Good Friday - The day the Jews killed God

[EE_]

How did Christians get so screwed up and duped into believing Jesus was a Jew, when he was really Judean?
Why does the Jewish stock market close today...to celebrate the murder of Jesus?
Good Friday should be a day to expose the Jewish lie and out them. Do your part!


“Judaism Should Not Be Credited As The Basis Of Christianity, But Recognized As The Opposition Of It”

Today, Christians remember the day Jesus was crucified by the Jews.

This day proves that Christianity was actually a reaction against Judaism.

This day shows there are more differences than similarities between Christianity and Judaism.

For example, many modern Christians claim that Jesus was a faithful Jew killed by corrupt Jews.

However, the truth is that faithful Jews murdered Jesus because he exposed them.

Jesus was killed because he fought Judaism, not because he promoted it.

In 1918, German Catholic author Franz Schrongamer-Heimdal wrote, “Was Jesus a Jew? We know that it is the spirit that bestows life. Jesus-spirit and Jew-spirit—is there any greater contradiction imaginable? That is why the Jews attacked, persecuted, and drove to a shameful death the savior of the world, the Galilean. They never counted Jesus as one of their own because he was not a Jew, neither in spirit nor in body.”

Judaism should not be credited as the basis of Christianity, but recognized as the opposition of it.

[MAGNES]

A highly Christian Empire. Very anti Jewish.

Eustace Mullins: NEW HISTORY OF THE JEWS (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?40651-Eustace-Mullins-NEW-HISTORY-OF-THE-JEWS)

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre or the Church of the Ressurection
was built by Constantine to honor Jesus Christ/Christians .

The last office holder remains.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6ZXxgjKk2o

[muffin]

where did you get this?

[Awoke]

I would also like to take this opportunity to flatly state that;
- Moses was not a jew
- Abraham was not a jew
- Noah was not a jew
- Adam and Eve were not jews

Jesus was a galilean from the tribe of Judah, not a jew, but a Judahite. The tride of Judah is from the lines of David. The lines of David are not jews.

God bless you all. I am so happy that I have you people around me on the web.

[ShortJohnSilver]

Can someone explain the issues around Mosaic Judaism (follows the written laws) and Talmudic Judaism (ignores/blasphemes written Moses law and promotes Talmud, oral traditions of the Pharisees)?

[Awoke]

The first is Yahwehism. The second is Judaism.
The first worships the Lord God, creator of heaven and earth. The second is babylonian occultism.

[Spectrism]

The Jews did NOT kill God.

This whole thread is bankrupt with lack of truth.

The Messiah took on the flesh of man so that He could be a sin offering- a just payment- for those who would surrender their lives to Him. He came to us on a mission- to die. Nobody took His life from Him. He gave it willingly. The Jews were just the sad lot who exercised the physical destruction upon the Messiah as tools for the necessary result.

In like manner, the devil is drawing away from God those who love deception & lies. Only lovers of truth will enter the kingdom of God. The devil is being used as a tool to separate the wheat from the chaff. Because he was instrumental in the fall of man and fashioned himself equal with God, he will be judged severely in the future.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

I appreciate the distinction here between those who are form the city of Judea and those who are genetically Hebrew. Thanks for making it clear.

[Awoke]

Judah is more like a State or a Country of it's own. The lines of David were divided up that way.

Genetically Hebrew?

Which Hebrew? The Biblical one or the Khazar one? That is one area I need to brush up on.

I know the word "Jew" wasn't even in the bible till almost halfway through it. (The book of Esther is the first appearance of the word "jew" in the Old Testament)
The word Hebrew is in Genesis, which is the first book.

It's confusing, but I personally look at like this:
Jews are Khazars
Hebrews are biblical Israelites

But I need to do more research on that. I just get sick of reading about the khazar imposters after a while.

[nunaem]

What kind of God dies?

[Awoke]

God made flesh as man.

[nunaem]

What kind of God is mortal?

[gunDriller]

The Jews did NOT kill God.

This whole thread is bankrupt with lack of truth.

The Messiah took on the flesh of man so that He could be a sin offering- a just payment- for those who would surrender their lives to Him. He came to us on a mission- to die. Nobody took His life from Him. He gave it willingly. The Jews were just the sad lot who exercised the physical destruction upon the Messiah as tools for the necessary result.


just because Jesus went willingly to his fate does not change the actions committed by the Jews. beating the crap out of someone, crucifying them, and then sticking a spear in their side is a lot like murder. especially if the person dies.

[Awoke]

The kind that realizes that mankind had become so apostate from the deal he made with them, that he makes himself mortal for the very act being killed to atone for our sins.

They could never sacrifice enough animals to atone for how far they had fallen. The only way was to come in the flesh and die as the final sacrifice to give us "a clean slate" for lack of better term.

Any and all things are possible with God, so why could he NOT make himself come to earth in the flesh and live as a mortal, and at the same time exist in heaven and everywhere else. Nothing is beyond Him. Alpha and Omega.
Beyond our level of fathomability.

Sorry, rush job post, I am just leaving my computer so had to type fast.

[Spectrism]

just because Jesus went willingly to his fate does not change the actions committed by the Jews. beating the crap out of someone, crucifying them, and then sticking a spear in their side is a lot like murder. especially if the person dies.

If you are sinless, you have no scar on the Messiah.

[Korbin Dallas]

This thread reminds me of a recent qoute by (if I remember correctly), Twisted Titan:

Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple, two weeks later, they nailed him to a cross. Never fuck with
Jews money.

[Spectrism]

This thread reminds me of a recent qoute by (if I remember correctly), Twisted Titan:

Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple, two weeks later, they nailed him to a cross. Never fuck with
Jews money.

Just wait until judgment day and you will see who the boss is.

[StreetsOfGold]

I would also like to take this opportunity to flatly state that;
- Moses was not a jew
- Abraham was not a jew- Noah was not a jew
- Adam and Eve were not jews

Jesus was a galilean from the tribe of Judah, not a jew, but a Judahite. The tride of Judah is from the lines of David. The lines of David are not jews.

God bless you all. I am so happy that I have you people around me on the web.

Abraham was the FIRST Jew (Hebrew) Judah, 4th son of Jacob, grandson to Abraham is certainly, most assuradly a Hebrew and thus a Jew.

BTW: Everyone: it was not the Jews who crucified Jesus (although they wanted it done), it was the Romans. Beware of those from ROME, those are the ones that will get you killed every time.

[Hermie]

Abraham was the FIRST Jew (Hebrew) Judah, 4th son of Jacob, grandson to Abraham is certainly, most assuradly a Hebrew and thus a Jew.

BTW: Everyone: it was not the Jews who crucified Jesus (although they wanted it done), it was the Romans. Beware of those from ROME, those are the ones that will get you killed every time.

You are way off...
Nothing personal.
And just because a lot of people believe something, that alone doesn't make it true.
The true answer(s) is available if you look.

[chud]

BTW: Everyone: it was not the Jews who crucified Jesus (although they wanted it done), it was the Romans. Beware of those from ROME, those are the ones that will get you killed every time.

I agree with Hermie, you're way off man.

[Spectrism]

Streets of God is "way off man"? Show me how you brilliant men arrive at that conclusion.

Mar 15:1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate. [Pilate was the Roman governor in charge of this savage area known as Judea]
Mar 15:2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayestit.
Mar 15:3 And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing.
Mar 15:4 And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee.
Mar 15:5 But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.
Mar 15:6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. [Released to whom? The Jews!]
Mar 15:7 And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.
Mar 15:8 And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.
Mar 15:9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
Mar 15:10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
Mar 15:11 But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
Mar 15:12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?
Mar 15:13 And they cried out again, Crucify him.
Mar 15:14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.
Mar 15:15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
Mar 15:16 And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band. [These are Roman soldiers.]
Mar 15:17 And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head,
Mar 15:18 And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews! [It also mocked the Jews to call Him king of the Jews.]
Mar 15:19 And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.
Mar 15:20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.
Mar 15:21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
Mar 15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.
Mar 15:23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.
Mar 15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
Mar 15:25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
Mar 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. [Again- mocking the Jews.]

[PatColo]

TUT blog posted this 16 min podcast today,


Good Friday–The Passion from the book of St. Matthew (http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/good-friday-the-passion-from-the-book-of-st-matthew/)

Posted by crescentandcross (http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/author/crescentandcross/) in Uncategorized (http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/) on April 6, 2012http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-ab3gTb8xb3dLg.gif
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9RY83mAr5uA/0.jpg
On this solemn Good Friday, we recall the day Jesus paid the ultimate price for going up against the IDF, Knesset, Jewish Defense League and ADL of His own time. We also recall that today–as we are inundated with propaganda concerning DEM MOOZLEMS and the ‘threat’ they pose to Christians and the things held dear by them, that it remains THE JEWS who work tirelessly in defaming the holy name of Jesus and in making a mockery out of everything He was and everything He did.
We are joined by Mark Dankof and Fr. Jim Kretz as we read the Passion of St Matthew, and many thanks to both of them for taking time out to do it.
–ed note–It has been Christian tradition that between the hours of 9 am and noon, that a period of reflectful silence is maintained in remembrance of Jesus’ passion, so TUT will not be checking the website during that period to read/approve comments or augment any news stories.

Download Here (http://theuglytruth.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/tut22apr2011goodfriday1.mp3)

[PatColo]

I guess ABC is planning to air "Good Christian Bitches" as scheduled Easter Sunday night. also see:
Thread: Jewish ABC Airs "Good Christian Bitches" (Rev Ted Pike) (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?59374-Jewish-ABC-Airs-quot-Good-Christian-Bitches-quot-%28Rev-Ted-Pike%29)





Good Christian Bitches (http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/good-christian-bitches)
http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-ab3gTb8xb3dLg.gif
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kOu-%2BIZ4L._SL500_AA300_.jpg
GCB “Good Christian Bitches” is an ABC comedy-drama television series created and written by Robert Harling and by Darren Star. This sitcom is anti-Christian , whose title is both offensive and distastful to a Muslim like me.

The fact that ABC saw fit to show the first series during Easter is an assault on Christiianty during its holiest holiday. Having seen my faith maligned, degraded and depicted in a negative light, I can certainly feel the pain of my fellow Christian friends.

Christian Bitches It is not an appropriate term to use to describe any woman, regardless of their faith. Had the word ‘Christian’ been substitued with the word “Jewish” or “Black”, the show would not have seen the light of day. Christians should not be a fair game, and ABC should not profit from bashing Christian women.

Should this kind of filth become acceptable and main steam, then whose to say which group is going to be next in the crosshairs.

How can some one respond to this ugliness by ABC and prevent the network from making GCB a permanent fixture of Sunday evening television in the years to come? Rev. Ted Pike has the answer. He is the director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog group.

Rev. Pike is leading a boycott campain against the show and has generated a lot of support. As of this writing, nine advertising sponsors have already pulled the plug and admitted it was a mistake to support such a show.
When I mentioned the name of this show today to my two female coworkers, they were both stunned and droped their jaws in disblieve. One of them commented, “are you fu**ing kidding me?”.

No, I was not, I told them. The point is, if readers are outraged by this and wanted to make a difference, there is a long list of sponsers that need to be swayed. This is a good way to show your true color, and the good reverend Pike can use the extra help. He can be reached at: (503) 631-3808 or at tedpike@truthtellers.org.

Happy Easter to all my good Christian friends.

Mahmoud El-Yousseph
Retired USAF Veteran.

[Spectrism]

Did you clowns ever stop to think your anti-jew rants are non-productive? They really just make you look like morons with some strange hate perversion.

