off

Melusi--
quote:
No, what do YOU say about the Jews actually having a doctrine of original sin, which is in Hebrew, "chet adam harison"? Its existence destroys Gerald Smith's whole thesis and puts your reliance on him in serious doubt. Besides, now that I have read what he has unfortunately written, I'm interested in your ideas, not his.

So what do you say about it?


First of all I say, it is a fairytale that the so-Called Jews wrote the Bible. Secondly, it is even a further stretch of the imagination to accept this "doctrine of original sin, which in Hebrew is "chet adam harison".

You have in no way proved that Gerald Smith is wrong. But rather you have placed your 'lack of comprehension' on his writing "Trick of Integration" in question!

Back On Topic!

Jesus had brothers and sisters.
He had a mother and a father.
He was a freedom figher, a healer, and a teacher.

The names of his brothers and sisters have been changed, deleted, altered, transposed, transliterated, and misplaced by the guilty to deceive, confuse, confound, mislead, and stupify the unknowing.

Fine
fine,

You've avoided the question again.

You mean it is a "fairy tale" that the Jews wrote the Hebrew Bible? They wouldn't have written the New Testament, curely. That has never been in question. But they wrote the Hebrew Bible.

Why do you say they did not? What proof do you have?

I showed Gerald Smith to be wrong on two counts: the question of the Jews not having a doctrine of original sin, and on his concept that we do not have the same strengths and weaknesses as white people. Given the same conditions and positions, we commit the same crimes and have the same virtues because we are all human together. Our history shows that.

Gerald Smith simply showed himself to be selective in his choice of facts, which bases his conclusions on ignorance and the Hasty Conclusion (an informal logical fallacy), which makes him wrong.

Now, about your "topic:"

Jesus had brothers and sisters. So?

He had a mother, yes, and a Father. So?

He was a healer and a teacher, but not a freedom fighter. Remember that he had a trial before Pontius Pilate. During that time he said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest."

Jesus' point, goal, and work was not political but spiritual. The "meek" will possess the land, remember, not the politically strong. The freedom he died to give us was freedom from the power of sin and death, not from Rome or any other geopolitical entity. Look into the Bible and you will find no place where Jesus says or is said to have tried to free anyone politically.

Do you have proof otherwise?

And have you investigated for yourself the Jewish idea of Original Sin, to confirm for yourself that Gerald Smith is wrong or right? So far you've just taken his very untrustworthy word for it.
By the way,

Are you familiar with the term "amphiboly"?

++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have in no way proved that Gerald Smith is wrong. But rather you have placed your 'lack of comprehension' on his writing "Trick of Integration" in question!
++++++++++++++++++++++++

That's what you committed there. Would you clarify that statement, please?
"No," what? You don't have proof? You don't want to answer why it's important to you that Jesus had brothers and sisters? That you haven't confirmed for yourself that Gerald Smith was right or wrong?
Like many here your verbal attacks are ugly and very telling...but do not cower nor scare me in the least!

Listen, Melesi--it is important [to me] that Jesus had brothers and sisters to destroy the myth painted by that 'Lying lore of Christianity'.

I confirmed to myself several years ago that Gerald Smith was accurate. He lead me to Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, who led me to all the other 'real giants' I post about. I have no reason to avoid my own post???

If however, you do not agree with Gerald Smith that is your right. I happen to know he is correct in his assertions about how the Black Panthers searched history to find the name and the essence of what it meant. This 'fact' is at the crux of why the Feds destroyed the 'Black Panthers.' The American Dialectic would not want the word to get out to the 'Blaq Collective' that Jesus [Greek corruption of his real name] was an African/Ethiopian/freedom-figher/teacher/healer/nationalist--so Father Euchebius and Constantine the Great 'twicked' that fact and created a 'new spin' by turning Jesus [Greek corruption of his real name] into a White/international/demi-God.



Fine

PS To research and verify what Gerald Smith said I went to my local Public Library. To my amazement I found a book that I could only take out once and never ask for again in life...LOL [The USA Patriot Act ain't no joke!]
fine,

I see: to question you is to "attack" you.

I have never "attacked" you. That you think that I have should tell you something about the way that you read what others write.

"Christianity" has never said that Jesus did not have brothers and sisters. Some parts have and do, notably in the West the Roman Catholic Church, but not because they needed to lie about it. It is part of their theology about Mary. I do not agree with it, and those of us who do not--and there are many--we have never said that Jesus had no brothers and sisters. In fact, the Bible seems to indicate otherwise.

