Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 29,846
  • Last 7 days: 150,159
  • Last 30 days: 150,159
  • Online now: 75
Los Angeles SEO
Current Entries

Recent Comments

  • Israpundit is pro-Jewish and pro-Israel (113)

    • dweller: @ dove: “I can’t even read his [dweller's postings].”...

    • dweller: @ bernard ross: “Nobody on this blogsite has yet established that...

    • dove: @ M Devolin: Right after your comment there was a comment from dweller...

    • M Devolin: No problem, Dove. It’s OK. Really.

    • dove: @ M Devolin: Seriously? Really? I’d have to be rather dense to believe...

  • ‘The Temple Mount Has Been Occupied By Hamas’ (203)

    • dweller: @ bernard ross: “Therefore he [dweller] simply declares that the...

    • honeybee: yamit82 Said: Cuckoo’ I give you the bird of up-state NY, damn...

    • yamit82: honeybee Said: And then again it could be “THE GREAT TERADACYLE”...

    • honeybee: the phoenix Said: …there goes the neighborhood What...

    • honeybee: yamit82 Said: sampling the merchandise What do you have worth...

  • National Intel Misled Congress About Brotherhood Contacts (13)

    • dove: @ the phoenix: Spring has sprung, the grass has riz I wonder where the...

    • dove: @ mar55: Hi, I hope you had a great Passover. Phoenix is very funny....

    • mar55: @ dove: Hi, I hope you had a great Passover. Phoenix is very funny....

    • dove: @ Yidvocate: @ the phoenix: Ya….your better off to stay here in...

    • the phoenix: Just make sure you do not end up in the adjacent meeting room by...

  • Does Israel’s triumph mean we are guilty? (19)

    • M Devolin: No problem, mar55.

    • mar55: @ M Devolin: I stand corrected. Thank you for reminding me about the...

    • mar55: @ honeybee: Thank you honeybee. You are right. This almond cake recipe...

  • Being anti-Islam is a good thing (1)

    • dove: Kudos…WELL SAID!

  • Material Support to Terrorism: The Case of Libya (1)

    • the phoenix: Material Support to Terrorism: The Case of Libya...

Archives

Sponsor

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


  • November 21, 2012

    Obama demands that it Israel conquers Hamas, she must turn Gaza over to PA

    This may or may not be true. I have yet to read any other source that says the same thing. Ted Belman

    BREAKING: Gaza Ceasefire To Take Effect Tonight ( And The Back Story)
    Rob Miller
    , AMERICAN THINKER

    Now, here’s what actually happened.

    According to a couple of my notorious lil’ birdies who are very much in a position to know, the Israelis fully intended to go into Gaza and eradicate Hamas. A country like Israel doesn’t call up that many reserves and affect its economy unless they were serious about the matter.

    But then the Obama Administration intervened.


    They were perfectly happy for Israel to go in to Gaza and take out Hamas, but insisted that they then turn Gaza over to the Palestinian Authority. This was supposed to strengthen PA President Mahmoud Abbas as ‘Palestine’s savior . As as a kicker, President Obama insisted that Israel immediately declare a Palestinian State in Gaza and most of Judea and Samaria, including areas currently under Israeli sovereignty from which the Jewish residents would then be removed. These were also to be turned over to Abbas.

    If the Israelis were unwilling to have the IDF do Mahmoud Abbas’ dirty work for him and then give up large areas populated by Jews, then the Obama Administration told the Israelis the U.S. would not back an IDF ground assault in Gaza.

    So they Israelis took the ceasefire, essentially meaning that Hamas is going to be left in place to regroup and fight another day. And can claim a victory.

    As a sop for being cooperative, President Obama said in a statement that he congratulated PM Netanyahu for accepting the truce and that the U.S. would use the opportunity offered by a ceasefire to intensify efforts to help Israel address its security needs, especially the issue of the smuggling of weapons and explosives into Gaza.

    How that is going to happen is, shall we say, problematical. Apparently — wait for it — The White House expects the new Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt to take charge of policing Hamas. After all, that approach worked so well in keeping Hezbollah in Lebanon from rearming after the 2006 war, even with a UN peacekeeping force on the ground.

    The President also said that he was committed to seeking additional funding for Iron Dome and other U.S.-Israel missile defense programs.

    What’s really behind this, of course, is an effort to strengthen Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government as a regional player and improve ties between the Islamists and the U.S.

    It also takes the heat off Morsi since had Israel gone into Gaza, there would have been widespread agitating for Egypt to send ‘volunteers’ to fight the Jews.

    We’ll see if this takes hold. I’d be surprised if it didn’t, since it’s mostly on Hamas’ terms.

    Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His work has appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Real Clear Politics, Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace and other publications.