Most of the jews will face the judgment of God. So will most non-jews.

Most of the jews are materialistic. So are most non-jews.

You really need to identify those psychopaths who spend every waking hour conniving to control the lives of others and steal their wealth. That is not all jews. While it is fun to pick on the group for oddities, there are limits.

[Tumbleweed]

Spectrism I believe like Bishop Williamson that the jews did kill Jesus for the reasons he stated in the following article. I think Bishop Williamson is a real catholic but I have my doubts whether the pope is considering his efforts to make nice with the Jews and Muslims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/20/bishop-blog-jews-vatican

Bishop's blog raises tensions between Jews and the Vatican


Richard Williamson, who has previously denied existence of gas chambers during Holocaust, accuses Jews of killing Jesus
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/10/20/1319071041718/Richard-Williamson-007.jpg Roman Catholic bishop Richard Williamson wrote in his weekly post that 'the killing of Jesus was truly "deicide" ' and that 'only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide'. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images

Relations between Jews and Catholics are under immense strain after a bishop made controversial remarks on his blog.
Richard Williamson, who has previously denied the existence of gas chambers and the murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/holocaust), accused the Jews of killing Jesus, a charge that divided the two faiths for centuries until Pope Benedict XVI declared this year that Jews could not be held responsible for Jesus's death.
In his weekly post, Williamson wrote that "the killing of Jesus was truly 'deicide' " and that "only the Jews (leaders and people) were the prime agents of the deicide because it is obvious from the gospels that the gentile most involved, Pontius Pilate, … would never have condemned Jesus to death had not the Jewish leaders roused the Jewish people to clamour for his crucifixion."
His comments have angered Jewish leaders and Holocaust survivors, who are urging Rome to cease reconciliation talks with the ultra-traditionalist splinter group to which Williamson belongs, the Society of St Pius X. Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt of the European Council of Rabbis said: "We call upon the Catholic church to suspend negotiations with extremist Catholic tendencies until it is clear that these groups show a clear commitment to tackling antisemitism within their ranks."
Last month, Régis de Cacqueray, the head of the French SSPX chapter, also accused Jews of deicide. To the despair of Jewish groups, there has been increased dialogue between the Vatican and SSPX.
Goldschmidt said: "Comments like these take us back decades to the dark days before there was a meaningful and mutually respectful dialogue between Jews and Roman Catholics. There must be no rapprochement within the Catholic church for those of its flock who seek to preach words of hate."
The Vatican has said SSPX will have to sign up to core teachings if they are to reintegrate, although it has not stated what these are. Four SSPX bishops, including Williamson, were excommunicated in 1988 when they were illegally ordained.
But the Vatican lifted Williamson's excommunication on the very day that his Holocaust-denying remarks were aired. The decision appalled Jewish leaders, with many suspending contact with the Vatican as a result. The Vatican said it did not know Williamson held such views.
Williamson has repeatedly ignored pleas to retract his remarks and not even the pope has managed to get the cleric to recant.
The fresh row will embarrass the pope, who is preparing to host a summit of world faith leaders in Assisi, Italy, next week as part of his interreligious outreach programme.

[Horn]

Isn't there a statement of approval in the "New" testament of the "Old" testament?

Jewish Truth in Toolmanship regarded as a prerequisite to being a scribe.

[StreetsOfGold]

I agree with Hermie, you're way off man.

You're disagreement is not with me but God's word.

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

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, (JEWS) and his own (JEWS) received him not.

[Hermie]

Who Killed Christ?
by Sheldon Emry

What saith the Holy Scriptures?

Being a treatise on the Bible account of Jesus' death on Calvary's Cross, and the true identity of those who hated and crucified our LORD.
In any murder investigation, the authorities usually seek answers to the following questions:
1. Were there any previous attempts to kill the deceased, and if so, by whom?
2. Had anyone shown hatred enough of the deceased that it might bring about a desire to kill him?
3. Had the deceased, prior to his death, named any who might kill him?
4. Who was last seen with the victim? Or who might have had him under their physical control?
5. What is the testimony of witnesses to the murder?
In the case of a murder committed many centuries ago, such as the death of the Christ, we must avail ourselves of the historical record of events of that time. In this case we have quite a complete written account of the first years of our Christian era. We shall take each of the above questions in the order asked.

WHO ATTEMPTED TO KILL JESUS?
We read but a short way into the Gospels before we find the first attempt to kill Jesus. In chapter 2 of Matthew we find that King Herod of Jerusalem attempted to trick the Wise Men into revealing the location of the child Jesus. When God prevented that, we find that Herod "was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under" in a vain attempt to kill the infant Jesus.
Mark tells of the healing of a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath day, following which "the Pharisees went forth, and straightaway took counsel with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him." - (Mark 3:1-6) So here we see the Pharisees planning with others the killing of Jesus. The Herodians are identified in secular history as Edomites.
After another healing, we read in John 5:16-18:
"And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay Him... (and) sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father."
John 8:59 says:
"Then took they (scribes and Pharisees) up stones to cast at Him... "
Many other instances of thwarted attempts by the religious leaders to kill Jesus in Jerusalem are told in all four Gospels.
It became so bad that John says in chapter 7:1:
"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill Him."

WHO HATED JESUS?
Other than actual attempts to murder Jesus, we find the Gospels tell of open ridicule, trickery, and hatred of Jesus by the chief priests, the scribes, and the Pharisees. In Matthew 15:12 we see the Disciples told Jesus the Pharisees were "offended" by what Jesus had said.
Luke tells us that after one miracle
"they (scribes and Pharisees) were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus." - (Luke 6:11)
At the same time the religious authorities hated Jesus, we find that all four Gospels tell of the multitudes of the people who came to praise Him for His miracles. No antagonism was evidenced from the people, although not all believed, of course.
After Jesus overthrew the tables of the moneychangers in the temple, Mark says,
"And the scribes and the chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy Him: for they feared Him, because all the people were astonished (impressed) at His doctrine." - (Mark 11:18
Fear of the loss of their wealth and power made these greedy men desire the end of Jesus' miracles. After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead we find that:
"... then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, what do we? For, this man doeth many miracles. IF WE LET HIM THUS ALONE, ALL MEN WILL BELIEVE ON HIM: AND THE ROMANS SHALL COME AND TAKE AWAY BOTH OUR PLACE AND NATION." - (John 11:47-48
Verse 53 says,
"Then from that day forth THEY TOOK COUNSEL TOGETHER FOR TO PUT HIM (Jesus) TO DEATH."
This hatred for Jesus became so well known in Judea that we read that "no man spake openly of Him (Jesus) FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS."

WHO DID JESUS SAY WOULD KILL HIM?
Sometimes a murder case is solved when authorities find that the victim knew, or suspected, that certain persons might attempt to take his life. Using that as a lead, they can then investigate further.
Jesus told the twelve disciples of His coming death, AND HE NAMED THE MEN WHO WOULD CAUSE IT.
"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of THE ELDERS AND THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND SCRIBES, AND BE KILLED, and be raised again the third day." - (Matthew 16:21)
There are 9 places telling of His prophecy of His own death and 5 times He names the chief priests, scribes, elders, and Pharisees as those who will kill Him!
In the Gospel of JOHN we do not find these particular incidents, but we do find an account of Jesus personally accusing these same men of seeking to kill Him. In John 7, speaking to "the Jews" (vs 15), He asked,
"Why go ye about to kill Me?"
These "Jews" are identified in the next chapter as "the scribes and Pharisees" (vs 3), at which time Jesus delivers to them a scathing rebuke including these words:
"ye seek to kill Me, because My Word hath no place in you." - (vs 37)
His rebuke so angered them that vs 59 says, " Then took they up stones to cast at Him," as we have seen. (In this same chapter we find Christ identified these religious rulers as NOT OF ISRAEL! We'll show that a little later.)
Jesus also taught a parable in which He identified His murderers, at which time they again attempted to kill Him. We know it as the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21:33-46 and Luke 20:9-19. Christ told of the planting of a vineyard in a story similar to Isaiah 5:1-7 in which we read "the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel," identifying the vineyard of Christ's parable as "the house of Israel," and the planter as God Almighty. As the story goes on, the vineyard (Israel) is under the charge of "husbandmen" to whom the planter sends servants "that they (the husbandmen) should give Him the fruit of the vineyard" But, instead, the husbandmen beat and kill the servants.
"But last of all He sent unto them His Son, saying, They will reverence My Son." - (Matthew 21:37)
But what did Christ teach that they would do?
"But when the Husbandmen saw the Son, they said among themselves, This is the heir, COME, LET US KILL HIM, AND LET US SEIZE ON HIS INHERITANCE."(emphasis added)
Verse 45 and 46 read,
"And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that He spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitude, because they took Him for a prophet"
In Luke's account he says,
"And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on Him; and they feared the people: FOR THEY PERCEIVED THAT HE HAD SPOKEN THIS PARABLE AGAINST THEM." - (Luke 20:19)
They understood that Jesus knew it was they who would attempt to kill Him:
In this parable and its aftermath, again we see that those whom Christ said would kill Him, are the same who then attempted to do so. (This story also identifies these "religious" men as NON-ISRAELITES as we'll see a little further on.)

WHO PLANNED AND THEN CAPTURED HIM?
So far the evidence we have seen would bring these men only under "suspicion." It would be considered "circumstantial evidence" in a modern court of law and would NOT be enough to convict the scribes, the chief priests, the elders, and the Pharisees of the murder itself. They could have been found guilty of attempted murder: but we are seeking the answer to WHO KILLED THE CHRIST? not just who threatened Him.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke each tell of the final plans which were made to kill Jesus, identifying the men who made the plans, AND THEN PROCEEDED TO CARRY THEM OUT.
Matthew 26:3-4 reads,
"Then assembled together THE CHIEF PRIESTS, and THE SCRIBES, and THE ELDERS of the people, unto the palace of THE HIGH PRIEST, WHO WAS CALLED CAIAPHAS, and consulted that they might TAKE JESUS BY SUBTILTY AND KILL HIM."
A pretty plain testimony, is it not? Describing the actual capture, he writes,
"And while He yet spake, lo, JUDAS, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, FROM THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND ELDERS of the people." - (vs 47)
Mark 14, verse 1 and 43, tell the same story, as does Luke 22 verse 2 and 52 with Luke also adding the "captains of the temple." All three, in the same chapters, relate how Judas Iscariat betrayed Jesus to His captors, with Mark and Luke stating that it was the CHIEF PRIESTS who had agreed to pay Judas money for the betrayal.
That the high priest, Caiaphas, was privy to all this, is proven again when Jesus was taken directly to his palace.
John, in telling of the people believing Jesus' miracles, writes,
"The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things (said He was the Christ) concerning Him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take Him." - (John 7:32)
He later identified Jesus' captors as "a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees" and also, "the band and the captain and officers of the Jews." - (John 18:3,12)
Some foolish ministers try to make it appear that all the people in Jerusalem were the culprits in this betrayal and murder, but the same chapters above tell of His follower's willingness to fight for Him, and being prevented from doing so by the Christ Himself.
When Peter attempted to defend Jesus, He said,
"Put up again thy sword into his place... Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"
Christ gave the Disciples to understand that He MUST be allowed to be taken captive,
"Then all the disciples forsook Him, and fled" - (Matthew 26:52-56)
Nowhere in all the New Testament Scriptures is anyone accused of being a part of Jesus' betrayal and capture except those who were directly connected with, or paid by, THE RELIGIOUS RULERS OF JERUSALEM!
Now we know who captured Him; let us continue with the people and events of this ancient drama.

