer liberal, authoritarian governments - that's the only way they can achieve their interests. And with the vast fortune that the jews have, they've been able to do it. Minorities also are good for the jews since 1) less focus is directed on jews' dirty deeds and 2) even in a democracy, they can ally with minorities and use their combined voting power to achieve their interests.

The Jews literally INVENTED communism. Karl Marx was a jew, a son of a rabbi. And according to Putin himself, the Soviet Union was 85 percent Jewish. Lenin was part Jewish and he wanted to hand the leadership off to Trotsky, another Jew. But Stalin killed everyone in his path. Even though his leader of the cruel NKVD that went around murdered everybody was led by the Jew Genrikh Yagoda.

Anyway, Alex Jones is a total shill for the Jews. It's obvious as hell. He even has jewish kids. And he once said that the ARABS run Hollywood LOL!

This is going to touch on political correctness of course, since that is entirely a warping of reality by the Jews trying to force their dystopian reality on everybody and silence common sense. Unfortunately, this doesn't just have to do with gender relations. But also race. Although despite that the Jews' main enemy is white people specifically (multiculturalism is being pushed in all and only white countries for a reason), the Jews are bad for EVERYBODY. In the same way that they throw freebies in the form of feminism to women, yet it's bad for women, the Jews throwing freebies and political benefits to minorities is also bad for them in the same way.

90 percent of so called truthers on the Internet will never tell you this. It's because there is almost no difference between the mainstream media and so-called "truth" channels or alternative media. They will never name the Jew because of the powerful fist that they have with social pressure. No Jews are needed to do this themselves. It's in our culture thanks to their control of our cultural institutions. Criticize the Jews and be ruined in the eye of the public. As Voltaire said, "To learn who rules over you...." And who is more uncriticizable than the Jews? No one.

Please stop talking about the communists, the Trilateral Commission, various rich families like the Rotschilds (they didn't do it without their fellow Jews), the illuminati, the communists, the reptilians or whatever the fucking garbage is that's being spit on the Internet by people who are either Jews themselves, shills, or simply only care about maintaining their reputation. It's the Jews, stupid! And if you look back on history and read about countless European rulers' relations with the Jews, it is a very hairy history indeed. It is truly shocking how many European leaders have had big problems with them in the past. They have been exiled out of 109 countries.

[Sooth]

Follow the money. Look to history.

The Jews have never had money. They've always been the money changers.

What are the most expensive things purchased in the last 2000 years?

[Samseau]

(12-28-2016 07:59 AM)bijoux616 Wrote:  

Jews are to liberalism as cows are to milk.

You're correct but you make a significant error. When you say Jews, you actually mean Talmudic Jews. They are the descendants of the ones who rejected Jesus, continue the racism of the old testament and place each other over everyone else.

Jews who accepted Christ (like the Apostle Paul) literally built Western Civilization. A small percentage of each generation of Talmudic Jews end up converting to Christianity as well. See Brother Nathaniel for an example of an anti-Talmudic Jew who converted.

It's a very common mistake to conflate the race with religion when describing Jews. This is because of the Talmuds themselves, who always call themselves "Jews" as an attempt to own the word. But Jewishness is the biological race (complete with it's own DNA), which has made many religions, all with major negative consequences except for Christianity. From Talmudism to Communism, it's been all downhill.

Quote:

The Jews have never had money.

Complete opposite of the truth

[Truth Teller]

(12-28-2016 12:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You're correct but you make a significant error. When you say Jews, you actually mean Talmudic Jews. They are the descendants of the ones who rejected Jesus, continue the racism of the old testament and place each other over everyone else.

Jews who accepted Christ (like the Apostle Paul) literally built Western Civilization. A small percentage of each generation of Talmudic Jews end up converting to Christianity as well. See Brother Nathaniel for an example of an anti-Talmudic Jew who converted.

It's a very common mistake to conflate the race with religion when describing Jews. This is because of the Talmuds themselves, who always call themselves "Jews" as an attempt to own the word. But Jewishness is the biological race (complete with it's own DNA), which has made many religions, all with major negative consequences except for Christianity. From Talmudism to Communism, it's been all downhill.