  • Posted by Ted Belman @ 11:15 pm | 140 Comments »

    140 Comments to Obama demands that it Israel conquers Hamas, she must turn Gaza over to PA

    1. Bernard Ross says:

      dweller Said:

      they actually encouraged, prompted & even organized violent Arab opposition

      I think you make a very important point of which Jews need to be more aware. The British war against the Jews was intentional, it didn’t flow by accident, and ongoing. The swindling of trans jordan; the jew killing quotas designed to murder holocaust escaping Jews; the cynical attempt to “re-interpret” the Balfour Declaration and LON mandate: the alliance with, and recognition of, Jordan’s seizure of the west bank: all these show a consistent pattern of betrayal, lies, murder, sabotage,and ongoing malicious intent. Britain’s war on the Jews is as diabolical as Hitlers war but their methods are clandestine. Today they continue to employ the similar clandestine methods as they support, and give encouragement to, those who seek to kill Jews. Jews, and many others, are unaware of their true history and this type of information clarifies and brings focus towards identifying the enemies of the Jews and evolving realistic strategies.
      The British nation has employed similar methods with other populations, apparently it is a modus operandi. However, they have lost much of their former glory.

    2. Bernard Ross says:

      Martin Said:

      isn’t it somehow grotesque to think of a country that finds itself occasionally attending to its “usual wars”.

      Yes, but does that observation change reality?
      Martin Said:

      Since when do we admire a country to be usually at war?

      Since we have observed that a nation upon whom war has been forced in one form or another still survives and, in spite of everything to the contrary,miraculously advances in all levels of civilization(medical, technological,etc) and has taken its lemon and turned it into lemonade: its existential wars into a burgeoning defense and security economy. What’s not to admire when the Jew is beaten in his ghetto and emerges as a phoenix!
      Martin Said:

      What sort of people are these Israelis that war to them is just another usual event.

      A sort of people who have had no choice in being at war an have shouldered this ongoing burden in a a most admirable fashion, with heads unbowed.
      Martin Said:

      Something is wrong.

      somthing is wrong with a world that cannot cease to slaughter and swindle Jews. That even when in shameful hiatus from this serial and chronic bloodlust, the “civilized” still manage to arrange their gratification under the table by supporting those who are still overtly killing Jews while mouthing platitudes to their victims. Something is also wrong with the Jews who cannot see reality and keep “playing” the game. It is an habitual game of millenia of fear of the masters of their slaughter. They have learned to be sly and sometimes the slyness is self defeating.
      Martin Said:

      Perhaps your point is subtler. Israel will never be at peace. Ergo: Israel will usually be at war.
      That I can understand.

      As Yamit would say “Bingo”! Israel is, and will be,, in various forms of wars and battles for some time to come. The desire for an unrealistic peace obscures the futility of its achievement. Israel has the costs of war while pretending to be at, and seeking an undesirable “peace”, but none of the benefits. If it were to embrace and seek the benefits of the militarism it is forced to assume then all paradigms will shift. In my view Israel has the capability for resource, economic,food, energy and military independence unilaterally and through strategic alliances. It would not be far fetched for Israel to reconquer sinai, suez, lebanon syria, and to seize the Saudi oilfields and operate them with puppet govts and foreign workers. Sounds crazy but so did the rebirth of Israel. If Israel were to change its self view and embrace the politically incorrect everyone would flock to be in alliance with her, on the basis of their self interests, as they now woo the arabs.

    3. dweller says:

      @ CuriousAmerican:

      “Jews do not prosyletize to Christians; therefore Christians should not prosyletize to Jews. seem to be the standard argument. Why? Why are Christians obliged to play by your game rules?”

      Fair question.

      “You say you are not imposing anything; when actually you are imposing your rules.”

      Yes, I think that’s true.

      “The essence of Christianity is to go and make disciples…”

      PART of its essence, yes.

      But it does not follow from that essence that making disciples of JEWS is necessarily part of it.

      (I’ll come back to this in another post; it’s a whole discussion in itself.)

      “… ‘first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.’ (Rom 1:16)”

      That line from Romans is not necessarily about proselytization per se.

      “To say we are not allowed to try, is to force us to obey your rules. So even when you pretend to be unimposing, you are being most imposing.”

      Again, I think that’s true, Curio.

      “Christians are not obliged to play by rules stacked against them by you.”

      Perhaps not — but not merely because they are somebody else‘s rules than yours.

      “As long as no violence occurs, there is nothing wrong with prosyletizing.”

      Define “violence” in this context.

      If you were invited to a fancy dress ball, would you arrive in bathing attire? (There’s nothing wrong with bathing attire, but would you wear it there?)

      Surely you know something of the history of the Jewish People’s experience in maintaining their faith under the pressurizing onslaught of both Christendom AND the Ummah, yes?