JESUS TAKEN TO PIlATE
From the time of His being taken by physical force, until His death on the Cross, Jesus came into the presence, and under the control, of the civil authorities, both of Judea, and of Rome. Because of that, many attempt to blame the Romans, through Pilate, for the murder of Christ.
It is true that Rome was in full military control of Judea at that time. It is also true that Rome had ordered that no one could be put to death by the local authorities. The chief priests were allowed to judge and punish for minor crimes, but the death sentence could be imposed ONLY by the Roman governor. This, of course, was Pilate.
It was for that reason that the Jewish priests, though they had pronounced the death sentence on Him ("He is guilty of death." - Matthew 26:66 "All the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put Him to death." - Matthew 27:1), dared not carry out their sentence. They had to have Pilate's approval of it to make it official!
This is verified in John 18:31,
"Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your Law. The Jews therefore said unto him (Pilate), It is not lawful for us to put any man to death."
They could have whipped Him, but their desire was His DEATH!
So, "when they bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the govemor," (Matthew 27:2) and set about to FORCE Pilate to give his consent for them to put Jesus Christ to death.

PILATE ATTEMPTED TO RELEASE JESUS
At first Pilate refused, and the details of his several attempts to release Jesus are told by all four Gospel writers.
"Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him and the governor said, why, what evil hath He done?" - {Matthew 27, Mark 15)
Pilate went to great lengths to convince the Priests and Pharisees that they should not put Jesus to death.
"And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, said unto them ...behold, I, having examined Him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse Him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him and lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto Him." - (LUKE 23:13-15)
In his attempts to save Jesus, Pilate had sent Him to Herod because Herod had authority in Galilee where Jesus began His ministry (see vs 5-7) but Herod only "mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate." (vs 11)
Pilate then went on, "I will therefore chastise Him, and release Him." - (vs 16)
John verified Pilate's desire to release Jesus:
"I find in Him no fault at all... will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?" - (John 18:38-39)
Much more could be quoted of the almost desperate attempts by Pilate to save Jesus from death. But each time he was immediately threatened with mob violence and insurrection.
"A tumult was made" - (Matthew 27:24) "And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that He might be crucified. And the voices of them (the rulers) and the chief priests prevailed" - (Luke 23:23)
The final threat to Pilate was an accusation of treason to Caesar if he were to release Jesus Christ:
"Pilate sought to release Him: but the Jews cried out, saying, if thou let this man go, thou are not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." - (John 19:12)
Some diehard, pro-Jew ministers, in spite of all this evidence, will still insist that, "Well, it is true that the Jews urged the death of Jesus, but that what really happened was that when Pilate gave up, he turned Jesus over to the Roman soldiers, and the Romans then proceeded to crucify Him." But, again we ask. "What saith the Scripture?"

PILATE RETURNED JESUS TO THE JEWS AND THE JEWS CRUCIFIED HIM

"When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, his blood be on us, and on our children." - (Matthew 27: 24-25)
This was NOT the Roman soldiers who answered; but the Jewish priests and elders.
Verse 27 says the soldiers of Pilate "took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto Him the whole band of soldiers." Then the next verses recount how "they" crucified Him. BUT, and this is VERY IMPORTANT the words "of soldiers" is in italics and was ADDED BY THE TRANSLATORS: Mark's account is almost identical to Matthew's, except Mark stops with the words, "the whole band". The only "band" referred to in all these accounts is the "band" of THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND THE PHARISEES: - (See Matthew 27:27, John 18:3 & 12)
Leaving out the words "of soldiers," INSERTED BY THE TRANSLATORS, it becomes obvious that both accounts say the same thing, i.e. that Jesus Christ was taken from Pilate's presence BY the soldiers, and then turned over TO the "band" OF THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND PHARISEES: Nowhere in the four Gospels are the Roman soldiers referred to as a "band".
This also fits what Luke tells us.
"And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they (the chief priests) required.. .(and) he delivered Jesus to THEIR will.... THEY led Him away... THEY crucified Him..." - (Luke 23:24-33)
Luke does NOT say the soldiers crucified Jesus.
John also:
"And he (Pilate) saith unto the Jews, Behold your king! But they cried out, Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The Chief priests answered, we have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he Him therefore unto THEM to be crucified and THEY took Jesus, and led Him away." - (John 19:14-16)
Verse 18 says, "THEY crucified Him."
In verse 6, John quotes Pilate as saying to the chief priests and officers,
"Take ye Him, and crucify Him :for I find no fault in Him,"
making it plain, as did Matthew and Luke,that Pilate meant that if Jesus was to be killed, it would have to be the Jewish rulers who did it.

[Hermie]

MINISTERS DECEIVE CHRISTIANS
Most ministers ignore all this, usually quoting only from verse 23 and 24 to "prove" that the Roman soldiers were the ones who actually nailed Jesus on the Cross.Verse 23 begins, " Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts " and then follows the story of the soldiers casting lots for Jesus' garments. The ministers say, "See, it says the Roman soldiers crucified Jesus:" BUT- it should be obvious, from what we have just read in the previous verses 16 and 18, that those referred to as "they" in verse 23 are NOT the Roman soldiers, BUT THE CHIEF PRIESTS, THE SCRIBES, THE PHARISEES AND RULERS OF THE SYNAGOGUE: It would be absolutely correct to read verse 23 as follows:
"Then the soldiers, when they (the Chief Priests, etc.) had crucified Jesus, took His garments... "
This reading would be in agreement with what we have already read from these unimpeachable witnesses, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
The story of the parting of the garments of Jesus reveals another important Truth. John 19:23 says the soldiers "made four parts, to every soldier apart... " at least implying there WERE ONLY FOUR SOLDIERS PRESENT AT THE CRUCIFIXION! Hardly possible if it had been an official Roman execution.

JESUS DIED AS HIGH PRIEST
(The coat, in other Gospels calIed a "robe," was not divided by the soldiers, but left in one piece and they cast lots for it. This has no direct bearing on who crucified the Lord, but it is described as made " without seam, woven from the top throughout, " and Christians should receive a blessing from realizing the robe placed on Jesus by Herod prior to His death was NOT torn by the soldiers AND IT WAS MADE IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED FOR THE ROBE OF THE HIGH PRIEST OF ISRAEL. See Exodus 28:31-32. Christ walked to the place of His sacrificial death wearing the vesture identifying Him as our HIGH PRIEST! Praise ye the Lord.)

WHY DID PILATE WASH HIS HANDS?
The conclusion that the Jewish Priests and their "band" were the actual murderers of Jesus, rather than the Romans being responsible for His death, would also explain the strange "ritual" which Pilate and the Jewish mob went through when Pilate "washed his hands .. .saying I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it" (you do it); and the Jewish mob answered and said,
"His blood be on us, and our children."
The answer is in Moses' Law regarding murder by unidentified persons in Deuteronomy 21. It is too long to quote here (but you should read it), but it required the civil authorities to go through the ritual of washing their hands in water and declaring,
"Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it."
This absolved the official of guilt. PILATE COULD NOT HAVE DONE THIS IF HE HAD THEN PROCEEDED TO HAVE HIS SOLDIERS KILL JESUS: The Jewish Priests, because they knew the Law, KNEW THAT THIS SIGNIFIED THAT PILATE WOULD NOT PUT JESUS TO DEATH, BUT THAT HE HAD TOLD THEM TO DO SO, "see ye to it," and they answered Pilate's proclamation of his innocence by saying THEY WOULD DO IT, and "His blood be on us, and on our children." They knew Pilate's act and words also declared, in advance, that Jesus was the innocent victim of MURDER!What could be plainer?
The Apostles and Disciples who wrote the New Testament would have known all of this, AND NOWHERE IN THE GOSPELS OR IN THE EPISTLES ARE EITHER PILATE OR THE ROMAN SOLDIERS ACCUSED OF PUTTING JESUS TO DEATH: That Jesus considered the Jews the greater culprits is proven in His Words to Pilate - in John 19:11,
"he that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin."
In spite of all this evidence, today's ministers, almost to a man, attempt to absolve the Jews of this crime by telling Christians that it was Pilate and the Romans who put to death the Lord of Glory.

[Spectrism]

Two errors Hermie.

Flawed logic and plagiarism.

I KNOW you did NOT write that tripe. And I did not see a reference. So, I am left to believe that you posted something that you figured was smarter than you.... and yet it was crap.

[JohnQPublic]

I think one key to this is to say that certain individuals (leaders of the Pharisees and related groups for instance, Judas, members of the crowd that cried for his crucifixion, etc.) can be blamed for the death of Jesus (to more or lesser degrees depending on position, influence, status, etc.) , but not the Jews of today directly (understanding that the Jews of today practice a talmudic religion, which is not the same as the Mosaic temple religion practice prior and during Jesus' time). Some Romans of the time also played an objective role in His death, yet in the the future (relative to the time of His death) most Romans ultimately became Christians.

The fact that God chose to become man through His Son and die does not remove objective responsibility of those involved in Christ's death. We all participate in destiny, and God already knows how it will end. How we participate is still a choice for us (though we do not know how it will end). This is free will. Destiny will occur regardless of our choice in any matter that comes before us. The means by which destiny unfolds may change depending on individual decisions along the trajectory of history. Yet all will be judged by their individual actions, regardless as to how it played into the unfolding of destiny.

This is how I understand it.

Happy Easter, all!

[Hermie]

Two errors Hermie.

Flawed logic and plagiarism.

I KNOW you did NOT write that tripe. And I did not see a reference. So, I am left to believe that you posted something that you figured was smarter than you.... and yet it was crap.

Believe what you want.
Eventually we will all find out.

[Book]

...We all participate in destiny, and God already knows how it will end. How we participate is still a choice for us (though we do not know how it will end). This is free will. Destiny will occur regardless of our choice in any matter that comes before us. The means by which destiny unfolds may change depending on individual decisions along the trajectory of history. Yet all will be judged by their individual actions, regardless as to how it played into the unfolding of destiny.



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_S5FwHXr9eSU/SudLHTiVQkI/AAAAAAAAAHY/E6CHrwp2KS8/s400/95-theses.jpg

If so...wouldn't all Thinking Catholics embrace Martin Luther and become Lutherans?

:)

[Spectrism]

Believe what you want.
Eventually we will all find out.

Find out what? I posted the reference that makes very clear what happened. I believe what I have found to be true. There is no reference above the Word of God.

[Horn]

Say what thoust wilt,

y'all never reach biblical scribe translator & the apostolic copywrite holder's level in the hierarchy.

[lapis]

This is the time of the year that I re-read D.H. Lawrence's short story called "The Man Who Died (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/lawrence/dh/l41ma/complete.html)," about what happens to Jesus when he wakes up after the crucifixion and finds himself an ordinary man. Here's an excerpt:

And at dawn, when he was better, the man who had died rose up, and on slow, sore feet retraced his way to the garden. For he had been betrayed in a garden, and buried in a garden. And as he turned round the screen of laurels, near the rock-face, he saw a woman hovering by the tomb, a woman in blue and yellow.

She peeped again into the mouth of the hole, that was like a deep cupboard. But still there was nothing. And she wrung her hands and wept. And as she turned away, she saw the man in white, standing by the laurels, and she gave a cry, thinking it might be a spy, and she said:

“They have taken him away!”

So he said to her:
“Madeleine!”

Then she reeled as if she would fall, for she knew him. And he said to her:

“Madeleine! Do not be afraid. I am alive. They took me down too soon, so I came back to life. Then I was sheltered in a house.”