It's abundantly clear that you don't know very much about the history of Judaism. The correct terminology is Rabbinic Jew, not "Talmudic Jew." The Talmud wasn't codified until at least the 4th century, and the one that's used more often, the Babylonian Talmud, wasn't codified until the 7th. The "OT racism" that you refer to is far better understood through the theology of the OT, which has the Jews making an exclusive covenant with YHWH. Moreover, until the end of Matthew, Jesus is almost exclusively pro-Jewish and anti-Gentile.

If you're referring to the Khazar hypothesis, you need to know that there is very strong evidence against it and the idea of a "Jewish race" is faulty beyond belief. If you want to invoke pseudoscience, you're free to do so, but don't make it look like you're some profound thinker.

Christianity hasn't had an exclusively positive past either. It's fundamentally dishonest to imply that there have been no negative consequences.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(12-28-2016 12:38 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

It's abundantly clear that you don't know very much about the history of Judaism. The correct terminology is Rabbinic Jew, not "Talmudic Jew." The Talmud wasn't codified until at least the 4th century, and the one that's used more often, the Babylonian Talmud, wasn't codified until the 7th. The "OT racism" that you refer to is far better understood through the theology of the OT, which has the Jews making an exclusive covenant with YHWH. Moreover, until the end of Matthew, Jesus is almost exclusively pro-Jewish and anti-Gentile.

If you're referring to the Khazar hypothesis, you need to know that there is very strong evidence against it and the idea of a "Jewish race" is faulty beyond belief. If you want to invoke pseudoscience, you're free to do so, but don't make it look like you're some profound thinker.

Christianity hasn't had an exclusively positive past either. It's fundamentally dishonest to imply that there have been no negative consequences.

What do you think of this article written by a Jewish researcher and published on a site created by a converted Jew? Would be interested in your opinion.

https://www.henrymakow.com/2016/10/Satan...es%20.html

Of course some things cannot be assessed quickly.

[Samseau]

(12-28-2016 12:38 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 12:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You're correct but you make a significant error. When you say Jews, you actually mean Talmudic Jews. They are the descendants of the ones who rejected Jesus, continue the racism of the old testament and place each other over everyone else.

Jews who accepted Christ (like the Apostle Paul) literally built Western Civilization. A small percentage of each generation of Talmudic Jews end up converting to Christianity as well. See Brother Nathaniel for an example of an anti-Talmudic Jew who converted.

It's a very common mistake to conflate the race with religion when describing Jews. This is because of the Talmuds themselves, who always call themselves "Jews" as an attempt to own the word. But Jewishness is the biological race (complete with it's own DNA), which has made many religions, all with major negative consequences except for Christianity. From Talmudism to Communism, it's been all downhill.

It's abundantly clear that you don't know very much about the history of Judaism. The correct terminology is Rabbinic Jew, not "Talmudic Jew."

Doesn't matter. As irrelevant as the fact that Byzantines referred to themselves as Romans.

Quote:

The Talmud wasn't codified until at least the 4th century, and the one that's used more often, the Babylonian Talmud, wasn't codified until the 7th.

The Talmud was written to codify what was already present in their teachings and way of life.

Quote:

The "OT racism" that you refer to is far better understood through the theology of the OT, which has the Jews making an exclusive covenant with YHWH.

Which they refused to give up, and instead murdered Jesus for blasphemy.

Quote:

Moreover, until the end of Matthew, Jesus is almost exclusively pro-Jewish and anti-Gentile.

Not true. Although he preached to the Jews, he preached that strict adherence to one's race was not what God wanted.