      — So you must be aware that, given that experience, the very symbols that connote one sensibility to you represent an entirely different one to THEM — but with the same capability of instantly triggering an entire constellation of reflections & reactions (albeit vastly divergent ones).

      I’ll continue this in another post.

    4. dweller says:

      @ CuriousAmerican:

      “It is not your call to tell Christians how to practice their religion which requires prosyletization.”

      Quite right. But — by the same token — it MAY possibly not be your OWN call to determine when or WHERE proselytization is in order.

      That is to say: There is the matter of The Christ’s own intent.

      Consider:
      Yes, he preached to his own people, the Jews, during his earthly sojourn.

      — Even commanded the twelve to “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” [Mt 10:5-6]

      After his death & Resurrection, however, the command CHANGES: Take the gospel to “the Nations,” to “all the Nations,” “into the world.”

      But remember now: in giving them their commission, he’s a Jew speaking to Jews.

      Now, track with me, okay? —

      Do you understand what the expression, “the world,” or “the Nations” — haGoyim — means to Jews?

      — it NEVER, EVER means (never includes) the Jewish People. Those specific locutions always designate ‘all the rest of the world’ — as distinct from the Jews themselves (“a nation set apart,” etc).

      This is why the word, “Goy” (singular form of “Goyim”) always means “non-Jew” — “gentile.”

      There are no ‘Jewish goyim’ (except in perhaps the florid, hyperventilated scribblings of a tiny gaggle of irrelevant polemicists with axes to grind).

      — A ‘Jewish goy’ is like a ‘kosher pork chop,’ an oxymoron — a contradiction-in-terms.

      When Jews refer to the Jewish Nation, an entirely different noun is used: not goy, but rather, am — as in AM YISRAEL.

      The point? — it’s not at all clear that it was The Christ’s wish that, in his direct personal absence, the same proselytization of the world be applied to the Jews.

      And then, there is this:

      “Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.” [Ac 16:6-7]

      Surely Asia generally, and Bithynia specifically, were both part of “the world” — yet “the Spirit suffered them not.”

      “I see this mistake all the time. The rules of the game are framed to make Christianity impossible…”

      Among Israeli Jews, yes, apparently.

      Question, however:
      Do you suppose it’s just possible that, back of it all — and perhaps quite irrespective of the earthly players’ understanding, or even awareness — that the Spirit had a hand in this?

      “As long as [Christians'] prosyletization is peaceable, then you have no cause to complain…”

      With all due respect, I would submit that, in the final analysis, it will not be “Christians” who introduce Jews to The Christ.

      One man’s opinion, of course.

    5. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      With all due respect, I would submit that, in the final analysis, it will not be “Christians” who introduce Jews to The Christ.

      I think according to your NT the Jews were introduced to Youshka, you know the one who broke the commandments and was thought to be a mad hatter, a lousy son and sibling by his own family. If your Youshka couldn’t convince his own family, what can you expect from any other Jew? The Jews then were aware of him and who he was a and who he claimed to be and rejected him out of hand. Those were Jews according to your sources who knew him; why then should Jews today separated by 2000 years and our history then accept him or anything he represents?

    6. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “I think according to your NT the Jews were introduced to Youshka”

      Yes — by Jews.

      “you know the one who broke the commandments…”

      No, I don’t ‘know’ that he ‘broke’ any ‘commandments’ — other than the ‘commandments’ of men.

      “…and was thought to be a mad hatter…”

      By whom?

      “…a lousy son and sibling by his own family…”

      Poppycock. His brother Ya’acov [James"] headed up the Jerusalem community of believers till his murder.

      Other family members were with him right up until the moment of his execution.

      “If your Youshka couldn’t convince his own family…”

      An assumption — by somebody with a vested interest in not believing. Your mind is closed up tight as a clam.

      “The Jews then were aware of him and who he was a and who he claimed to be and rejected him out of hand.”

      Some did, some didn’t. And actually, the numbers of interested persons were rapidly growing at the time of his death.

      — That’s why it was (perceived by some as) necessary to kill him.

      Same reason anybody else does who really does: dissatisfaction with what they have or are.

    7. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      The very last line in my previous post [beginning: "Same reason anybody else, etc..."] got GARBLED.

      Your question which prompted it was LEFT OFF. Sorry ’bout that. (I was racing the clock & was distracted.)

      — The Q/A should have read:

      “Those were Jews according to your sources who knew [haNitzri]; why then should Jews today separated by 2000 years and our history then accept him or anything he represents?”
      Same reason anybody else does who genuinely wants the understanding: dissatisfaction with what they have (are).

    8. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      Enough of your supercilious faux pretensions of insight and wisdom. It’s not me who have a closed mind but you. I go with the preponderance of the evidence that is verifiable, and if not draw conclusions from what seems to be the best of available choices and options.