She did not know what to say, but fell at his feet to kiss them.

“Don’t touch me, Madeleine,” he said. “Not yet! I am not yet healed and in touch with men.”

So she wept because she did not know what to do. And he said:

“Let us go aside, among the bushes, where we can speak unseen.”

So in her blue mantle and her yellow robe, she followed him among the trees, and he sat down under a myrtle bush. And he said:

“I am not yet quite come to. Madeleine, what is to be done next?”

“Master!” she said. “Oh, we have wept for you! And will you come back to us?”

“What is finished is finished, and for me the end is past,” he said. “The stream will run till no more rains fill it, then it will dry up. For me, that life is over.”

“And will you give up your triumph?” she said sadly.

“My triumph,” he said, “is that I am not dead. I have outlived my mission and know no more of it. It is my triumph. I have survived the day and the death of my interference, and am still a man. I am young still, Madeleine, not even come to middle age. I am glad all that is over. It had to be. But now I am glad it is over, and the day of my interference is done. The teacher and the saviour are dead in me; now I can go about my business, into my own single life.”

She heard him, and did not fully understand. But what he said made her feel disappointed.

“But you will come back to us?” she said, insisting.

“I don’t know what I shall do,” he said. “When I am healed, I shall know better. But my mission is over, and my teaching is finished, and death has saved me from my own salvation. Oh, Madeleine, I want to take my single way in life, which is my portion. My public life is over, the life of my self-importance. Now I can wait on life, and say nothing, and have no one betray me. I wanted to be greater than the limits of my hands and feet, so I brought betrayal on myself. And I know I wronged Judas, my poor Judas.

For I have died, and now I know my own limits. Now I can live without striving to sway others any more. For my reach ends in my fingertips, and my stride is no longer than the ends of my toes. Yet I would embrace multitudes, I who have never truly embraced even one. But Judas and the high priests saved me from my own salvation, and soon I can turn to my destiny like a bather in the sea at dawn, who has just come down to the shore alone.”

“Do you want to be alone henceforward?” she asked. “And was your mission nothing? Was it all untrue?”

“Nay!” he said. “Neither were your lovers in the past nothing. They were much to you, but you took more than you gave. Then you came to me for salvation from your own excess. And I, in my mission, I too ran to excess. I gave more than I took, and that also is woe and vanity. So Pilate and the high priests saved me from my own excessive salvation. Don’t run to excess now in living, Madeleine. It only means another death.”

She pondered bitterly, for the need for excessive giving was in her, and she could not bear to be denied.

“And will you not come back to us?” she said. “Have you risen for yourself alone?”

He heard the sarcasm in her voice, and looked at her beautiful face which still was dense with excessive need for salvation from the woman she had been, the female who had caught men at her will. The cloud of necessity was on her, to be saved from the old, wilful Eve, who had embraced many men and taken more than she gave. Now the other doom was on her. She wanted to give without taking. And that, too, is hard, and cruel to the warm body.

“I have not risen from the dead in order to seek death again,” he said.

She glanced up at him, and saw the weariness settling again on his waxy face, and the vast disillusion in his dark eyes, and the underlying indifference. He felt her glance, and said to himself:

“Now my own followers will want to do me to death again, for having risen up different from their expectation.”

[lapis]

And here's a companion poem to the story called "The Risen Lord"

The risen lord, the risen lord
Has risen in the flesh,
And treads the earth to feel the soil
Though his feet are still nesh.

The risen lord, the risen lord
Has opened his eyes afresh,
And sees strange looks on the faces of men
All held in leash.

And he says: I never have seen them before,
These people of flesh;
These are no spirits caught and sore
In the physical mesh.

They are substance itself, that flows in thick
Flame of flesh forever travelling
Like the flame of a candle, slow and quick
Fluttering and softly unravelling.

It moves, it ripples, and all the time
It changes, and with it change
Moods, thoughts, desires, and deeds that chime
With the rippling fleshly change.

I never saw them, how they must soften
Themselves with oil and lard
Their guts with a certain fat, and often
Laugh, and laugh hard.

If they didn't, if they did not soften
Themselves with oil and lard
Their guts with a certain fat, and often
Laugh, and laugh hard

They would not be men, and they must be men,
They are their own flesh. – I lay
In the tomb and was not; I have risen again
To look the other way.

Lo! I am flesh, and the blood that races
Is me in the narrows of my wrists.
Lo, I see fear in the twisted faces
Of men, they clench fear in their fists!

Lo! on the other side of the grave
I have conquered the fear of death,
But the fear of life is still here; I am brave
Yet I fear my own breath.

Now I must conquer the fear of life,
The knock of the blood in my wrists,
The breath that rushes through my nose, the strife
Of desires in the loins' dark twists.

What do you want, wild loins? and what
Do you want, warm heart? and what
Wide eyes and wondering spirit? – not
Death, no not death for your lot!

They ask, and they must be answered; they
Are, and they shall, to the end.

Lo! there is woman, and her way is a strange way,
I must follow also her trend.

I died, and death is neuter; it speaks not, it gives
No answer; man rises again
With mouth and loins and needs, he lives
Again man among men.

So it is, so it will be, for ever and ever.
And still the great needs of men
Will clamour forth from the flesh, and never
Can denial deny them again.

[midnight rambler]

BTW: Everyone: it was not the Jews who crucified Jesus (although they wanted it done), it was the Romans. Beware of those from ROME, those are the ones that will get you killed every time.

The Pharisees were from Rome?? ??? I did not know that...

[Awoke]

This is laughable.

The word JEW never existed at ALL until within the last 500 years of so.

The lines of David are not JEWS.

All pre-2nd vatican council priest knew as common knowledge that the "jews" killed Christ. Kabbalist talmudists killed Him.







CHAPTER SEVEN

THE DEICIDE PEOPLE


Let us recall that an association under the name “Friends of Israel”, to which even cardinals and bishops belonged, was dissolved by his Holiness Pope Pius XI, by means of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, in the year 1928; and that among the assertions condemned, assertions which the said association spread, was that the Jewish people were not the murderers of God, which contradicts what the Church has maintained for nearly twenty centuries. Condemned by the Church, this association was dissolved through the Edict mentioned. No one imagined that its adventures would be re-enlivened, until it was established to great astonishment that, after more than thirty years, the Jews had founded the same association again and it was supported by a numerous group of clergy, who nevertheless defiantly contradict the condemnation expressed by the Holy Office and assert that it is completely false that our Lord Jesus Christ was killed by the Jews and that those really responsible for the murder were the Romans; consequently it is unjustifiable to describe the Jewish people as murderers of God.

The audacity of the new Friends of Israel verges on the limits of the incomprehensible; for they not only dare to contradict the Apostles of the Lord, but Christ Himself, as will be proved in what follows by means of texts from the New Testament, which reveal:

I. That Christ accused the Jews and not the Romans of wishing to kill him.

II. That the Jews and not the Romans were those who had the intention of killing Jesus, and who upon different occasions attempted to destroy him before his Passion and Death.

III. That the Jews and not the Romans were the instigators and truly responsible for the crime.

IV. That the Apostles accused the Jews and not the Romans of the death of Jesus.

First Thesis: Christ accused the Jews and not the Romans of wishing to kill him.
Proof:
In the Gospel of John, Chapter VIII, the Apostle relates that Jesus, in a verbal dispute with some Jews, said to them (Verse 37):
“I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill Me, because My word hath no place in you.”
And afterwards, as the Apostle alludes in verse 40 of the same chapter, Jesus Christ, our Lord, says anew to the Jews:
“But now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God; this did not Abraham.”46 (http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/pinay/part3.htm#notes#notes)
And in another chapter of the said Holy Gospel (in the VIIth), the favourite disciple points out that Jesus, having gone on a certain day to the temple in order to preach, said to the Jews:
“19. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill Me?”47 (http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/pinay/part3.htm#notes#notes)

In no passage of the Holy Apostles does it appear that Christ, our Lord, said that the Romans wished to kill him, but on the contrary he accused the Jews of wanting to do it. Do then the clergy who represent this new kind of (Jew-friendly) thesis believe that Christ, our Lord, was wrong and that now, in this century, they have just discovered that our Lord Jesus Christ could not foresee that it was the Romans and not the Jews who wished to kill Him?

[Awoke]

and more.




Saint Mark reports to us in Chapter 14 of his Gospel:

“1. After two days was the feast of the Passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take Him by craft, and put Him to death. 10. And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray Him unto them. 11. And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray Him.”

It is necessary to establish that Judas did not attempt to betray Him to the Romans, but to the Jews, because they and not the Romans were interested in killing Christ.

Saint Mark continues with a passage which proves that it was the spiritual and civil leaders of the Jewish peoples, and not the Romans, who had Jesus taken prisoner:

“43. And immediately, while He yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and elders. 44. And he that betrayed Him had given them a token, saying, ‘Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: take him, and lead him away safely.’ 46. And they laid hands on Him, and took Him. 53. And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes (i.e. the leaders of the Jewish people; the most far-reaching representatives of Israel). 55. And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put Him to death; and found none. 56. For many bare witness against Him, but their witness agreed not together. 59. But neither so did their witness agree together. 60. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, ‘Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?’ 61. But He held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, and said unto Him, ‘Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ 62. And Jesus said, ‘I am, and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.’ 63. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, ‘What need we any further witnesses? 64. Ye have heard the blasphemy; what think ye?’ And they all condemned Him to be guilty of death. 65. And some began to spit on Him, and to cover His face, and to buffet Him, and to say unto Him, ‘Prophesy’; and the servants did strike Him with the palms of their hands.”57 (http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/pinay/part3.htm#notes#notes)

For two thousand years long the whole world has been filled with horror at the cruelty and hardness that has been displayed by the Jews in the torturing of their own God; this cruelty and this sadism has later always revealed itself, where they have intervened, especially in those lands where they were successful in introducing their totalitarian dictatorship, i.e. in the so-called Socialist or Communist states.

[Spectrism]

lapis- the stuff you copied onto this forum is pure lies. It is the wanderings of a mad man. Perhaps this is why you would favor the writings of one such as Muhammad.

[lapis]

lapis- the stuff you copied onto this forum is pure lies. It is the wanderings of a mad man. Perhaps this is why you would favor the writings of one such as Muhammad.

Of course a lot of great authors are seen as mad, mainly because they take us away from our normal everyday ways of seeing life, and can help us see "reality" in a different way.

A lot of his genius comes from his having grown up in a religious household as a young man in the 1900s, and having that sensibility transform as he developed into an artist. However, it's interesting to me that people are still having this reaction to his writing almost 100 years after his death; "shouts of pain."

But what's wrong portraying how Jesus would've reacted had he been given the chance to be a normal man, rather than as the son of God? I think Jesus's reactions as Lawrence wrote them are realistic. It would probably be a relief to throw all that burden off.

[Awoke]

I think it's a bad idea to lower Jesus down to mere humanity.
It's no better than the new-age occultism that teaches people they are equal to and part of God.

[Spectrism]

Of course a lot of great authors are seen as mad, mainly because they take us away from our normal everyday ways of seeing life, and can help us see "reality" in a different way.

A lot of his genius comes from his having grown up in a religious household as a young man in the 1900s, and having that sensibility transform as he developed into an artist. However, it's interesting to me that people are still having this reaction to his writing almost 100 years after his death; "shouts of pain."

But what's wrong portraying how Jesus would've reacted had he been given the chance to be a normal man, rather than as the son of God? I think Jesus's reactions as Lawrence wrote them are realistic. It would probably be a relief to throw all that burden off.