So though you may disagree with the Roman Catholic Church, you do not thereby disprove all of Christianity. Christianity is much bigger than the Roman Church.

the rest of your post is only assertion. You do not prove anything. You show no evidence.

Francis Cress Welsing is a self-contradictory crank who is out of her intellectual depth. She says in her "Isis Papers" that she despises Freudianism, yet she uses Freudianism to promote her thesis for which she has no evidence.

The genetic recessive trait in whites leads them to envy and hate blacks, she says. Not being a geneticist, she knows nothing about just how a lack of genetic expression for a certain amount of melanin would change their behavior. She does not understand that a genetic change can be advantageous. She does not consider the effect that white skin has on those in northern climates who need to produce vitamin D more than they need to protect themselves from depletion of folic acid. The gene for melanin is there, according to her, just recessive, just not expressed. So how can this possibly change the brain's chemistry in the ways it would have to do to produce the kinds of behaviors she thinks she sees? She does not say. She apparently does not or can not know. In this she is far from scientific. If she were a true scientist, she would study this. She does not. She has no research in her book. Observations and hypotheses, yes, but nothing researched and peer-reviewed.

How does this recessive gene become the complex set of behaviors we call socialization? She doesn't say. She has only a series of possible correlations that she claims to be enough circumstantial evidence to convince others--us, no doubt--of her claim.

Trouble is, she must rely not only on the Freudianism she professes to hate, but also on a logical fallacy. Correlation is not causation. Let's say that the white ball is small and the dark ball is large. That is not evidence of racial envy. It is evidence of color chosen for its utility. It's easier to see a white golf ball on the lawn if it's white. It's easier to see a white baseball as it zips toward you at 90 miles an hour from 90 feet away. Bowling balls are only traditionally black. There are--of course, Dr. Welsing doesn't talk about this--many more colors of bowling ball than black. Does this mean that whites are envious of green and purple and translucent people, too? And what are we to make of the white people knocking down the white pins? If her thesis was correct, the pins would be black.

But Dr. Welsing ignores this inconvenient truth, too, as she does with all facts that do not support her hopes and hates and bigotries.

So Dr Francis Cress Welsing is, once again, an authority who does not know what she's talking about, like all the authorties that you have chosen to quote or refer to so far.

She sees everything in terms of white supremacy. "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

The federal government destroyed the Black Panthers to keep their definition of Jesus' name secret? That is so ludicrous that I honestly did laugh when I read it. I suppose the fact that the Panthers advocated violence against the government had nothing to do with the government's reaction to them? The name of Jesus? You're serious?

What is "the American Dialectic"?

You have not shown how you know that Jesus was a freedom fighter. I have quoted his words. Have you?
It is easy to attack, discredit and shoot the messenger "me" --but you do not have the balls nor the gaul to approach Gerald Smith or Dr. Welsing!

laugh

Fine
Last edited {1}
Empty Purnata
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Fine:
thanks
Sarah and Rachel, huh? That's interesting EP!

Christiandom paints the picture of a dysfunctional family unit, but I know this is not the case.


Of course not. Jesus came from a very loving and normal family (aside from the legend that he was born of a Virgin). tfro

quote:
The fact that the European Think Tank made a great science of whitewashing the truth is proof enough that getting to the DNA of this famous family is priority #1.

bsm
Fine


bsm

I think there are alot of facts about Christianity that were shut out very early on by the powers that be that wanted to obscure certain things in Jesus' teachings that meant an end for their power structure. Personally, I believe that the Romans and the early Catholic Chruch purposely chose certain books over others to be included in the Bible, and had others thrown out because it would be a dis-service to their social and political hegemony.

There were hundreds of gospels and many of them were just as popular as the Four Gospels are now. The early Church throwing them out is very suspicious indeed.

That's why I greatly enjoy the Nag Hammadi findings and the Dead Sea Scrolls. They give the whole vision of Christianity that history had tried to erase. They tell all sides of the story and then leave the individual to decided what to believe.


--I too enjoy the Nag Hammadi and the Gnostic Readings.

Fine
fine,

You're avoiding the issue again.

You are wrong. WHile I have only heard of Gerald Smith in your post and thus have not had a chance to exchange with him, I actually have coressponded with Dr Welsing. Not that it was profitable, for she has a way of ignoring certain facts.