      It has been said that the christianity cult is “a lie built on a mountain of deceptions”. There are so many interwoven lies in the fabric of the cult’s teachings that it’s hard to know where to begin, but ultimately they can all be traced back the book that christians call the “holy bible” (even though there is little about it that can be called “holy” without some risk of terminological inexactitude).

      No, I don’t ‘know’ that he ‘broke’ any ‘commandments’ — other than the ‘commandments’ of men.

      He violated many but start with the 5th commandment ( the one about honoring mommy and daddy).

      and was thought to be a mad hatter…”

      By whom?

      His family thought him nuts

      Poppycock. His brother Ya’acov [James"] headed up the Jerusalem community of believers till his murder.

      Other family members were with him right up until the moment of his execution.

      Which version are you using here?

      Some did, some didn’t. And actually, the numbers of interested persons were rapidly growing at the time of his death.

      — That’s why it was (perceived by some as) necessary to kill him.

      Same reason anybody else does who really does: dissatisfaction with what they have or are.

      Assumptions by you and subjective narratives I maintain just another mythical concoction and outright fib.

      Those were Jews according to your sources who knew [haNitzri]; why then should Jews today separated by 2000 years and our history then accept him or anything he represents?”
      Same reason anybody else does who genuinely wants the understanding: dissatisfaction with what they have (are).

      Rationalization and projection by you christians with no factual basis.

      PART 1: THE MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS

      by Hayyim ben Yehoshua

      The Jesus Narrative In The Talmud

    9. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “It’s not me who have a closed mind but you.”

      Rolling on the floor, laughing my arse off. . . .

      “I go with the preponderance of the evidence that is verifiable…”

      Correction: You go with the preponderance of what you ACCEPT as ‘evidence.’

      Even if the veracity of haNitzri were purely a matter of ‘scholarship’ (which it isn’t, not solely; yet even if it were only about scholarship)

      — YOU, sir (of all persons), are the last to be entrusted with the task.

      There are so many interwoven lies in the fabric of the cult’s teachings that it’s hard to know where to begin”

      What ‘cult’?

      “No, I don’t ‘know’ that he ‘broke’ any ‘commandments’ — other than the ‘commandments’ of men.”

      “He violated many but start with the 5th commandment ( the one about honoring mommy and daddy).”

      You’ve completely misread the story — to make it fit your twisted template.

      ” …and was thought to be a mad hatter…”

      “By whom?”

      “His family thought him nuts”

      You don’t know what they ‘thought’; the scripture doesn’t say what they ‘thought’

      — all it SAYS is what they said.

      “His brother Ya’acov [James"] headed up the Jerusalem community of believers till his [own] murder. Other family members were with him right up until the moment of his execution.”

      “Which version are you using here?”

      Which ‘version’ of WHAT?

      — And why do you ask? — Those particular facts are not disputed.

      “The Jews then were aware of him and who he was a and who he claimed to be and rejected him out of hand.”

      “Some did, some didn’t. And actually, the numbers of interested persons were rapidly growing at the time of his death. That’s why it was (perceived by some as) necessary to kill him.”

      “Assumptions by you and subjective narratives…”

      But then, YOU would say that about anything in the gospels.

      — Of course, you’re not above picking-&-choosing what you’ll TAKE (‘his family thought him nuts’) & what you’ll LEAVE (‘Then the Pharisees said to each other, “There’s nothing we can do. Look, everyone is going after him!”). You treat the narrative like a menu in a Chinese restaurant.

      “Those were Jews according to your sources who knew [haNitzri]; why then should Jews today separated by 2000 years and our history then accept him or anything he represents?”

      “Same reason that anybody else does who genuinely wants the understanding: dissatisfaction with what they have (are).”

      “Rationalization and projection by you christians with no factual basis.”

      You asked me a question.

      I answered it.

      If you want a different answer

      — ask a different question.

      “PART 1: THE MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS, by Hayyim ben Yehoshua”

      Lots of verbiage, but nothing more than the same old, tired, dance steps

      — if you into dancing, take lessons; call Arthur Murray. Nothing new here.

      “The Jesus Narrative in the Talmud”

      You offer me a ‘Christian’ website in support of your claims?

      — how droll.

    10. Michael Devolin says:

      “Lots of verbiage, but nothing more than the same old, tired, dance steps”

      This is exactly how I feel about the Christian defence of Jesus, Dweller. And I’m not saying this contentioiusly (honest). It’s simply my decision. And over the years I’ve read so much on the subject. The scrolls (I read that Paul had something to do with James’ murder on the steps of the Temple), you name it, I’ve read it. I’ve come to the conclusion that one must make a choice. I repudiated any and all apologia on behalf of Jesus. And after all that reading I reject him because the Jews rejected him. I take Yamit’s side in this because he is a Jew and therefore rejects Jesus also. We are no longer allowed to continue this debate about Christianity, but I want to finish by saying that Christianity is DEFINITELY an anti-Jewish polemic, so how could Jews, the Jews Christians derogatorily refer to as “Talmud Jews”, have anything to do with this faith? And Paul was DEFINITELY a sophist, and one of the best, I might add.