Luke 10:25-37:

Quote:

25 And lo, a certain lawyer stood up, trying him, and saying, `Teacher, what having done, life age-during shall I inherit?'
26 And he said unto him, `In the law what hath been written? how dost thou read?'
27 And he answering said, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God out of all thy heart, and out of all thy soul, and out of all thy strength, and out of all thy understanding, and thy neighbour as thyself.'
28 And he said to him, `Rightly thou didst answer; this do, and thou shalt live.'
29 And he, willing to declare himself righteous, said unto Jesus, `And who is my neighbour?'
30 and Jesus having taken up [the word], said, `A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and having stripped him and inflicted blows, they went away, leaving [him] half dead.
31 `And by a coincidence a certain priest was going down in that way, and having seen him, he passed over on the opposite side;
32 and in like manner also, a Levite, having been about the place, having come and seen, passed over on the opposite side.
33 `But a certain Samaritan, journeying, came along him, and having seen him, he was moved with compassion,
34 and having come near, he bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine, and having lifted him up on his own beast, he brought him to an inn, and was careful of him;
35 and on the morrow, going forth, taking out two denaries, he gave to the innkeeper, and said to him, Be careful of him, and whatever thou mayest spend more, I, in my coming again, will give back to thee.
36 `Who, then, of these three, seemeth to thee to have become neighbour of him who fell among the robbers?'
37 and he said, `He who did the kindness with him,' then Jesus said to him, `Be going on, and thou be doing in like manner.'

Stuff like the above got Jesus put on the kill list.

Quote:

If you're referring to the Khazar hypothesis, you need to know that there is very strong evidence against it and the idea of a "Jewish race" is faulty beyond belief.

False, Jew DNA is distinct and identifiable. Israeli is considering it as a law. I have the DNA tests to prove it as well.

Quote:

If you want to invoke pseudoscience, you're free to do so, but don't make it look like you're some profound thinker.

You're the one claiming DNA testing is false. Ball is in your court to prove what is science or not.

Quote:

Christianity hasn't had an exclusively positive past either. It's fundamentally dishonest to imply that there have been no negative consequences.

The negative aspects of "Christianity" weren't Christian. When people deviate from Christ's teachings, bad stuff happens. God still manages to create good things out of bad things, but the overall lesson of history is when God is obeyed civilization occurs.

[brick tamland]

Brief answer - Those who control the financial system worldwide (they can finance wars and eliminate 'insolent' figures like John F Kennedy); those who force the USA to be beholden to the ideology of Zionism; those in control of the rampant consumerism that keeps the wheels spinning so that the central bankers get paid (mass retailers); and the masters behind the lobbyists who keep politicians in line; the media that portrays an illusion and is responsible for the mass distraction of citizens.

[Truth Teller]

(12-28-2016 01:33 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

What do you think of this article written by a Jewish researcher and published on a site created by a converted Jew? Would be interested in your opinion.

https://www.henrymakow.com/2016/10/Satan...es%20.html

Of course some things cannot be assessed quickly.

I'm a Catholic convert from Judaism. The article makes a few historically questionable claims. There can be all the prohibitions one wants about mixing with the Edomites, but the fact is that Ancient Israel (by which I mean the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah) were not of one identity. If the archeological discoveries of the last 25-30 years are any indication, the early Israelites were pretty closely related to Canaanites, sharing material culture/language/etc.

Sabbatai Zevi was a Messianic claimant who converted to Islam when faced with the options of conversion or death. The movement he developed really didn't influence European Jewry to the degree the author seems to think it did. Jacob Frank was not his successor, but a lunatic who claimed to be Zevi reincarnated. Rothschild doesn't mean "red shield," but "red sign," which stems from German.

Reform Judaism/Communism/etc. don't strike me as coming from some Satanic influences. Reform Judaism has a very long history which starts in the Second Temple period and with the development of both Midrash and the Talmud. The modern movement started in Germany due to a desire to a) assimilate into modern culture and b) adopt Judaism for the present day. There are a number of issues with the way that the fathers of Reform did so, but I digress. Communism is a result of the Industrial Revolution and the inequities that Marx/Engels saw as a result of modernization.

[chakalaka]

The top jews. They are like woman. You can´t live with them. And can´t live without them. They are really like woman. You can never let you guard down with them. But you need top jews/banker. Because they only care for money in the end a society progresses with them. But always know your dealing with extremely disloyal people. They are loyal to money. And american woman became jews. They only care about money. If another man has more money. They simple change. This was told me the other day and seemed reasonable.