But that does not affect the right or the wrong of my argument or yours.

Will you address the issue? Shall we have reason to conclude that you can't, that you have not studied the fats enough to be able to argue them?

And notice that I do not attack you, while you instantly attack anyone who disagrees with you?
oh, yes, fine--

You seem to have thought a bit too highly of yourself in your last post. I was not attacking you, I was discrediting the very flawed and inconsistent and selective arguments of Dr. Welsing. My guess is that yo umerely accepted them because you wanted to. Dr. Welsing knew better, therefore, she bears the greater responsibility.
Ah, yes,

You post, you assert that it is right, you attack those who disagree, and then you retreat from thinking about and saying anything substantive about it?
You are incorrect and in my opinion just as lethal as 'Europeans' in reverse.

Rather than rant and rave at me, contact 'the real giants'.

Dr. Frances Cress-Welsing
Dr. Nana Banchie Darkwah

...they are waiting for your questions and challenges.

Fine
i love watching the biography channel's show: mysteries of the bible. and the science channel often has shows that talk about biblical history. one of them was talking about this very issue. my thing is this:

who cares if jesus had brothers and sisters?

that changes nothing for me with regard to his message. so why has this turned into such an ugly debate.
quote:
Originally posted by little minx:
i love watching the biography channel's show: mysteries of the bible. and the science channel often has shows that talk about biblical history. one of them was talking about this very issue. my thing is this:

who cares if jesus had brothers and sisters?

that changes nothing for me with regard to his message. so why has this turned into such an ugly debate.


The truth can upset the cart and the amazing thing is that it won't be white folks that will leave the teller of the truth to the lynchers--it will be our own that will try to shut up and discredit people like me from spreading the 'real' word.

The biography channel is kewl and I hope you continue to strive to gain knowledge through this source....but, I prefer the hard hitting facts from black scholars like the African-Ghanian scholar named Dr. Nana Banchie Darkwah...

It is important to know the truth in order that we might embrace the heritage and break free into the who and what that we really are....
Last edited {1}
ì read all your post with tears. knowledge is the key to life.

you can be a scholar, straight A student etc etc and you will never comprehend fully the teachings of the bible. Hosea 4:6 "my people will be destroyed becoz of lack of knowledge"

its plain to see from the bible that 1) jesus was not white....2) and 100% of the people in the bible are not EVEN white. Its only Arabs Africans and JOB the Oriental, there is no mention of white people in the bible.

Look where the Garden of Eden was located (in) IRAN and Babylon the Great ruins are still there today in IRAQ. small things when you put together will tell you that the bible is the word of GOD and it is the most scientific and mathmatical book i have ever read.

I got to know about blood circulation when i was in primary school..
I got to know the earth was round when i was doing geography in primary school
I got to know the distance of the earth from the sun when i was in secondary school
I got to know the clouds by name and was able to tell you the coming whether...


i got all the ANSWERS above by reading the bible, whatever you seek you will find in the bible, even now scientist do agree with the bible. Look at the way we are made, male and female, look at the creation...animal kingdom plants you name it.

all i can say is provoke your mind, think and above all be humble. LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IS WHAT WILL DESTROY PEOPLE
wakafa,

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
its plain to see from the bible that 1) jesus was not white....2) and 100% of the people in the bible are not EVEN white. Its only Arabs Africans and JOB the Oriental, there is no mention of white people in the bible.

Look where the Garden of Eden was located (in) IRAN and Babylon the Great ruins are still there today in IRAQ. small things when you put together will tell you that the bible is the word of GOD and it is the most scientific and mathmatical book i have ever read.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Welcome to this thread.

Now,

1. How do you know all this? Jesus was not white? What do you mean, and where is Jesus described?
2.Because there is no mention of white people, does that mean that there are none who simply are not described? What color or nationality were Timothy, Onesimus, Philemon, Priscilla, or Aquila, for example? The Corinthians? How about the Athenians Paul debated on the Areopagus? Felix? Pilate?
3. Where was the Garden of Eden? It's place is not described as far as I can see.

And what do you mean the Bible is "scientific" and "mathematical?" That the Bible is true does not make it "mathematical." History is true, but it isn't mathematical.
littleminx
quote:
who cares if jesus had brothers and sisters?


--the deception and whitewashed fraud play an important "role" in how the story is "told"... and does matter a great deal...