The problem with it is that it is FICTION masquerading as fact. I call that lies.

[JohnQPublic]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_S5FwHXr9eSU/SudLHTiVQkI/AAAAAAAAAHY/E6CHrwp2KS8/s400/95-theses.jpg

If so...wouldn't all Thinking Catholics embrace Martin Luther and become Lutherans?

:)

Not necessarily. In fact, I went the opposite direction, Lutheran to Catholic.

[Spectrism]

Not necessarily. In fact, I went the opposite direction, Lutheran to Catholic.

JQP- growing up Roman Catholic, I always saw Lutherans as the pretend Catholics. They copied many of the rituals and set up service (mass) in a similar way. It was like de-caff Romanism.

As a Roman Catholic, do you pledge your first allegiance to the pope?

[goldleaf]

As far as Bishop Williamson spewing hatred for jews, why is it, as far as I know, that the Catholic church is the only church that has special prayers that are to be said on Good Friday for the conversion of the jews. I was always taught that true charity comes in the form of helping someone save their eternal soul.

I Know Bishop Williamson has spoke of praying for the jews conversion in sermons, I've heard him.

[Spectrism]

As far as Bishop Williamson spewing hatred for jews, why is it, as far as I know, that the Catholic church is the only church that has special prayers that are to be said on Good Friday for the conversion of the jews. I was always taught that true charity comes in the form of helping someone save their eternal soul.

I Know Bishop Williamson has spoke of praying for the jews conversion in sermons, I've heard him.

You really are an outsider when it comes to such things. The gospel has gone out to all- jews first and the greeks. Any christian shares the gospel with whoever will hear it.

[sugar plum]

What kind of God dies?

I think Awoke gave you a good answer. I would like to add that the extraordinary feat was coming back to life after He died. That makes all the difference.

[lapis]

I think it's a bad idea to lower Jesus down to mere humanity.
It's no better than the new-age occultism that teaches people they are equal to and part of God.

It doesn't show people as equal to god, it just shows what Jesus missed out on when he was a Messiah. There is a lot to simple human life that is precious and good, and I think that's what the story is mainly about.


The problem with it is that it is FICTION masquerading as fact. I call that lies.

I take it you're not a fan of the fiction section of the library, and just stick to the non-fiction area? ;-)

[Spectrism]

It doesn't show people as equal to god, it just shows what Jesus missed out on when he was a Messiah. There is a lot to simple human life that is precious and good, and I think that's what the story is mainly about.

I take it you're not a fan of the fiction section of the library, and just stick to the non-fiction area? ;-)


Heb 12:2 looking to the Author and Finisher of our faith, Jesus, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, "and sat down at the right" of the throne of God. Psa. 110:1
He was obedient to Father God- and there is no missing out on anything when you do that. The rewards of obedience far exceed the temporary distractions of this world.


I have no real problem with fiction except when it is being produced as equal with fact.

[lapis]

He was obedient to Father God- and there is no missing out on anything when you do that. The rewards of obedience far exceed the temporary distractions of this world.

It's too bad we'll never know if Jesus himself thought it was all worthwhile after reflecting on his life, but I think he would feel exactly as the story says, and that is why it is so shocking to people. How dare Jesus want to sleep with a woman and get away from his followers! And sex is not just a temporary distraction, it is the reason we're all here. The beauty of flowers is "just" sex.

On a side note, D.H. Lawrence was raised in a strict Christian home and grew up to be the usual prissy upright English gentleman of the early 1900s. His writing was pretty good around this time and he got a lot of praise for having come from a working class background when he got his first novel The White Peacock published when he was 25.

But it wasn't until he met one of his professor's German wife, an aristocrat who was a von Richthofen and distant relative of the Red Baron, that his writing became transformed under the influence of this relationship. They eventually married, and it was after this that he wrote some of the masterpieces of English Literature like The Rainbow, Women in Love, and Lady Chatterly's Lover.

For the first time, he was with a woman whom he could respect and be sexually attracted to. Before Frieda, he had women he respected (like his girlfriend Jessie), or women he slept with (Alice Dax) but didn't want to be seen in public with. He suffered from the common western malady of the Madonna/whore syndrome which keeps men basically osychologically impotent.

When he was older Lawrence said that he would often get letters from people saying they couldn't believe marriage or love could be like what he described in his novels, but it was really true; not that it was all a bed of roses. He and Frieda broke fought violently and even separated a few times.

"The novel is the book of life. In this sense, the Bible is a great confused novel. You may say, it is about God. But it is really about man alive. Adam, Eve, Sarai, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, David, Bath-sheba, Ruth, Esther, Solomon, Job, Isaiah, Jesus, mark, Judas, Paul, Peter: what is it but man alive, from start to finish? Man alive, not mere bits. Even the Lord is another man alive, in a burning bush, throwing the tablets of stone at Moses's head."
~ "Why the Novel Matters"

[lapis]

It's a good essay:

"Why the Novel Matters"

by D.H. Lawrence

WE have curious ideas of ourselves. We think of ourselves as a body with a spirit in it, or a body with a soul in it, or a body with a mind in it. Mens sana in corpore sano. The years drink up the wine, and at last throw the bottle away, the body, of course, being the bottle.

It is a funny sort of superstition. Why should I look at my hand, as it so cleverly writes these words, and decide that it is a mere nothing compared to the mind that directs it? Is there really any huge difference between my hand and my brain? Or my mind? My hand is alive, it flickers with a life of its own. It meets all the strange universe in touch, and learns a vast number of things, and knows a vast number of things. My hand, as it writes these words, slips gaily along, jumps like a grasshopper to dot an i, feels the table rather cold, gets a little bored if I write too long, has its own rudiments of thought, and is just as much me as is my brain, my mind, or my soul. Why should I imagine that there is a me which is more me than my hand is? Since my hand is absolutely alive, me alive.

Whereas, of course, as far as I am concerned, my pen isn't alive at all. My pen isn't me alive. Me alive ends at my finger-tips.

Whatever is me alive is me. Every tiny bit of my hands is alive, every little freckle and hair and fold of skin. And whatever is me alive is me. Only my finger-nails, those ten little weapons between me and an inanimate universe, they cross the mysterious Rubicon between me alive and things like my pen, which are not alive, in my own sense.

So, seeing my hand is all alive, and me alive, wherein is it just a bottle, or a jug, or a tin can, or a vessel of clay, or any of the rest of that nonsense? True, if I cut it it will bleed, like a can of cherries. But then the skin that is cut, and the veins that bleed, and the bones that should never be seen, they are all just as alive as the blood that flows. So the tin can business, or vessel of clay, is just bunk.

And that's what you learn, when you're a novelist. And that's what you are very liable not to know, if you're a parson, or a philosopher, or a scientist, or a stupid person. If you're a parson, you talk about souls in heaven. If you're a novelist, you know that paradise is in the palm of your hand, and on the end of your nose, because both are alive; and alive, and man alive, which is more than you can say, for certain, of paradise. Paradise is after life, and I for one am not keen on anything that is after life. If you are a philosopher, you talk about infinity, and the pure spirit which knows all things. But if you pick up a novel, you realize immediately that infinity is just a handle to this self-same jug of a body of mine; while as for knowing, if I find my finger in the fire, I know that fire burns, with a knowledge so emphatic and vital, it leaves Nirvana merely a conjecture. Oh, yes, my body, me alive, knows, and knows intensely. And as for the sum of all knowledge, it can't be anything more than an accumulation of all the things I know in the body, and you, dear reader, know in the body.

These damned philosophers, they talk as if they suddenly went off in steam, and were then much more important than they are when they're in their shirts. It is nonsense. Every man, philosopher included, ends in his own finger-tips. That's the end of his man alive. As for the words and thoughts and sighs and aspirations that fly from him, they are so many tremulations in the ether, and not alive at all. But if the tremulations reach another man alive, he may receive them into his life, and his life may take on a new colour, like a chameleon creeping from a brown rock on to a green leaf. All very well and good. It still doesn't alter the fact that the so-called spirit, the message or teaching of the philosopher or the saint, isn't alive at all, but just a tremulation upon the ether, like a radio message. All this spirit stuff is just tremulations upon the ether. If you, as man alive, quiver from the tremulation of the ether into new life, that is because you are man alive, and you take sustenance and stimulation into your alive man in a myriad ways. But to say that the message, or the spirit which is communicated to you, is more important than your living body, is nonsense. You might as well say that the potato at dinner was more important.

Nothing is important but life. And for myself, I can absolutely see life nowhere but in the living. Life with a capital L is only man alive. Even a cabbage in the rain is cabbage alive. All things that are alive are amazing. And all things that are dead are subsidiary to the living. Better a live dog than a dead lion. But better a live lion than a live dog. C'est la vie!

It seems impossible to get a saint, or a philosopher, or a scientist, to stick to this simple truth. They are all, in a sense, renegades. The saint wishes to offer himself up as spiritual food for the multitude. Even Francis of Assisi turns himself into a sort of angelcake, of which anyone may take a slice. But an angel-cake is rather less than man alive. And poor St Francis might well apologize to his body, when he is dying: 'Oh, pardon me, my body, the wrong I did you through the years!' It was no wafer, for others to eat.

The philosopher, on the other hand, because he can think, decides that nothing but thoughts matter. It is as if a rabbit, because he can make little pills, should decide that nothing but little pills matter. As for the scientist, he has absolutely no use for me so long as I am man alive. To the scientist, I am dead. He puts under the microscope a bit of dead me, and calls it me. He takes me to pieces, and says first one piece, and then another piece, is me. My heart, my liver, my stomach have all been scientifically me, according to the scientist; and nowadays I am either a brain, or nerves, or glands, or something more up-to-date in the tissue line.

Now I absolutely flatly deny that I am a soul, or a body, or a mind, or an intelligence, or a brain, or a nervous system, or a bunch of glands, or any of the rest of these bits of me. The whole is greater than the part. And therefore, I, who am man alive, am greater than my soul, or spirit, or body, or mind, or consciousness, or anything else that is merely a part of me. I am a man, and alive. I am man alive, and as long as I can, I intend to go on being man alive.

For this reason I am a novelist. And being a novelist, I consider myself superior to the saint, the scientist, the philosopher, and the poet, who are all great masters of different bits of man alive, but never get the whole hog.

The novel is the one bright book of life. Books are not life. They are only tremulations on the ether. But the novel as a tremulation can make the whole man alive tremble. Which is more than poetry, philosophy, science, or any other book-tremulation can do.

The novel is the book of life. In this sense, the Bible is a great confused novel. You may say, it is about God. But it is really about man alive. Adam, Eve, Sarai, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, David, Bath-Sheba, Ruth, Esther, Solomon, Job, Isaiah, Jesus, Mark, Judas, Paul, Peter: what is it but man alive, from start to finish? Man alive, not mere bits. Even the Lord is another man alive, in a burning bush, throwing the tablets of stone at Moses's head.

I do hope you begin to get my idea, why the novel is supremely important, as a tremulation on the ether. Plato makes the perfect ideal being tremble in me. But that's only a bit of me. Perfection is only a bit, in the strange make-up of man alive. The Sermon on the Mount makes the selfless spirit of me quiver. But that, too, is only a bit of me. The Ten Commandments set the old Adam shivering in me, warning me that I am a thief and a murderer, unless I watch it. But even the old Adam is only a bit of me.

I very much like all these bits of me to be set trembling with life and the wisdom of life. But I do ask that the whole of me shall tremble in its wholeness, some time or other.

And this, of course, must happen in me, living.