Not only US but the world. Through central banking, stock markets and media. They can change conditions for any country in 1-3 months. Though this three instruments: Central bank, stock market and media.

I like jews. And to negate they´re advancement to society is ridiculous. I also like woman. But when I got married signed we signed a prenup. Just know who are the jews. What they´re capable of. But in no moment ban them or restrict them. Just keep an eye on them. And when they become nefarious. Punish them. Like a woman. A society which know how to handle a woman will know how to handle top jews.

[Truth Teller]

(12-28-2016 02:36 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Doesn't matter. As irrelevant as the fact that Byzantines referred to themselves as Romans.

The Byzantines referred to themselves as Romans because of a number of political factors as well as the need to have some power over the Western churches, which, as you know, led to the 1054 schism. It's perfectly relevant, by the way. Current day Jews don't refer to themselves as "Rabbinic Jews" either.

Quote:

The Talmud was written to codify what was already present in their teachings and way of life.

Questionable at best. The Talmud consists of two parts- the Gemara and the Mishnah. The Mishnah may reflect earlier traditions, but not necessarily. There are a number of sections in the Mishnah that conflict with Josephus, one of the best sources for Second Temple Judaism. The Gemara is a series of reflections and expositions of the Mishnah.

Quote:

Which they refused to give up, and instead murdered Jesus for blasphemy.

The Gospels have a STRONG anti-Judaizing tendency. Among New Testament scholars, who are almost universally Christian, there's no debate that the Romans were responsible for Jesus' death. Based on what I've read/work I've done, Jesus' death was probably a result of the Cleansing of the Temple, not a Jewish plot against him. Besides, Jesus did not intend to form a new religion; he intended to reform the existing one.

Quote:

Not true. Although he preached to the Jews, he preached that strict adherence to one's race was not what God wanted.

I agree, but the point still stands. Matthew's gospel is primarily written for a Jewish Christian community. Luke and the others are not. The mission in Matthew is almost exclusively to the Jews.

Quote:

The negative aspects of "Christianity" weren't Christian. When people deviate from Christ's teachings, bad stuff happens. God still manages to create good things out of bad things, but the overall lesson of history is when God is obeyed civilization occurs.

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy at best and blind ignorance at worst.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(12-28-2016 08:28 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I'm a Catholic convert from Judaism. The article makes a few historically questionable claims. There can be all the prohibitions one wants about mixing with the Edomites, but the fact is that Ancient Israel (by which I mean the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah) were not of one identity. If the archeological discoveries of the last 25-30 years are any indication, the early Israelites were pretty closely related to Canaanites, sharing material culture/language/etc.

Sabbatai Zevi was a Messianic claimant who converted to Islam when faced with the options of conversion or death. The movement he developed really didn't influence European Jewry to the degree the author seems to think it did. Jacob Frank was not his successor, but a lunatic who claimed to be Zevi reincarnated. Rothschild doesn't mean "red shield," but "red sign," which stems from German.

Reform Judaism/Communism/etc. don't strike me as coming from some Satanic influences. Reform Judaism has a very long history which starts in the Second Temple period and with the development of both Midrash and the Talmud. The modern movement started in Germany due to a desire to a) assimilate into modern culture and b) adopt Judaism for the present day. There are a number of issues with the way that the fathers of Reform did so, but I digress. Communism is a result of the Industrial Revolution and the inequities that Marx/Engels saw as a result of modernization.

I agree - ancient Jews were clearly not very uniform being spread all across the Middle East and up until large cities into current Saudi Arabia.

The movement Zevi and Frank led certainly did not influence most European Jewry, but we don't know exactly how that went with the globalist elite.

Why many common Jews supported communism is clear - they were as brainwashed by the ideology as the rest of the non-Jewish followers. Though I might add - part of the communist backlash against the Russians was fueled by the lack of emancipation. Even back in the 1850s many Jews in Germany were forbidden to live in the Christian German parts of town. It was even stronger in Russia.

