JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>In alt.education Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's,
>Bob LeChevalier wrote...
>>> In fact, it's far more likely that that person is a Jew posing as a
>>>Christian because,
>>>>>> 1) the statements were antichrist in spirit
>>>>>> 2) antichrist spirits often try to blend in with Christians as they
>>>did in the first Church where they appeared in their first
>>>manifestations...
>>>>That is a rather meager bit of evidence that someone is "a Jew posing as a
>>Christian". If they were "posing" or "trying to blend in" they would be
>>unlikely to want to give themselves away by such an overt "antichrist"
>>statement, since obviously such behavior does not make them blend in.
>>Nevertheless, that person is "more likely" to be a Jew than a
>Christian in my opinion. Why is it that you get so upset when I
>write down my opinion yet you applaud when imposters write down
>their opinions?
Upset? Why would I get upset over something like a Usenet debate?
I disagree with your opinion, because I know many Jews, and I know of no
particular reason why a Jew would pose as a Christian in order to act against
Christianity. Now the JEWS as a people feel that "Jews for Jesus" are
Christians posing as Jews in order to subvert Judaism (and Jewish families).
But there is nothing in their religion compelling Jews to try to convert or
subvert Christianity - they just would rather be left alone and not
evangelized.
I know of many people who believe that Christianity is something different
from what you appear to believe it is. I don't believe that anyone but God
is authorized to judge what is in our hearts, which is what determines
whether we are saved through Christ. Therefore I must assume that a person
who says they are a Christian IS a Christian though he may be a sinner like
all of us in a particular sinful practice or statement that I do not myself
accept as being Christian. Only explicit denial of Christ's divinity is
sufficient for me to reject someone who says he is a Christian as not really
being Christian (e.g. Thomas Jefferson), and even then I don't presume that
God approves of my making that judgement.
Meanwhile, I have no reason to presume that someone who is "antichrist" is
necessarily Jewish (I know several atheists, none of whom is Jewish, who are
far more antichrist and antiChristian than any Jew.)
Finally, I have seen no "imposters" whose opinions I have applauded. The
nincompoop is the only person I have reason to believe MIGHT be an imposter
(because his arguments seem so out of touch with reality that they could be
an elaborate put-on).
No one else I've seen post in this thread or its near-relatives that I've
participated, is falsely claiming to be a Christian, which is what you seem
to mean by "imposter". Only a couple have even claimed to be Christian,
including myself. Others reject Christianity (and make it clear that they
do), or don't indicate one way or another what they personally believe. They
are arguing on this thread because they find it fun to torment the
nincompoop, who has earned that net-torment by his net-behavior.
(If you think one must or should be a Christian to appear on a group that
pertains to Christianity, then Usenet is NOT the medium for you because there
are no such rules and many people who delight in flaunting their disdain for
people who think that there ARE such rules.)
>I think you liberals would take away free speech if
>it were possible, and only allowing cursing, obscenities, and porno
>movies.
Since you by your wording damn me as a "liberal" in the above despite my
denial of that political bent, I assert that YOU have "cursed" - you have
called me a name that you clearly associate with antichrist, and thus called
me in league with Satan. I can imagine no worse a curse than that.
I oppose cursing, and for that matter obscenities, and porno movies (which I
have never viewed much less favored). Furthermore, I have headed a project
for 15 odd years that was started ONLY as a kind of "free speech" movement,
and which has neither interest in outlawing any kind of speech at all, and
has no opinion at all about porno movies.
>>> 3) Jews always point to the Hebrew language as if it's icing on the
>>>cake when making a point. Believe me, I've encountered this many
>>>times
>>>>Does that mean that John Knight is a Jew, since he often pulls out his
>>Strong's and misuses a Hebrew word in trying to make a point?
>>No. Jews will tell you that the requirement for being Jewish is to
>have a Jewish mother. I can assure you, Mr. Knight doesn't have a
>Jewish mother.
Do you know his mother? Do you even know his real name? How can you make
such assurances?