But as far as it can happen from a communication, it can only happen when a whole novel communicates itself to me. The Bible--but all the Bible--and Homer, and Shakespeare: these are the supreme old novels. These are all things to all men. Which means that in their wholeness they affect the whole man alive, which is the man himself, beyond any part of him. They set the whole tree trembling with a new access of life, they do not just stimulate growth in one direction.

I don't want to grow in any one direction any more. And, if I can help it, I don't want to stimulate anybody else into some particular direction. A particular direction ends in a cul-de-sac. We're in a cul-de-sac at present.

I don't believe in any dazzling revelation, or in any supreme Word. 'The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the Word of the Lord shall stand for ever.' That's the kind of stuff we've drugged ourselves with. As a matter of fact, the grass withereth, but comes up all the greener for that reason, after the rains.
The flower fadeth, and therefore the bud opens. But the Word of the Lord, being man-uttered and a mere vibration on the ether, becomes staler and staler, more and more boring, till at last we turn a deaf ear and it ceases to exist, far more finally than any withered grass. It is grass that renews its youth like the eagle, not any Word.

We should ask for no absolutes, or absolute. Once and for all and for ever, let us have done with the ugly imperialism of any absolute.

There is no absolute good, there is nothing absolutely right. All things flow and change, and even change is not absolute. The whole is a strange assembly of apparently incongruous parts, slipping past one another.

Me, man alive, I am a very curious assembly of incongruous parts. My yea! of today is oddly different from my yea! of yesterday. My tears of tomorrow will have nothing to do with my tears of a year ago. If the one I love remains unchanged and unchanging, I shall cease to love her. It is only because she changes and startles me into change and defies my inertia, and is herself staggered in her inertia by my changing, that I can continue to love her. If she stayed put, I might as well love the pepper-pot.

In all this change, I maintain a certain integrity. But woe betide me if I try to put my finger on it. If I say of myself, I am this, I am that!--then, if I stick to it, I turn into a stupid fixed thing like a lamp-post. I shall never know wherein lies my integrity, my individuality, my me. I can never know it. It is useless to talk about my ego. That only means that I have made up an idea of myself, and that I am trying to cut myself out to pattern. Which is no good. You can cut your cloth to fit your coat, but you can't clip bits off your living body, to trim it down to your idea. True, you can put yourself into ideal corsets. But even in ideal corsets, fashions change.

Let us learn from the novel. In the novel, the characters can do nothing but live. If they keep on being good, according to pattern, or bad, according to pattern, or even volatile, according to pattern, they cease to live, and the novel falls dead. A character in a novel has got to live, or it is nothing.

We, likewise, in life have got to live, or we are nothing.

What we mean by living is, of course, just as indescribable as what we mean by being. Men get ideas into their heads, of what they mean by Life, and they proceed to cut life out to pattern. Sometimes they go into the desert to seek God, sometimes they go into the desert to seek cash, sometimes it is wine, woman, and song, and again it is water, political reform, and votes. You never know what it will be next: from killing your neighbour with hideous bombs and gas that tears the lungs, to supporting a Foundlings Home and preaching infinite Love, and being corespondent in a divorce.

In all this wild welter, we need some sort of guide. It's no good inventing Thou Shalt Nots!

What then? Turn truly, honorably to the novel, and see wherein you are man alive, and wherein you are dead man in life. You may love a woman as man alive, and you may be making love to a woman as sheer dead man in life. You may eat your dinner as man alive, or as a mere masticating corpse. As man alive you may have a shot at your enemy. But as a ghastly simulacrum of life you may be firing bombs into men who are neither your enemies nor your friends, but just things you are dead to. Which is criminal, when the things happen to be alive.

To be alive, to be man alive, to be whole man alive: that is the point. And at its best, the novel, and the novel supremely, can help you. It can help you not to be dead man in life. So much of a man walks about dead and a carcass in the street and house, today: so much of women is merely dead. Like a pianoforte with half the notes mute.

But in the novel you can see, plainly, when the man goes dead, the woman goes inert. You can develop an instinct for life, if you will, instead of a theory of right and wrong, good and bad.

In life, there is right and wrong, good and bad, all the time. But what is right in one case is wrong in another. And in the novel you see one man becoming a corpse, because of his so-called goodness, another going dead because of his so-called wickedness. Right and wrong is an instinct: but an instinct of the whole consciousness in a man, bodily, mental, spiritual at once. And only in the novel are all things given full play, or at least, they may be given full play, when we realize that life itself, and not inert safety, is the reason for living. For out of the full play of all things emerges the only thing that is anything, the wholeness of a man, the wholeness of a woman, man alive, and live woman.

[Awoke]

It doesn't show people as equal to god, it just shows what Jesus missed out on when he was a Messiah. There is a lot to simple human life that is precious and good, and I think that's what the story is mainly about.



Lapis. Really. Did you really type that? Is it april fools?

"What Jesus missed out on when He was Messiah"...?

I can't decide whether I should respond to this as if you really meant it, or just assume you know better. As if a human could write a piece of fiction that would be able to tell us how GOD could "miss out" on anything at all. It's tripe. You're not Christian, so I have nothing to say about that you choose to read, but if you were a Christian, I would warn you of the dangers of reading thesises written corrupted mankind which attempt to un-deify Christ.

It's a serious insult to God Himself.

[Awoke]

Also I would like to say with absolute clarity that the attempt to shift the blame from the synagogue of satan, onto the Romans, for the crucifixion of our Lord is an age old conspiracy that has really been pushed since the abhorrent 2nd vatican council.

Anyone who is eager to blame the Romans instead of the SoS is a sucker who is falling for the synagogues lies, just as they have been working towards.




In the Holy Scriptures, in the Acts of the Apostles (Chapter II), Saint Peter, addressing his words to the Jews of different lands who were gathered in Jerusalem, where each (after the descent of the Holy Ghost) heard the words of the Apostle in his mother tongue, said:

“14. Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words! 22. Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him, in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know. 23. Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”59 (http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/pinay/part3.htm#notes#notes)

Peter thus clearly lays responsibility for the murder on the entire Jewish people and does not accuse the Romans.
Do the clergy, who in such incredible manner assert the contrary, perhaps assume that Peter lied when he said to the Jews who were come from other provinces: “Men of Israel, ye have crucified and slain Him”?

[Spectrism]

lapis (or is it illumin19 ?) - you are showing you do not understand the Messiah- Creator. All that is made was made through Him. Do you really think He does not understand the depths of experience common to man?

[Horn]

Do you really think He does not understand the depths of experience common to man?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dulxL0t5l7U

[Spectrism]

Yeah.... when I want the deepest truths and the purest wisdom, I always turn to youtube, hollywood and Brad Pitt.::)

[Horn]

Yeah.... when I want the deepest truths and the purest wisdom, I always turn to youtube, hollywood and Brad Pitt.::)

God doesn't exist only where you might have inclination.

[keehah]

/wiki/Parables_of_Ramakrishna/The_Parable_of_the_elephant_God (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Parables_of_Ramakrishna/The_Parable_of_the_elephant_God)

Let me tell you a story. In a forest there lived a holy man who had many disciples. One day he taught them to see God in all beings and, knowing this, to bow low before them all. A disciple went to the forest to gather wood for the sacrificial fire. Suddenly he heard an outcry: 'Get out of the way! A mad elephant is coming!' All but the disciple of the holy man took to their heels. He reasoned that the elephant was also God in another form. Then why should he run away from it? He stood still, bowed before the animal, and began to sing its praises. The mahut of the elephant was shouting: 'Run away! Run away!' But the disciple didn't move. The animal seized him with its trunk, cast him to one side, and went on its way. Hurt and bruised, the disciple lay unconscious on the ground. Hearing what had happened, his teacher and his brother disciples came to him and carried him to the hermitage. With the help of some medicine he soon regained consciousness. Someone asked him, 'You knew the elephant was coming - why didn't you leave the place?' 'But', he said, 'our teacher has told us that God Himself has taken all these forms, of animals as well as men. Therefore, thinking it was only the elephant God that was coming, I didn't run away.' At this the teacher said: 'Yes, my child, it is true that the elephant God was coming; but the mahut God forbade you to stay there. Since all are manifestations of God, why didn't you trust the mahut's words? You should have heeded the words of the mahut God.'

[Bigjon]

As far as Bishop Williamson spewing hatred for jews, why is it, as far as I know, that the Catholic church is the only church that has special prayers that are to be said on Good Friday for the conversion of the jews. I was always taught that true charity comes in the form of helping someone save their eternal soul.

I Know Bishop Williamson has spoke of praying for the jews conversion in sermons, I've heard him.

Telling the truth about the Jews, is always considered as spewing hatred by the Jews.

The truth is a bitter pill to swallow for the Jews.

[Awoke]

This is no different than the Divinci Code reasoning and all that other bullshit that is attempting to make it sound as if Christ was a mere human and was fallible. As if He could make mistakes. As if He or would have done anything differently. He knew as a man that He was God, and even as He was preparing for Crucifixion He felt fear, but continued on His path as He knew was laid out for him, for the salvation of all of our souls.

The assertions that Lapis is making are the same Eastern star/freemasonic lies that the khazar conspirators have been trying to push for years.

The premise of the Lord, our creator, coming here and being weak in the flesh is a joke and an insult.

Do you forget?
Satan offered Christ dominion over all the nations and kingdoms of the earth. Satan offered Christ DOMINION OVER ALL the kingdoms of the earth.

Does anyone seriously think that the Lord, made flesh, would be strong enough to reject and chastise the deciever when He was offered the entire earth, but yet He was weak enough that He had to go out and get laid, or party, or whatever laughable assertion of sin they can attempt to attach to my Lord?

Give your head a shake.

[Awoke]

Your version of Jesus is weak and brittle and at the same time psychopathic. For example, most or all members here would be strong enough to see and reject the deception if satan offered them the entire earth.

I'm not sure if you comprehended what I wrote in my post correctly. Christ while here on earth in human form was resolute and unimaginably strong. Infallable. Untemptable.
The newage servants continue to try and push an agenda that humanizes God and undeify Christ.

As far as you calling Jesus weak, brittle and psychopathic, I will leave that to Him to address.

And as far as your statement about the membership here being strong enough to reject the same temptations that satan put forward to Jesus; I think you would turn us all in to the CIA in a second flat if they offered you a million dollars and assurance of anonymity.

[Horn]

I think you would turn us all in to the CIA in a second flat if they offered you a million dollars and assurance of anonymity.

What else is there to turn in that hasn't already been posted?

I need to know. :)

[horseshoe3]

I would add that Jesus' sacrifice would be hollow if he HADN'T been tempted. The fact that he was tempted and yet remained sinless is what allowed him to be the sacrifice that atoned for all the world's sins.

What good is a blemished sin offering? Such a thing is strictly forbidden in the Law. It's an insult to God. You can see the same concept in the story of Cain, in the Pentatuch and in the gospels.

ETA: An stunted or underdeveloped sacrifice is just as bad as a blemished sacrifice.

[Horn]

Resist the temptation of returning Jerusalem as crusader, is the lesson here.

[Spectrism]

I would add that Jesus' sacrifice would be hollow if he HADN'T been tempted. The fact that he was tempted and yet remained sinless is what allowed him to be the sacrifice that atoned for all the world's sins.

What good is a blemished sin offering? Such a thing is strictly forbidden in the Law. It's an insult to God. You can see the same concept in the story of Cain, in the Pentatuch and in the gospels.

ETA: An stunted or underdeveloped sacrifice is just as bad as a blemished sacrifice.