We cannot definitely prove that the elite is luciferian in nature, but there are signs to that - radical Jewish bents in the top should not be excluded.

Most Jews are utterly oblivious to it all.

And as you have correctly put it - Jesus likely intended to reform the Jewish religion. He was Jewish, most of his followers and apostles in the beginning were Jews.
Heck there are even claims that Islam was founded by an offshoot Jewish clan.

There are some dark aspects of the Talmudic Judaism, but on the other hand it does not permeate the Jewish people much. The average Israeli has infinitely more in common with the average Christian or Atheist Westerner.

The globalist organizations at the top - Jewish or non-Jewish does not matter much here - that is a different topic. But credible info on that is a bit more strenuous to come by.

And I agree - reform Judaism is not Satanic. I guess they allude to elite rather being Satanic and just openly declaring to be mainstream Jewish, while in reality having little in common with the Jewish people. But that isn't different to a Luciferian claiming to be Catholic. And that is something that can only be assessed in terms of probability and not certainty.

(By the way - Rotschild - can also mean sign in German and likely did since it was their shop sign. Not that it matters.)

[stefpdt]

Zelcorpion,

Do you have a website?

If you don't already have one, you need to start a truth-telling website about the realities of supplementation, diet and fighting cancer.

Or at least an email list.

I'd sign up.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(12-29-2016 05:59 PM)stefpdt Wrote:  

Zelcorpion,

Do you have a website?

If you don't already have one, you need to start a truth-telling website about the realities of supplementation, diet and fighting cancer.

Or at least an email list.

I'd sign up.

I might manage to finally do the first thread on basic supplementation.

Next is on simple medical use of supplements and diets over simple or even severe illnesses - which have surprisingly easy and effective treatments.

Then I have one planned on vaccines since.

All 3 topics have inherent direct repercussions on your life and the ones of your loved ones.

All other topics - suppressed technologies, better economic model (also suppressed), our real elite - knowing about it does not truly impact your life much - it is not as if you can do much about it.

Cancer is a different topic - it would be useful to have a thread open with the scores of alternative knowledge out there. High tech treatments are suppressed, but some of the low tech alternative treatments are more effective than the conventional treatments, so it is certainly worth a shot. Also it is better if you educate yourself before you or someone in your vicinity get cancer - because when that happens there is often little time and lots of fear.

I may create a website one day, but it won't be connected to my given name here. Also the way I imagine it is very time consuming, so I will probably do it only with massive help later on.

[RatInTheWoods]

(07-01-2015 10:22 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

It's a complex, interlocking system. There isn't a small group which can meet in a room, but there's an elite 0.1% present in many spheres. Banking, corporations, media, politicians. Also, the intelligence agency/military nexus which took over after they offed JFK.

This is a great answer, and I think it's close to the truth.

Bonus is that you don't have to be wearing a tin hat to say this.

[stefpdt]

(12-29-2016 06:19 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 05:59 PM)stefpdt Wrote:  

Zelcorpion,

Do you have a website?

If you don't already have one, you need to start a truth-telling website about the realities of supplementation, diet and fighting cancer.

Or at least an email list.

I'd sign up.

I might manage to finally do the first thread on basic supplementation.

Next is on simple medical use of supplements and diets over simple or even severe illnesses - which have surprisingly easy and effective treatments.

Then I have one planned on vaccines since.

All 3 topics have inherent direct repercussions on your life and the ones of your loved ones.

All other topics - suppressed technologies, better economic model (also suppressed), our real elite - knowing about it does not truly impact your life much - it is not as if you can do much about it.

Cancer is a different topic - it would be useful to have a thread open with the scores of alternative knowledge out there. High tech treatments are suppressed, but some of the low tech alternative treatments are more effective than the conventional treatments, so it is certainly worth a shot. Also it is better if you educate yourself before you or someone in your vicinity get cancer - because when that happens there is often little time and lots of fear.

I may create a website one day, but it won't be connected to my given name here. Also the way I imagine it is very time consuming, so I will probably do it only with massive help later on.

That sounds good mayne.

Your posts are extremely helpful, and I figured your info could also be helpful to thousands of other people (with greater exposure).