      I really do admire your defence and your clever mind, Dweller, and I’m glad we’re now on friendly terms, but I cannot and will never go back to where you are. If you’re Jewish, as you say you are (and I believe you), how can you defend an ideology and a faith that takes so much work (“a mountain of bullshit”, “a mountain of deceptions”) to make simple. I really do believe that G-D intended finding HIM to be a matter of mental courage and nothing else. This is how the poor can find HIM also: they don’t need some idiot “preacher” to teach them the impossible “Trinity” and Christian anti-semitism in order to find The Merciful One: HE’s right here without all that “verbiage”. My grandfather used to say when it was foggy: It’s foggier than the doctrine of the trinity! And if you’re Jewish, why are you defending Christians, Dweller? They’ll eventually turn on you in the end. They always do, especially when it comes to “owning” pieces of Israel.

      I can see that deep down you are a very compassionate person (I’m not joking). My mother said that my intuition was my gift. My only worry about people like you and me is that sometimes we fear we cannot dismount the tigers we sometimes choose to ride. My way of dismounting worked: jump, and as soon as your feet touch the ground, run like a whore from a tent meeting (as my Dad used to say). My way of thinking (my thoughts of you) is that if you can defend such a complicated religion as Christianity, and you do it so well, then you can therefore find your way back to being a Jew without the need to do all that riding the tiger!!

      Anyway, my two cents, Dweller. I’m sorry if this post upsets you. This is not my intention.

    11. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      “His family thought him nuts”

      You don’t know what they ‘thought’; the scripture doesn’t say what they ‘thought’

      — all it SAYS is what they said.

      Matthew 12:46-50 (Mark 3:31-35) (Luke 8:19-21). “While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
      _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
      His mother came to talk to him, but he did not go to her. For any son this would be disrespectful. For youshka, whose mother reportedly bore him through the unique intervention of god, this is astonishingly disrespectful. Moreover,youshka did not speak of his mother in a loving manner, but curtly brushed her aside, together with brothers. youhka certainly could have made the point, that all who do god’s will are important, without being disrespectful and disparaging his mother. How could he speak of his mother, Mary, in such a manner if she were the holy virgin mother of the christian man god?
      ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
      John 2:4, “youshka saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?…”

      This passage is also indicative of the shocking attitude of youshka to Mary. She is his mother, yet he coldly call her “woman” and separates himself from her. In fact, never in the New Testament does youshka use any endearing tern for his mother. Not only is there a lack of reverence, but there is also a strange lack of simple affection.

      When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” Mark 3:21
      John 7:5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
      John 10:20 Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”

      You offer me a ‘Christian’ website in support of your claims?

      — how droll.

      What Christian website??

      http://www.aishdas.org/student/

      Droll your ass, you didn’t read the material coward. Closed mind hypocrite.

    12. dweller says:

      @ Michael Devolin:

      “Lots of verbiage, but nothing more than the same old, tired, dance steps”

      “This is exactly how I feel about the Christian defence of Jesus, Dweller… It’s simply my decision.

      Why the need for a “decision”?

      — there’s a discipline in maintaining an open mind. It says IMPLICITLY to God:

      ‘If you have something to show me, I’m listening. Show me.’

      “you name it, I’ve read it.”

      You assume you’ll find the truth in books. With all due respect, a major error. (A common one, TBS; but an error all the same, and a huge one.)

      — The truth is out there, but not in the pages of a book (or scroll).

      “I’ve come to the conclusion that one must make a choice.”

      Again, why?

      — if there’s any ‘choosing’ to be done, let God himself do the choosing. Your duty is strictly one of obedience to what He shows you.

      “And over the years I’ve read so much on the subject.”

      “Of the making of books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”

      “And after all that reading I reject him because the Jews rejected him.”

      SOME of them rejected him; others DIDN’T. (Again, I remind you: “Then the Pharisees said to each other, ‘There’s nothing we can do. Look, everyone is going after him!’”)

      “I take Yamit’s side in this because he is a Jew and therefore rejects Jesus also.”

      I am a Jew — and I THEREFORE do not reject him.

      What this SHOULD tell you is that what a Jew (ANY Jew, or even EVERY Jew) believes cannot, ipso facto, constitute the sum & substance of what YOU choose to believe, Michael. You don’t get to abdicate your God-given responsibility to do your own thinking.

      Yamit ALSO believes (has said so, in print, on this blogsite, many times) that the divine injunction against bearing false witness against one’s neighbor

      — doesn’t apply to him (or any other Jew) unless his neighbor happens to be a Jew; anybody ELSE is not his ‘neighbor,’ according to his scenario, and is hence fair game for slander, libel, and any other kind of falsely defamatory behavior toward them.