This is true. The Messiah was put through the testing time and stayed true. He was selected on his ride into Jerusalem by the people as the Passover lambs were selected to be slaughtered. The Messiah was the unblemished Lamb whose blood would protect those under it.

[Awoke]

What else is there to turn in that hasn't already been posted?

I need to know. :)

How many Judas's does GSus need?

[Horn]

How many Judas's does GSus need?

Et tu Brute'

[Spectrism]

It is not easy for an outsider to get the sense a Messiah blood-washed sinner has. It is a story that can be told for eternity. The very Creator of the universe considered us significant enough that He allowed His own blood to be spilled for us. It is powerful blood that brings everlasting life.... bittersweet in that it brings us greatness but the cost was enormous and beyond our comprehension. The King of kings and Creator took on a human form that could be sacrificed for those who would accept His gift. It is so unlike our fallen human nature that it sounds impossible to most. But for those who have tasted the goodness, enough cannot be said.

[Awoke]

Are you talking to yourself Horn, or are you accussing me of deceit?
Be a man and say what you mean.

[Horn]

I think you would turn us all in to the CIA in a second flat if they offered you a million dollars and assurance of anonymity.

You are calling me Judas, and keehah a snake.

Yes, very deceitful.

[Awoke]

Actually I wasn't accussing you of being a betrayer. I understood that your post was a joke about needing to know more for the CIA, etc.

But Keehah, yes. He's about as snakey as it gets. You think what you want. It really isn't about you.

[MAGNES]

I post this for Awokes benefit, these guys already outed themselves a long time ago Awoke.

Horn especially, does nothing but troll here from day one, half cryptic garbage posts.


Your version of Jesus is weak and brittle, psychopathic. For example, most or all members here would be strong enough to see and reject the deception (or disaster) if satan offered them the entire earth.

You sold out and earned your reputation of no credibility.

You and Horn have zero credibility here to speak of Jesus and Christians.

You and Horn have zero credibility to speak to Western History or Masons.

You and Horn troll the Christians on here.

You and Horn troll Western History on here, you have a hatred for it.

You and Horn troll the Masonic GIM round thread covering for skyvike.

You and Horn come out for goldie who gets confronted and starts posting
about Lucifer. She trolled the same history you both troll along with skyvike.

People might at well listen to Skyvike on these issues or Goldissima.

Keehah openly proclaims he is " more a mason than christian " .
What he means by this is he sees their agenda and agrees with it,
it is Anti Christian Anti Western agenda. Keehah is some sort of Asian.

Keehah also has a post on here where he agrees withe the NWO UN agenda.
A gem.

Both Keehah and Horn have made it their business to troll, as they
tell you that non of this matters, it matters enough for them to troll.
It matters to the Jews to do the same, attack history, Christians,
Western History, cut you off from your history, culture, religion, beliefs,
that is how you kill countries and people and it is working.

Horn has attacked Awoke on here long ago as well and backed off.
He has a lot of subtle cryptic insults that go over peoples heads but
are not missed by the intended targets.
Awoke you remember or you want a link ?
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?35260-Where-the-hell-is-Jesus-Christ

Horn by his own admission helped design the gim mason round.
See how things evolve, from friendly cordial, to questions, to destruction.
With links.My Avatar , Egyptian Minuteman Eye ! (http://gold-silver.us/showthread.php?43731-My-Avatar-Egyptian-Minuteman-Eye-%21)

Keehah and Horn are my old friends, we were very cordial and friendly,
till they began more blatant on here, some people get a kick out of deceiving
people, the deceived don't take it so well. They possess a gypsy mentality.
Goldissima was also an old friend of mine, same evolution of relationship.
From friendship, cordial, discussion, to wondering, WTF ? Linked thread above.

Awoke, did you see this, they become more blatant as they get confronted.

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?57365-Mayan-Calendar-Explained&p=500850&viewfull=1#post500850


Awoke, I have mentioned who they target many times, the history I have posted on here
is response, they chose the topics, I wanted to find out why this history is targeted.
They have a real hard on for Plato, Constantine, Charles the Great, Byzantines, Hellenists,
Ptolemies, not just Christians/Christianity and Jesus. Occult, Masons and Jews target
this history.

Even my silver avatar is a response to this.

Just like the name Anty Ep was a target for them on GIM. They hate this history.

Horn has contempt for Anty Ep, one of the greatest posters on gim. We are his students.
He was way ahead of us on hidden history and crypto Jews, Marranos. This tells you what
Horn is. Horn had contempt for the new guy too, Panoptimist who was a bit confrontational
but had some great posts. I can go on and on.

Both Keehah and Horn had a problem with WildCard too, many posts going back.

Edit add, it is more important to understand MO and where they are coming from.
I am speaking in general here. MSM included, gim, and individuals posting.

[Book]

Et tu Brute'



http://conservapedia.com/images/f/fb/Shofar.jpg

::)

[Horn]

Oh I see the guy who worships Zeus but spells it Zues is claiming to be the GSUS aficionado of western man's history & a good christian ,, again... while he berates and spits on anyone who doesn't fit his Greek mold and mildew..

Talk about a self deception,, pft..

[Horn]

Personally, I doubt there is a person alive in the world today that could follow Jesus if they wanted to.

Any echoes of what was once said have been twisted into a biblical death verse for most of the related religions.

An "in absentia" until learned age also speaks volumes.

For him to bring Eastern religion to the West would be needed, as to be one with God completely losing ego some call this original sin for some reason, and wash you into them.

All the virgin birth stuff is complete lunacy to me, (unless aliens were incorporated into the mix) the rest is Judaism.

Jefferson probably got the closest to Jesus in recent times when he tried to slice the bible into sections where only he spoke.

[sugar plum]

The following is what I should have written at first. I deleted my post so I had time to regroup without anyone getting the wrong idea. I’m sorry if it seems to be beating a dead horse as I see now that others have since posted some of the same things I’m about to say!

Jesus is always a polarizing subject. My intentions are to speak the truth respectfully.

In response to “I guess we’ll never know if Jesus thought it was worth it,” I do believe Jesus would deem it “worth it” and die again for us if necessary. We are worth more to Him than we realize, and we have never been able to understand pure love because we are always looking for manipulative motives. Remaining blameless is what made Jesus the only choice for the ultimate sacrifice.

When we hear "Jesus was tempted," we tend to get into trouble by speculating and elaborating on that thought. I myself fell into that trap briefly the other day and was hard put to try to reconcile that with the belief I’ve held since I was a child that temptations never had an effect on Him. Then I realized that the better and more correct thought is that every single temptation you and I face in this life was presented to Him. Because He has faced and resisted every temptation known to man, we know we can trust Him.

Upon reading Horn’s latest post, I will add that you cannot understand something you don’t trust. If you don’t trust God, then you cannot receive the Holy Spirit and then of course the virgin birth along with what it means to follow Jesus will seem foolish to you. Understanding is freely given to those who are willing. There is more that could be said, but not concisely by me right now.

[Horn]

I will add that you cannot understand something you don’t trust.

Virgin birth creates the sense of mistrust in God of his own work.

I figure the aim of which is to leave all potential candidates open to some sort of soulless remoulding.

[sugar plum]

Virgin birth creates the sense of mistrust in God of his own work.

I figure the aim of which is to leave all potential candidates open to some sort of soulless remoulding.

No, I respectfully disagree. The virgin birth actually creates MORE trust because that’s how we know Jesus was God incarnate and not just another fallible human.

[Horn]

No, I respectfully disagree. The virgin birth actually creates MORE trust because that’s how we know Jesus was God incarnate and not just another fallible human.

Could be a misunderstanding, not sure.

I fail to see how circumventing ones own order of creation, develops more trust in the same.

[lapis]

I would warn you of the dangers of reading thesises written corrupted mankind which attempt to un-deify Christ.

The story is just showing how Jesus would be if he didn't ascend to heaven and instead woke up after the crucifixion realizing he was "just" a man.



It's a serious insult to God Himself.You think so? I have a hard time imagining an omniscient all-powerful being feeling insulted or angered, or anything like that. Those are human emotions.


Also I would like to say with absolute clarity that the attempt to shift the blame from the synagogue of satan, onto the Romans, for the crucifixion of our Lord is an age old conspiracy that has really been pushed since the abhorrent 2nd vatican council.

Well the story was written in 1929, and even so, who did it isn't crucial to the plot of the short story at all.


lapis (or is it illumin19 ?) - you are showing you do not understand the Messiah- Creator. All that is made was made through Him. Do you really think He does not understand the depths of experience common to man?

I really think He/It doesn't care one way or the other. It seems like the earth was created and everything set up for humans and animals to live in it, something like a kid putting together an ant farm. Does the "kid" care about the ant farm now that it's created and set up? I don't know. It doesn't seem like it.

[Spectrism]

The story is just showing how Jesus would be if he didn't ascend to heaven and instead woke up after the crucifixion realizing he was "just" a man.

You think so? I have a hard time imagining an omniscient all-powerful being feeling insulted or angered, or anything like that. Those are human emotions.


When you call someone a LIAR, do you think that is not an insult? God is pure truth. There is no shadow of lying in Him. The devil is the father of lies. Muhammad follwed the devil's plan.



I really think He/It doesn't care one way or the other. It seems like the earth was created and everything set up for humans and animals to live in it, something like a kid putting together an ant farm. Does the "kid" care about the ant farm now that it's created and set up? I don't know. It doesn't seem like it.


You call God a child as if you are superior. Your pride will make a world of hurt fall on your head. I am glad I don't walk in your shoes.

[PatColo]

Awhile back, E. Michael Jones was also interviewed in this podcast (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?60555-Every-time-you-masturbate-God-kills...&p=535782&viewfull=1#post535782) about porn & "sexual liberation" as trojan horses enslaving us. The following is new:

Who is the Real Enemy? by E. Michael Jones (http://www.darkmoon.me/2012/who-is-the-real-enemy-by-e-michael-jones/)

Posted on April 21, 2012 (http://www.darkmoon.me/2012/who-is-the-real-enemy-by-e-michael-jones/)

An edited extract from Francis’s Legacy (http://www.culturewars.com/2007/Francis.htm), by E. Michael Jones.
(Pictures, captions, and Talmudic quotes supplied by Lasha Darkmoon).


http://www.darkmoon.me/uploads/christ-on-cross.png (http://www.darkmoon.me/uploads/christ-on-cross.png)

“If you come down from the cross, we will accept you as our Messiah.” — The Jewish high priests Annas and Caiphas to Jesus

If what is left of the WASP establishment wants to do something effective in the culture wars, they will have to understand just who the enemy is.

In order to understand this, they will have to go back well beyond the 1960s. In fact, they will have to go back beyond the 18th century: to be precise, 1800 years before that, right back to the opening shot in the culture wars.

This war began 2000 years ago at the foot of the cross, when the Jewish high priests, Annas and Caiphas, said to Jesus Christ, “If you come down from the cross, we will accept you as our Messiah.”

Needless to say, Jesus did not come down from the cross. And because he didn’t, the Jews rejected Him. Instead, they chose Barabbas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas), a bandit who had been condemned to death for his revolutionary activities.



more:
http://www.darkmoon.me/2012/who-is-the-real-enemy-by-e-michael-jones/

[Spectrism]

You make yourself look like a moron when you always blame the jews for everything. The plain fact is that God promised a savior to Adam & Eve. There were no jews then. The NEED for a messiah was due to the sin of man. Man sinned before there were jews. The messiah had to be a sacrificial offering to pay for sin and restore man's relationship with God, but it would not be for all mankind- but only those who would stop rejecting God.

The jews were just used as the tool and vehicle of the acts of God through the messiah. Who killed the messiah? All of sinful mankind.

