Re: Museum accused of censoring Palestinian exhibition

Hi Dre,
> So what?  As I recall the text that is used to construct this mythical "covenant
> with God", which supposedly gives the right to the non-Semitic Khazar Jews -
> whose ancestors never even stepped foot in Israel, Palestine or anywhere around
> there - to kick the Palestinians from their homeland of perhaps 3,000 years, has
> to do with being descended from Abraham.  In particular it does not say that
> every single ancestor must be descended from Abraham - indeed that could not be
> the case since Abraham himself was not descended from Abraham.  And more
> importantly, the Khazar Jews, who were the early Zionists, are not descended
> from Abraham.  

  I need to read into this. :-) I think you gave me some links on that
awhile back.

> The Khazar Jews (which it seems are somewhere b/w 80% and 90% of all modern
> "Jews") are simply outrageous liars - falsely claiming to be Jews whereas they
> are really Pharisees / Talmudists and intentionally misleading people into
> thinking they are Semites and descended from Abraham whereas they are Turks /
> Mongols and are in no manner related to Abraham - and conquerors.

  Well, they can be Jews (religiously) per Jewish conventions, but they
wouldn't be descendants of Abraham, that is true. Although question: are
you asserting they are 0% "real Jew"? If not, then it comes down to a
debate as to which group has more Israelite blood I guess. It sounds
like something to complex for this discussion. :-)

> Interestingly, ADS is now marketing what appears to be the precursor to the Mark
> of the Beast.  See
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61357,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 ;
> http://www.propagandamatrix.com/271103creditcardimplant.html ;
> http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/102/C2266/ .  The CEO's name is Silverstein
> - imagine my surprise!

  Interesting. I'll look into that. I've been watching progress toward
the Mark of the Beast.

> Remember I told you that the Republicans will betray your religion, b/c just as
> the Democrats in the end they serve the Talmudists?  Here's a chance to prove me
> wrong - write your congress reps and ask them if they would please sponsor a
> bill making any technology like ADS is working on unlawful.  Feel free to report
> back the results :-).

  I might just do that. My congressman probably would, but he doesn't
have that much power (he's a new guy in the congress).

> John 1:1 does not say "Word was Flesh"; more on that and this whole topic in my
> other email responding to Karl.

  My bad. I meant the Prologue (that is, the first section of John) has
that statement. Oops!


> [ ... ]
> 
> >   It seems to be missing some punctuation, but whatever the case, it
> > seems that there is a slight difference in some manuscripts. That's
> > where a lot of changes crop up. The KJV translators had access to less
> > material. We have older, better manuscripts now, and usually the oldest
> > known manuscript is preferred. If you're interested in the other
> > criteria, I'd be happy to explain or you can read about the scholarly
> > study method known as "Text Criticism."
> 
> I just want to know, where in the NIV is it made clear that Jesus is God?  And I

  Quick quotes:

  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God." (John 1:1) 

  "While we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our
great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13)

> don't mean in a footnote, I mean in the text.  And I also do not mean ambiguous
> and maybe this and maybe that, depending on how you read it (and more
> importantly what your pre-conceived notion as the reader is) but *clear* (so
> that you arrive at the result even if your pre-conceived notion is that Jesus
> was just a prophet - if I strongly believe that, which part of the NIV would
> unambiguously disabuse me of that notion?).

  I think those are about as clear here as in the KJV.

> 
> If you find such a clear declaration I will take back my criticism, until then
> it stands.

  I can provide more, if needed. :-)

> BTW, this is not to say that *I* believe Jesus was God.  However, I do see that

  Understood.

> concept as an important part of Christianity, particularly in contra-distinction
> to Islam, and so if this concept is in fact a central part of Christianity, one
> would expect it to be clearly explained in the Scriptures.

  Agreed. If it's denied, that borders on Arius's theology (see Council
of Nicaea).

> In other words, the Talmud (or, as Jesus referred to it, the Synagogue of Satan)
> forms the basis for the Antichrist.  It is all there already, nothing needs to
> happen but for the "Antichrist" to come along - the "messiah" from the Talmud
> point of view, but that of course is consistent with the "Synagogue of Satan"
> characterization - to implement this.  The deal is done.

  Interesting.
 
  -Tim

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy R. Butler       Universal Networks      www.uninet.info
==================== <[email protected]> ====================
| Christian Portal:      | Have you not learned great lessons |
|      www.faithtree.com | from those  who  braced themselves |
| GNU/Linux News:        | against  you   and   disputed  the |
|            www.ofb.biz | passage with you?   --Walt Whitman |

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/zXx3K37Cns9gJ0gRAiUhAKCFCPWWitbmk1fGZ+lGxZHNaU2tigCcCHC6
qt1GBV5/nmVY5/bHBrm+kpQ=
=iEwP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----