BTW, the statement is false. The requirement for being a Jew BY HEREDITY is
to have a Jewish mother. But Jews allow conversion by a non-trivial process
and such Jewish converts are also Jews.
>The Hebrew languange ploy they use is just that, a ploy. Jews use
>that ploy to bluff unwary gentiles (in religious discussions) into
>thinking that translational errors keep them (gentiles) from
>discovering truth.
But the nincompoop has used PRECISELY that ploy. And I can recall no one
else in this thread who has done so except in regard to the Talmud (which
isn't entirely in Hebrew, so I've been told, so there are Hebrew scholars (I
have one visiting me right now in fact) who cannot read all of the Talmud in
the original language.
>The kicker however, is that since the NT was written in Hellenistic
>Greek and not Hebrew, Jews that use the "ploy" must learn Greek and
>study the NT before criticizing the NT, if they subject themselves
>to their own standard. But they don't and won't.
I don't know of any Jew who much CARES what is written in the NT, or who
would have reason to argue on the basis of what is in the NT. If they argue,
it is on the basis of the OT.
>Now below, I've re-quoted what Angilion said. See if you can catch
>the subtle Hebrew language ploy... along with the error:
>>Angilion said...
>> "The reason they refer to Hebrew is because it's the language
>used for the Old Testament of the Bible and the language used in
>Jesus' lifetime, where he lived."
>>...see that? The language they used in Jesus' lifetime wasn't even
>Hebrew way back then, it was Hellenistic Greek (which is different
>from classical Greek).
In the Holy Land, it was Aramaic and Hebrew and Latin and Greek, each by
different people at different times for different purposes. There is no
particular reason to believe that Jesus spoke any languages other than
Aramaic (spoken in Nazereth) and Hebrew (spoken in the temple).
>Perhaps you and Angilion were also ignorant
>of the fact that Galilean gentiles 20 centuries ago didn't speak
>ancient Hebrew either.
So?
>Matthew 4:13-14 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in
>Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon
>and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
>Esaias the prophet, saying,
>>Mathew 4:15-16 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by
>the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The
>people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat
>in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
>>In fact, that particular greek dialect was the language of choice
>for the Jews of 332 B.C. who lived in Alexandria Egypt (which was
>the cultural capital of the Greek Empire). Jews occupied 1/4 of
>Alexandria and that was the place where the Hebrew scriptures were
>first translated (into Greek, ~285 B.C.). That's a good 3 centuries
>before Jesus and proves that Hebrew wasn't the language of choice by
>scholars way back then.
That proves no such thing. It proves that Jews in Alexandria spoke Greek as
their native language, so that Hebrew wasn't the language of choice by
Alexandrian Jews way back then.
>However, historical revisionists have that first translation into
>greek dated at "before 100 A.D." Guess why they picked 100 A.D.?
Because there are different estimates of the date, but all of them are before
100 A.D.
>>> 4) ADL type liberal Jews want to disarm America and legalizing
>>>tetrahydrocanabanolis would make that task a great deal easier.
>>>>What does being armed have to do with being Christian? Do you really think
>>you can defeat Satan with a gun?
>>If you are "armed" it means that you are fundamentally opposed to
>the Neo-Nazi gun control legislation ADL liberals and other liberals
>are "for".
Which has nothing to do with Christianity, unless you have a Bible verse
commanding that you own a gun.
>To me, this represents a shift away from ADL liberalism towards
>conservative (and Constitutional) values and freedoms. Obviously,
>Jewry must've been putting pressure on the Israeli Rabbinate for
>such a decision to have been made public.
Or maybe most Jews don't have any particular care WHAT the "Israeli
Rabbinate" thinks. Certainly true of most of the Jews I know (since most
Jews I know are not observant; i.e. they do not practice the rituals
associated with Orthodox Jewry).
>>> 6) Real Christians know these things.
>>>>This "real Christian" knows otherwise.
>>Well, you should "know better". And so should Angilion.
I know better than to think that "real Christians" are any less sinners than
any other human being.
lojbab