      This is your standard for what it means to be ‘Jewish’?

      “If you’re Jewish, as you say you are (and I believe you), how can you defend an ideology and a faith that takes so much work (“a mountain of bullshit”, “a mountain of deceptions”) to make simple?”

      It’s precisely BECAUSE I am Jewish that I give every man a fair hearing. That goes for giving a fair hearing to “an ideology and a faith,” as well.

      — Christianity took a great fall after it was cut loose of its Judaic roots.

      It has been a long, hard slog in making its way back to them; progress has been excruciatingly slow & painstaking.

      I’m perpetually mindful of the necessity of not discouraging that return from proceeding — and at whatsoever pace it is God’s good pleasure to permit.

      In any case, though, I do not identify Jesus with what passes for ‘Christianity’ (let alone, with what used to be designated ‘Christendom’).

      “Christianity is DEFINITELY an anti-Jewish polemic…”

      No. Most DEFINITELY not so. It was twisted into an “anti-Jewish polemic.” But the essence of the thing is anything but.

      “[W]hy are you defending Christians, Dweller?”

      “Christians” are not some monolithic group; it’s not constructive to regard (or speak of) them as just ‘Christians’ — they may both appropriate the name unto themselves, but that does not of itself make them identical.

      Restorationist Theology Christians and Replacement Theology Christians are two entirely different creatures.

      In any event, it’s not a matter of who’s right, Michael. In the end, it always comes down to the matter of WHAT’s right.

      “My mother said that my intuition was my gift.”

      If so, then you should have realized by now that books would not be your Source for understanding.

      “My way of thinking (my thoughts of you) is that if you can defend such a complicated religion as Christianity, and you do it so well, then you can therefore find your way back to being a Jew without the need to do all that riding the tiger!!”

      “Find [my] way back to being a Jew”? — I’ve never, EVER, left off from being a Jew.

      Christianity may well need to find its way back to Judaism (and as I’ve said, I perceive such a return in progress)

      — but YoursEverTruly doesn’t need to ‘return’ to what he never ‘left.’

    13. dweller says:

      @ Michael Devolin:

      “Paul was DEFINITELY a sophist…”

      Evidence?

    14. Michael Devolin says:

      REading was simply one of my avenues of “research”, Dweller. I didn’t come to my “decision” (which was necessary because I “decided” to reject Jesus/Christianity) only by reading. As for Christianity, I’m not referring to the platitudinous type you’re defending, but rather I’m talking about veridical Christianity, the Christianity that exists, as opposed to the Christianity you’re awaiting to exist. It’s like Christians saying the Ukranian camp guards were not “real Christians” or that the German volunteers for the Einsatzgruppen were not real Christians. Oh, but they were. As real as their Christianity made them.

      “I’ve never, EVER, left off from being a Jew.”

      I believe you, Dweller. Only thing is, you are Jewish only on your terms (but as well by birth, I’m assuming). You are Jewish, and I believe you, but you do not accept the “Jewishness” of Jews like Yamit: you insult him because he refuses to acknowledge your coming-of-age Christianity (and also he rejects, as I do, the past Chrisitianity-of all sects), which you contend is also “Jewish”. You see, Dweller, how you are become entangled in your own habitual arguments(not to sound insulting)? I could debate with you until my teeth fall out, but what’s the good of that? And for what? So you can prove that Christianity has JEwish roots? It’s been proven long ago, only thing is, the Jews of his day rejected Jesus as Moshiach. He did more harm than good, in my opinion.

      Proof that Paul was a sophist? “Let a man become a fool that he may become wise.” That’s one example. But, as I mentioned earlier, Dweller, I am so tired of all this blather (my own included). I accept the Jews as “the light unto the nations” and you don’t; I reject all of Christianity (even your version) outright, and you don’t. So we have no more to talk about on the subject.

      “Restorationist Theology Christians and Replacement Theology Christians are two entirely different creatures.”

      You see what I mean? This is part of that “mountain of bullshit” I mention above and in another post. If Jesus were really the Moshiach, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It’s as simple as that. You say tomato, I say tomato. If you want to wait for your Christianity, go ahead, Dweller. Me, I want to defend the honour of Jewish people and their Israel. I am not going to wait for your Christianity. I do not want to defend those whose religion emasculates their Judaism as a lie and obsolete. Listen to CR’s rubbish. I know that you know what I mean. I’m just sorry that we have to be opposed to each other: you’d make one hell of a good friend to the Jews you now trade insults with. My intuition tells me that you’re better than that.

      Be well, Dweller. Please don’t tear my head off. I’m still your friend.