I envision a website like Natural News blended with Return of Kings.

Anyway, I look forward to your threads. I'm pretty persistent about supplementation, but I'd like to learn more about mega-dosing vitamins, how to source good drinking water, and vaccines are interesting as well.

The topic of the real elite fascinates me too. But like you said, it's one of those topics that's tough to gain actionable advice from. I guess if anything, digging into the real global power structure incentivizes people to build their own businesses and become more self-sustained.

The game is rigged. But in a way, you're still free to create your own miniature (ethical) version of a rigged system as well. Like a web business that earns enough cash to set you free to travel, fuck and take care of yours.

[Samseau]

(12-28-2016 08:37 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 02:36 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Doesn't matter. As irrelevant as the fact that Byzantines referred to themselves as Romans.

The Byzantines referred to themselves as Romans because of a number of political factors as well as the need to have some power over the Western churches, which, as you know, led to the 1054 schism. It's perfectly relevant, by the way. Current day Jews don't refer to themselves as "Rabbinic Jews" either.

Quote:

The Talmud was written to codify what was already present in their teachings and way of life.

Questionable at best. The Talmud consists of two parts- the Gemara and the Mishnah. The Mishnah may reflect earlier traditions, but not necessarily. There are a number of sections in the Mishnah that conflict with Josephus, one of the best sources for Second Temple Judaism. The Gemara is a series of reflections and expositions of the Mishnah.

The Talmud does show an evolution in Jewish thought from the early Torah days after the fall of Jerusalem, and I believe this is why referring to the Talmud makes the most sense because it captures such an evolution. Obviously nothing is set in stone within the Talmud, and yet there are themes and recurring ideas within the different volumes. Animosity towards Jesus and the Gentiles, for example, is one theme, but also compassion and humanity to all is another theme.

The writings vary greatly between the different time periods and authors and no two Jews ever agree on anything, but they despite the skepticism they stay with their fellow Jew above all. The implicit God-chosenness, whatever such a thing means, is a constant topic that is always explored.

The current group of tribal Jews today are descendents of the authors of the Talmud and have preserved many of their traditions; I see great utility in this description and fail to see why you do not. It's irrelevant what the Jews call themselves; they call us gentiles but I do not call myself a gentiles. They do not seem to care what gentiles call themselves and yet call them gentiles, so why shouldn't we label them appropriately as Talmudic Jews even if they do not call themselves Talmudic?

Quote:

Quote:

Which they refused to give up, and instead murdered Jesus for blasphemy.

The Gospels have a STRONG anti-Judaizing tendency. Among New Testament scholars, who are almost universally Christian, there's no debate that the Romans were responsible for Jesus' death. Based on what I've read/work I've done, Jesus' death was probably a result of the Cleansing of the Temple, not a Jewish plot against him. Besides, Jesus did not intend to form a new religion; he intended to reform the existing one.

Perhaps the Romans found Christ a threat, but Jesus's reforms challenged the Pharisees and Sadducees grip on power and so they wanted to see Jesus gone as well.

As for whether or not the New Testament is reliable as an account of events; I surmise it mostly is or else no one would have believed in Christ or written about him in the first place.

That said, I think we know for sure the NT's account is the most accurate account because of when the first written gospels can be dated.

Quote:

Quote:

Not true. Although he preached to the Jews, he preached that strict adherence to one's race was not what God wanted.

I agree, but the point still stands. Matthew's gospel is primarily written for a Jewish Christian community. Luke and the others are not. The mission in Matthew is almost exclusively to the Jews.

Debatable on who the intended audiences of the gospels were for. All the gospels were spoken tradition because of Rabbinic persecution of Christians, however. The earliest gospel of Matthew is dated right after the fall of Jerusalem, that can't be a coincidence.

Many Christian theologians held Jerusalem had to be destroyed in order to make way for Christianity since they rejected the Messiah and it was their punishment, but, regardless of God's intentions it seems abundantly clear that Christians were hunted down by Jewish authorities up until Jerusalem was razed.