--the reason that it does not matter to you is
these documents have woven/programmed into your devotional faith of Christianity as holy and God-inspired documents. So unlike me, you do not question, but accept this as truth...
Melusi, i.e. voice of the voice of kresge, LOL
quote:
oh, yes, fine--

You seem to have thought a bit too highly of yourself in your last post. I was not attacking you, I was discrediting the very flawed and inconsistent and selective arguments of Dr. Welsing. My guess is that yo umerely accepted them because you wanted to. Dr. Welsing knew better, therefore, she bears the greater responsibility.


--What books have you written that come close to the level of this debate?
fine,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--the deception and whitewashed fraud play an important "role" in how the story is "told"... and does matter a great deal...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

is not an answer to the question. You tend to avoid answering by changing the subject, as you did there.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--What books have you written that come close to the level of this debate?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

is an irrelevant question that only avoids--again--answering the question by changing the subject.

One could ask what books you have written that makes you such an authority on this issue, since by your question writing books is the only way one becomes such an authority. Of course, you have not, therefore by your own standard you cannot have anything substantive to say on this issue.

That would answer a lot of questions.
Within the context of this 'my' topic; Jesus did in fact have brothers and sisters.

If you choose to believe the opposite that is your 'Europeanized' business....period!

I am here to enlighten not argue the semantics of potato/potatoe...
The marriage union of Miriam and Yosef brought forth Ayesu and then other daughters and sons.

The subject is considered blasphemous to Christians; since they've been programmed to think this way.

Christian dogma implies an asexual [dysfunctional] family union.

Modern day Africans know Ayesu (Greek corruption of this word is Jesus) had a mother and a father which provides a normal/sexual/functional family union.

The European method of supplanting African thought as it relates to spirituality as pagan is calculated, backward and deceptive...and no longer applicable
Last edited {1}
The fact that other languages spell and/or pronounce names differently does not make their versions of the name "corruptions." The Greek version of Yeshua (Yesu or Ayesu is no more true to his name than any other version) and/or Yehoshua is Jesus, and that's close enough, since we know to whom that name refers.

Fine is overstating her case again. It's easy to do if one does not care to show any evidence.

The Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, so how can this subject be considered "blasphemous" to us? I don't consider it so.
His "mother and brothers" are mentioned in each Gospel:

Matt. 12:47
Mk. 3:31
Lk. 8:20
John 2:12

And at least in John is drawn a distinction between his "brothers" and his "disciples."

This means that there's no Biblical hint that the marital relationship between Joseph and Mary was "asexual" and therefore "dysfunctional" (which two words are not related, by the way. There are many asexual relationships, including marital ones, that are not "dysfunctional")

Fine is only reacting against Catholic theology and spreading it very broadly to include all of Christianity. It doesn't work, however, because it doesn't fit. OK--if she wishes to despise Catholics, then let her say so. IF she hates all of Christianity, OK, let her say so, but fine, don't half-understand Christianity and pretend that you can speak to it all.
quote:
Originally posted by Fine:
The marriage union of Miriam and Yosef brought forth Ayesu and then other daughters and sons.

The subject is considered blasphemous to Christians; since they've been programmed to think this way.

Christian dogma implies an asexual [dysfunctional] family union.

Modern day Africans know Ayesu (Greek corruption of this word is Jesus) had a mother and a father which provides a normal/sexual/functional family union.

The European method of supplanting African thought as it relates to spirituality as pagan is calculated, backward and deceptive...and no longer applicable


Thank you! Smile

I'd rather listen to bible scholars and theologically progressive-minded Christians. At least they are willing to deal with historical reality and are willing to logically and spiritually amend their religion instead of hopelessly clinging to European Dark Age dogma like "orthodox" Christianity Apologists.
Melusi
1. Ayesu is an "Akan" name from Ghana.
2. There is no 'J' in the Hebrew alphabet.

I know you are bound by Europeanized thought and will continue to beat your dead horse to death...but the fact remains that Jesus had brothers and sisters...
EP--as you know I do not adhere to Christian dogma, doctrine and will forever refer to this control state as 'lying lore'.

The lying lore of Christianity has many caught up in the belief that Ayesu was the only son of Miriam and Yosuf--that the birth of Ayesu was magical [i.e. without XY chromosome bonding]-that Ayesu was not married and had no children--that Ayesu was not black--that Ayesu was born in a manger--I could go on and on...

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×