[gunDriller]

given that the Crucifixion is re-enacted every year, it seems they like to do this in the Philippines, and nobody dies, i have to wonder if the crucifixion is what really killed Jesus. he was a really tough guy, i.e., physically fit.

i wonder if it was the beating before the crucifixion that killed him - and the "spear in the side" treatment.

[PatColo]

^ just guessing, but I think the condemned were left on the cross for days until dead of dehydration. Blood loss from open wounds would only speed matters. Ditto internal organ damage from a spear to the side. Not sure but it seems I recall in my Catholic youth hearing somewhere that "nailing" hands & feet to the cross was not the norm, which was merely tying the condemned to the cross.

It was an especially spiteful killing; recall Jesus' unthinkable offense which had them in such a rage was kicking the money changer/lenders out of the temple. Hitler did the same ~2000 years later, and he's still getting the same perpetual crucifixion treatment generations after.

[Spectrism]

The Messiah was alive when he was nailed to the tree. The wounds received beforehand were grievous- but not likely enough to kill.

Crucifixion brings in the agony of body piercings, stretching ligaments and tendons until the bones pop out of joint suspending the hanging weight. The pull across the chest cavity makes breathing laborious as pushing up from nailed feet to gain each breath strikes renewed shocks of pain.

The piercing of the spear was to verify death. The thieves were still alive and there was a new Sabbath starting at sundown. The Jews required the bodies be down before then and the Romans obliged. They broke the legs of the living thieves to hasten their suffocation. According to prophecy, no bone of the messiah would be broken. When the spear pierced the side of Yahshuah, blood and water came out. This verified His death. The lungs were filled with water and the stagnant blood of the abdomen spewed forth as both were pierced.

[lapis]

If what is left of the WASP establishment wants to do something effective in the culture wars, they will have to understand just who the enemy is.

I don't think they want to do anything effective. And even if Talmudic Jews are the enemy of Christianity, most Christians themselves are perpetuating the culture wars and turning people off to Christianity.

You can lead a horse to water, but ya can't make him drink. Jews may have led many people to the anti-Christian water, but people are drinking the it in droves all on their own; and some are going to the water on their own volition.


more:
http://www.darkmoon.me/2012/who-is-the-real-enemy-by-e-michael-jones/Good essay, but as far as this goes:
The Revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he has rejected Logos.

Note. “Logos” may be defined as the Christ Principle, or the rule of law in a divinely ordered universe.

Christians, if they choose, may spare the lives of civilians and kill their enemies in a restrained manner—“proportionality”—

Most Christians may have been that way, but no longer. If they want a world of Logos, then they have to start living by Logos themselves. But do they?

"By their fruits you shall know them."
Indeed!

And what kind of fruit are most of them bearing? Beautiful ripe fruit full of spiritual wisdom? Fruit of forgiveness and loving? If so, wouldn't most of America still be Christian? Why are most people turning away from Christianity (and not all of the blame can be placed on Talmudism)?

I think Pastor Chuck Baldwin shows what kind of fruit they are bearing:

Are Evangelical Christians Warmongers? (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/17/are-evangelical-christians-warmongers/)
I think I learned a thing or two about Evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_evangelical_Christians). And I’m here to tell you: I don’t like what I see happening these days!

I’ve been an evangelical Christian since I was a child. I’ve been in the Gospel ministry all of my adult life. I attended two evangelical Christian colleges, received honorary degrees from two others, and taught and preached in several others.

I’ve attended many of the largest evangelical pastors’ gatherings and have been privileged to speak at Christian gatherings–large and small–all over America. I have been part of the inner workings of evangelical ministry for nearly 40 years. I think I learned a thing or two about Evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_evangelical_Christians). And I’m here to tell you: I don’t like what I see happening these days!

[...]

So, what has happened to turn the most peace-loving institution the world has ever known (the New Testament church) into the biggest cheerleaders for war? I’m talking about un-provoked, illegal, unconstitutional, unbiblical–even secret–wars of aggression.

The biggest cheerleaders for the unprovoked, unconstitutional, pre-emptive attack and invasion of Iraq were evangelical Christians. Ditto for the war in Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya, the attacks in Yemen, etc.

Who is calling for the bombing of Iran? Evangelical Christians.Who cheers for sending more and more troops all over the world to maim and kill more and more people (including innocents)? Evangelical Christians. Shoot (pun intended)!

Most evangelical Christians didn’t even bat an eye when the federal government sent military and police personnel to murder American citizens, including old men, women, and children–Christian old men, women, and children, no less–outside Waco, Texas.
Etc., etc.

Not only are they warmongers full of hate, THEY WON'T EVEN SUPPORT THE ONE POLITICAL CANDIDATE WHO IS A TRUE CHRISTIAN!!!!

No wonder this country is going to hell in a hand basket.

[Awoke]

You're on an anti-Christ crusade here, Lapis. Gonzo rubbing off on you? You're either totally delusional, or you are deliberately trying to deceive the readers here.

Your entire Anti-Christ ramble is diffused simply by telling the truth: The warmongering people who are claiming to be "Evangelical Christians" (or any other sect), are satanists. All the elite are satanists.
Bush told the world he was a Christian too. LOL. Meanwhile he's a satanist, a member of the S&B and the FMC, and all the other shadowy tentacle organizations inspired by babylonian satanism.




Do you really think He does not understand the depths of experience common to man?


I really think He/It doesn't care one way or the other. It seems like the earth was created and everything set up for humans and animals to live in it, something like a kid putting together an ant farm. Does the "kid" care about the ant farm now that it's created and set up? I don't know. It doesn't seem like it.

If that kid created an ant farm and all the ants in it, and watched it with interested, and saw the ants were dooming themselves to damnation by their own actions, and the kid decided to physically turn himself into an ant, to live in that ant farm amongst the ants he created, knowing that he would be rejected and slowly, brutally murdered, but still chose to suffer through all that in order to offer the antfarm salvation, then would you think the kid cared?

Seriously, what would it take for you to see that the "kid" cared about the "antfarm"?
Going there to knowingly suffer and die is not enough to show he cares?

[lapis]

Your entire Anti-Christ ramble is diffused simply by telling the truth: The warmongering people who are claiming to be "Evangelical Christians" (or any other sect), are satanists. All the elite are satanists.

So my "Christian" relatives and in-laws who are pro-war, anti-Muslim and anti-Obama are Satanists? Hmmm, you may be right about that. I think I have to agree with you there.

Not only that, but 90~99% of "Christians" I have met IRL or on the Internet must also be Satanists, because they love war and hate peace. I wish they knew which team they are on! It's certainly not Christ's. By your (good) definition they're not only Satanists, but Elite boot-lickers who like to spread fear and hate. Why even bother to go to church and pretend. ???


Seriously, what would it take for you to see that the "kid" cared about the "antfarm"?
Going there to knowingly suffer and die is not enough to show he cares?I honestly don't care if the kid, or Kid cares about us "ants" or not. I don't need him to care any more. But I understand other people need to believe that he cares/cared.

[gunDriller]

Jesus was Healing people and speaking out forcefully & effectively against the criminals of his day. He was not afraid to take Action against the criminals, as when he knocked over the tables of the money-changers.

side-note - i wonder for how many days he upset the money-changers' trading routine ?

in any case, the Jews seemed to have a REAL problem with anybody who got in the way of their crimes. it was the case 2000 years ago, and it's been observably the case the last 10 centuries.


today we have humans who are sinners, according to Christian observations, who still have the ability to inspire us.

i think Mel Gibson is inspiring. even when he is having a low point, he speaks out against the criminal activity of Jews. Helen Thomas comes to mind too.


i dare say if Jesus visited us today, he would be picked up by DHS, and possibly charged under NDAA. given his tendency to speak out on behalf of those who are being bullied, there is a good chance that he would speak out forcefully regarding the treatment of the Semitic people's, the Palestinians.

and that really tends to get you on the Jews' shit list.


i dare say Judaism is little more than a 2000 year old organized crime ring, masquerading as a religion.

[Spectrism]

i dare say if Jesus visited us today, he would be picked up by DHS, and possibly charged under NDAA. given his tendency to speak out on behalf of those who are being bullied, there is a good chance that he would speak out forcefully regarding the treatment of the Semitic people's, the Palestinians.



You will get to see this yourself very soon. He won't be coming back as a lowly pauper. The next appearance will make the sun look dull in comparison and His voice will make the tornadoes and crashing waves look mild. Those not under His authority will shake in absolute fear.

[Awoke]

So my "Christian" relatives and in-laws who are pro-war, anti-Muslim and anti-Obama are Satanists? Hmmm, you may be right about that. I think I have to agree with you there.

Not only that, but 90~99% of "Christians" I have met IRL or on the Internet must also be Satanists, because they love war and hate peace. I wish they knew which team they are on! It's certainly not Christ's. By your (good) definition they're not only Satanists, but Elite boot-lickers who like to spread fear and hate. Why even bother to go to church and pretend. ???


Lapis, I thought you knew the basics by now.

The politicians and elitists and the evangelical leaders that are "in the know" who are professing to be Christians are in fact satanists, 5th Columnists. The Church going, "God fearing", bible thumping masses that are being brainwashed by those above mentioned parties are sheep, and victims of an elaborate brainwashing campaign.

So your "God fearing" and "war supporting" and "Christ loving" neighbor is not (necessarily) a satanist, but is in fact a blue-pill sheep who is trusting these religious and political leaders, and is being effectively led by them. They "love war" because their infiltrated Church is telling them to "support the troops", to "hate Muslims" and to "support Israel". I would estimate that 95% of the "Church" is corrupted, with NWO and Anti-Christ themes being taught and pushed onto the congregation. True Christians recognize the hand of the beast within the Church. Every famous televised preacher, imo, is touched by corruption, and spreading a false Gospel. The khazars who own the media would never allow it to be otherwise.

Look at those "Christians" as victims of brainwashing, because they are falling for lucifers deceitful tactics. The Church is being destroyed from the inside. This is evident.

The fact that satan is so successful at injecting his diabolical agenda into the Church's curriculum is no reason to hate on Christ. All the more reason to talk about the truth.

[lapis]

Lapis, I thought you knew the basics by now.

So your "God fearing" and "war supporting" and "Christ loving" neighbor is not (necessarily) a satanist, but is in fact a blue-pill sheep who is trusting these religious and political leaders, and is being effectively led by them.

I do, and truth be told my comments here are triggered more by my frustrations with people in my real life rather than here on GSUS.

For example, my 67-year-old aunt. I love my aunt, but she is the typical blue-pill sheep Christian you describe so well. I can't tell her "you are a sheep!" She wouldn't even know what I'm talking about, never mind that it would be mean and hurt her feelings.

ONLY since Obama's been elected has she started to send me and all her friends and family some anti-government e-mail messages, but they are the shallow hateful neo-con-driven kind that don't offer any real solutions (and say idiotic things like how Obama is a Muslim. As if that's the worst thing he could be. ::))

So I've taken the time to write simple short responses with good links and CC'd everyone that she wrote to, and I've gotten no response from her, and what amounts to heckling from the others who don't know who I am (like "WHO ARE YOU?" and "TAKE ME OFF YOUR LIST" Yeah, you're welcome sheeple.).

Yesterday I posted on Fakebook that I was seeing Ron Paul. Only two people gave me a "like," and they were not my Christian friends or family. Grrrr.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry003.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry045.gif

[Awoke]

Yeah, it's tough. People don't want to come to the realization that their entire lives as they know it have been smothered in lie in every aspect imaginable.