The story of the Apostle Paul not only shows that top Jewish talent was recruited to stamp out heretical Christians, but that those who believed in Christ were considered heretics which meant Christ was considered a blasphemer.

Thus we know the NT's story of Christ primarily being hunted down by his fellow Jews makes more sense than the Romans doing it.

So, since all the gospels were passed down through oral tradition until it became safe enough to have written copies of them, I do not think we can say for sure that Luke was intended for the Gentiles anymore than Matthew was.

Quote:

Quote:

The negative aspects of "Christianity" weren't Christian. When people deviate from Christ's teachings, bad stuff happens. God still manages to create good things out of bad things, but the overall lesson of history is when God is obeyed civilization occurs.

That's a no true Scotsman fallacy at best and blind ignorance at worst.

[/quote]

No, I am not saying one needs to be a "true" Christian for progress to occur, but there are base minimum standards which apply to all Christians. Backstabbing your Neighbors, for example, is pretty much a one way ticket to hell. Badmouthing God in public is also another way one ticket to hell.

What counts as being a good Neighbor is debatable. Trying to say there is only one "true" way to be a good Neighbor is the true Scotsman fallacy.

However, pointing out that the Russian is not from Scotland is not the true Scotsman fallacy. Just because categories can have blurry edges does not mean there are no categories of being a Christian or not being a Christian.

When people aren't being good Neighbors to one another, it means they are, among other sins, breaking the ten commandments, and that their sins will be visited upon their third and fourth generations.

Do you think God cares if you tell him he's applying a true Scotsman fallacy to you on Judgement day? And yet God himself is very merciful and gracious with his Judgement so it is okay if we are not perfect Christians.

Thus I maintain the "negative" aspects of Christianity can be shown as people who used the name of Christ but were in fact false prophets or those simply using His name in vain.

[Truth Teller]

(01-02-2017 12:02 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The Talmud does show an evolution in Jewish thought from the early Torah days after the fall of Jerusalem, and I believe this is why referring to the Talmud makes the most sense because it captures such an evolution. Obviously nothing is set in stone within the Talmud, and yet there are themes and recurring ideas within the different volumes. Animosity towards Jesus and the Gentiles, for example, is one theme, but also compassion and humanity to all is another theme.

The writings vary greatly between the different time periods and authors and no two Jews ever agree on anything, but they despite the skepticism they stay with their fellow Jew above all. The implicit God-chosenness, whatever such a thing means, is a constant topic that is always explored.

Yes, fine. I agree that the Talmud does display the progress of Rabbinic thought. The idea of the Jews as YHWH's chosen people is from Deuteronomy and was probably written in order to create a coherent identity during Josiah's reign. It actually may even be later, an attempt to keep the Israelites together during the Babylonian captivity.

Quote:

Perhaps the Romans found Christ a threat, but Jesus's reforms challenged the Pharisees and Sadducees grip on power and so they wanted to see Jesus gone as well.

As for whether or not the New Testament is reliable as an account of events; I surmise it mostly is or else no one would have believed in Christ or written about him in the first place.

That said, I think we know for sure the NT's account is the most accurate account because of when the first written gospels can be dated.

The NT is at least partly reliable as to what Jesus taught and did, though it's a difficult historical source for a number of reasons. The mainstream dates for the gospels are from 65-110, with an increasing tendency to date Luke-Acts to the late first/early second century.

Again, it's not totally clear why Jesus was crucified, but, based on the information available, Pilate was not the weak character portrayed in the gospels. Pilate was actually removed from power for being too brutal (after he executed a holy man in 37).

Quote:

Debatable on who the intended audiences of the gospels were for. All the gospels were spoken tradition because of Rabbinic persecution of Christians, however. The earliest gospel of Matthew is dated right after the fall of Jerusalem, that can't be a coincidence.

The story of the Apostle Paul not only shows that top Jewish talent was recruited to stamp out heretical Christians, but that those who believed in Christ were considered heretics which meant Christ was considered a blasphemer.

Thus we know the NT's story of Christ primarily being hunted down by his fellow Jews makes more sense than the Romans doing it.