    15. Michael Devolin says:

      “…doesn’t apply to him (or any other Jew) unless his neighbor happens to be a Jew; anybody ELSE is not his ‘neighbor,’ according to his scenario, and is hence fair game for slander, libel, and any other kind of falsely defamatory behavior toward them.”

      I am just happy that I’m not Yamit’s neighbour! He is a scary guy. I have another Jewish friend who just moved back from Alaska to Michigan, and I gotta tell you, I was a lot more comfortable when he was in Alaska! He’s my posek. He served in Nam and in the Yom Kippur War and he has threatened me many times that he would come across the border to kick my ass. And if Yamit did insult me, what am I going to do, go tell him off? LOLOL I DON’T THINK SO!!!! Were I Yamit’s neighbour and heard that he was insulting me, I would begin immediately packing my bags and leaving my house by dark of night for lands so far away from Yamit that a five dollar post card couldn’t find me!! (no offense, Yamit) (honest!)

    16. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:
      Back to the Chinese resaurant, I see; just couldn’t stay away, couldja? picking & choosing from the menu. (With two, you get eggroll.)

      “His family thought him nuts”

      “You don’t know what they ‘thought’; the scripture doesn’t say what they ‘thought’…”

      “While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

      That’s your evidence that “His family thought him nuts”???

      “His mother came to talk to him, but he did not go to her. For any son this would be disrespectful.”

      That depends. What did she come to talk with him ABOUT? (Do you know?)

      “For youshka, whose mother reportedly bore him through the unique intervention of [G]od, this is astonishingly disrespectful. Moreover,youshka did not speak of his mother in a loving manner, but curtly brushed her aside, together with brothers.”

      This is all assumption & interpolation — and all strictly to fit your template (or the template of whomEVER in bloody-blue-blazes you took this narrishkeit from).

      The gospel writers each had a particular perspective

      — and each of the gospels that was ultimately chosen for the NT canon had a specific audience to whom it was DIRECTED. So some accounts include certain details & omit others, and vice versa — in order to make or illustrate one point or another, etc.

      You read things into it that aren’t there, Yamit, and miss others that ARE — because you are thus predisposed (a nice word for PREJUDICED, of course).

      John 2:4, “youshka saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?…”

      “This passage is also indicative of the shocking attitude of youshka to Mary. She is his mother, yet he coldly call her ‘woman’ and separates himself from her.”

      There’s nothing ‘cold’ about it — and many other translations make that quite clear. Furthermore, with Joseph’s passing, “Youshka” (as the eldest son) had become head of the household. To address his mother as “woman” would not have played anywhere near as harshly to THEM in its cultural context as you have chosen to hear it.

      Remember, SHE addressed HIM, on occasion, as “Lord.”

      — What’s more, in citing Jn 2:4, you (conveniently) left off the REST of the verse: “My time is not yet come.”

      Look:
      They were guests at a wedding in Cana. The wine had begun to run dry. She had said to him, in effect, ‘Come on, sport, you can fix this.’ (She had doubtless had PLENTY of experience with his capabilities. . . .)

      His reply was (again, in effect), ‘Hey, this is somebody else’s party. Let’s let THEM have center stage until the cask is dry. Relax already.

      — ‘There’ll surely be time enough for me to take care of things when the moment arrives to make the point. But for now, enjoy; it’s a party.’

    17. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ Mark 3:21″

      I told you: That’s what they SAID ; you don’t know that that’s what they thought.

      They may well have had confidence in him & his capabilities. But they couldn’t POSSIBLY have had the same interior certainty regarding his mission as he himself did. (NOBODY else could have had THAT.) Calling him distraught could’ve been a polite excuse for removing him from possible or perceived danger. Read the passage in its surrounding context.

      — They wanted to protect him, to get him away from the large crowds of interested persons that would gather whenever he would go into somebody’s house. (You know, all those people who “rejected him out of hand” — right, Yamit?)

      “John 7:5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.”

      “Brothers” often designates extended family, cousins, etc. In fact, it was not at all uncommon for the terms “brothers” and “kinsmen” to be used interchangeably.

      — It would hardly have been surprising to learn that relatives & neighbors of the family regarded his ‘miracles’ only for what perceived value they might present for self-aggrandizement.

      “John 10:20 Many of them said, ‘He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?’…”

      He had just finished saying to a crowd:

      “No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded.”

      The remark prompted “division amongst the people.” Some took it one way, some another. And some thought he must be nutty. The responses were a mixed bag. Nu, so?

      “The Jesus Narrative In The Talmud”

      “You offer me a ‘Christian’ website in support of your claims? — how droll.”

      “What Christian website??”