So, since all the gospels were passed down through oral tradition until it became safe enough to have written copies of them, I do not think we can say for sure that Luke was intended for the Gentiles anymore than Matthew was.

With Luke, yes, we can. In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as the new Moses, escaping Herod's slaughter of the innocents, escaping to Egypt, quoting the Mosaic law in order to further explicate it, etc. There's also Matthew's midrashic use of the OT in order to show that Jesus is the Jewish messiah. In Luke, none of that is present, despite the fact that Luke either depends on Matthew or on Q. Luke also tries to contextualize Jesus in the Roman world, moving the Census of Quirinius 10 years in order to account for Jesus' birth. Then Acts intends to show how the gospel reached Rome, ending the two-volume set.

The gospels passed through an oral period, but Matt/Mark/Luke are in some sort of literary relationship; Matt. replicates 90% of Mark and Luke roughly 70%. Additionally, the oral period is likely not the same as the gospels we have (the gospels were developed because the eyewitnesses were dying, but also so that they could be read at Christian worship). There's also the demonstrable fact that there are clearly written sources behind the gospels (stylometric analysis conclusively shows it).

Matthew is probably a product of the late 70s or the 80s and is likely dependent on Mark. It's also not like the Jews were particularly powerful empire-wide, and we know that there were Christian communities in Greece/Rome in the 40s and 50s.

As I mentioned above, the NT account of Pilate is at odds with Josephus, our best source.

Quote:

Do you think God cares if you tell him he's applying a true Scotsman fallacy to you on Judgement day? And yet God himself is very merciful and gracious with his Judgement so it is okay if we are not perfect Christians.

If classical theology is correct about God, which I think it is, then God can't commit a logical fallacy.

[A.S]

(01-03-2017 04:57 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

If classical theology is correct about God, which I think it is, then God can't commit a logical fallacy.

GOD easily transcends both logic AND (any kind of) theology.

[A.S]

(01-02-2017 12:02 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Thus I maintain the "negative" aspects of Christianity can be shown as people who used the name of Christ but were in fact false prophets or those simply using His name in vain.

You are wrong for Jeshua cast a shadow too, my friend.

[Truth Teller]

(01-04-2017 05:43 PM)A.S Wrote:  

GOD easily transcends both logic AND (any kind of) theology.

Yes and no. You can logically deduce the attributes of God, but things like Trinitarianism and the Incarnation are known through revelation.

[A.S]

(01-04-2017 10:32 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Yes and no. You can logically deduce the attributes of God, but things like Trinitarianism and the Incarnation are known through revelation.

I'm of a strong conviction that attributes of God can only be experiences directly and certainly not deduced logically (what the fuck do you base your logic on if not first-hand experience?).

[Kid Twist]

Begin essence and energies debate, and I fear Truth Teller is Barlaam the Calabrian, though hope I'm wrong.

Truth Teller is very knowledgeable. My hope is that he is aware that there are (I'm being nice) very problematic points of Roman Catholic theology (innovations) and rationalism is one of them. AS, though banned, was getting at this.

Of course, reason never contradicts faith, it is just woefully inadequate to compare to grace, energy and experience.

If the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, reason is too --- the first step towards understanding and true experience or, illumination.

[slppryslp]

Mainly banksters. What came out this election..Citi chose 70 percent of obamas cabinet, soros told(didnt ask) hillary what to do and hillary offered to do penance to a rothschild for keeping the british pm from a function. Try finding fotos of the rothschilds on google. All but the patriarch have been scrubbed(can find on alt s engines). We have a whole history of kicking out central banks. Read the epic andrew jackson killing the bank. The fed causes crashes and the rich pick up the pieces. They were responsible for the great depression..but it was done on purpose not accident as has been suggested. Plenty of famous quotes on these things. Look up woodrow wilson and "a force so subtle". The federal income tax and fed were instituted about that time. The CIA is mainly the dirty tricks arm of the government. They are very antiamerican. The elites do actually regularly disclose what theyve been up to like some kind of stupid James Bond Villain. Its the elephant in the room.