      The one pulled up by the link you offered: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

      — and which concludes with the following passage:

      “It seems clear by now that there is no consensus whether Jesus is mentioned at all in the Talmud. Most of the supposed “blasphemies” of Jesus and Mary in the Talmud do not refer to them at all. However, there can be no denying, and no rabbi would deny this, that the authors of the Talmud did not believe in Jesus’ messiahship or his divinity. If you are looking for Christian fellowship then Jewish literature is not the place to look. However, there is no basis at all to state unequivocably that the Talmud calls Jesus a bastard or that Mary was a prostitute who had sex with many men. As has been shown, those passages definitely do not refer to Jesus.”

      “you didn’t read the material”

      Oh, but I did. I most certainly DID read the essay on that particular webpage

      — not that there was much of anything new to SEE there.

      If you have something specific you want me to read, then excerpt it in the post (w/ attribution) — and if I need more background, I’ll follow your link; fishing expeditions are a waste of time.

    18. dweller says:

      @ Michael Devolin:

      “It’s like Christians saying the Ukranian camp guards were not ‘real Christians’ or that the German volunteers for the Einsatzgruppen were not real Christians. Oh, but they were. As real as their Christianity made them.”

      It’s hardly uncommon for the foulest of the foul to gravitate toward the trappings of faith.

      Why not? — what better camouflage for their pathology?

      And no faith is immune to it — including Judaism. (If you hang around Jews long enough, you’ll encounter some; it’s inevitable.)

      But in no case is such an observation sufficient of ITSELF to constitute a judgment on the merits of the specific faith used for that camouflage.

      “I’ve never, EVER, left off from being a Jew.”

      “I believe you, Dweller. Only thing is, you are Jewish only on your terms (but as well by birth, I’m assuming).”

      No. Jewish by birth and by training, yes.

      —But now, as then, only on HASHEM’s ‘terms’; I have very little to do with the choosing of terms.

      “You are Jewish, and I believe you, but you do not accept the ‘Jewishness’ of Jews like Yamit…”

      Would you have said the same to him about mine?

      “[Y]ou insult him because…”

      If, in fact, my remarks to him actually constitute ‘insults’ — a proposition I do not accept on its face — then you must understand that it was HE (not YoursTruly) who chose the tone & terms of the exchange long ago. Moreover, he has never departed from that tone.

      So far as I am concerned, I am merely dealing in what he has made the coin of the realm.

    19. dweller says:

      @ Michael Devolin:

      “[Yamit] refuses to acknowledge your coming-of-age Christianity…”

      I’ve no idea what the phrase means.

      I’ve never regarded myself as a ‘Christian,’ and THEY would NEVER view me as one. I’ve never accepted the Nicene Creed (or any of the subsequent ones) ascribing ‘divinty’ to haNitzri. And my increasing awareness of his significance was not specific to any “coming-of-age” of MINE.

      If you refer to a “coming-of-age” of Christianity, well THAT’s been underway, arguably, since Cromwell’s day.

      — Christian support for the Jewish restoration in Palestine (which development antedates the birth of Herzl’s political Zionism) is one of many reflections of that Xtian “coming-of-age.”

      “(and also he rejects, as I do, the past Christianity-of all sects), which you contend is also ‘Jewish’.”

      But I do not so contend. There was NO “Christianity” (of any ‘sect’) until after Messianic Judaism had been cut loose of its Judaic moorings

      — and thus been rendered free to incorporate unto itself all manner of pagan influence.

      “You see, Dweller, how you are become entangled in your own habitual arguments…”

      “Entangled”? — how so?

      “[T]he Jews of his day rejected Jesus as Moshiach.”

      If this is a fact, then why did the Pharisees of his day say to each other, “There’s nothing we can do. Look, everyone is going after him!” (sloppy polling procedures?)

      “He did more harm than good, in my opinion.”

      In my own opinion, you won’t know whether that’s true or not true until you’ve become acquainted with him.

      “Proof that Paul was a sophist? ‘Let a man become a fool that he may become wise.’ That’s one example.”

      How’s that an ‘example’? — Properly understood, it’s most profoundhardly sophistical.

      “I accept the Jews as ‘the light unto the nations’ and you don’t…”

      Not so; I certainly DO accept the Jews as [God's] ‘light unto the nations’ — but not for the Jews’ OWN sakes; rather, for HIS sake.

      — He does what He does because He knows what He’s doing, and the Jews are clearly part of his plan; the central focus (and perhaps, locus) of his plan.

      But that does not necessarily mean that the Jews themselves know what THEY are doing. They play their part — less, perhaps (ken ayin hara), ‘because’ of themselves, than in spite of themselves. I don’t see substantively greater consciousness amongst Jews than amongst anybody else. (It would be a welcome thing.)

      The Land of Israel and the Jewish People are God’s timepiece

      — but what does the timepiece know of what it does?

    20. dweller says:

      @ Michael Devolin:

      Restorationist Theology Christians and Replacement Theology Christians are two entirely different creatures.”

      “You see what I mean? This is part of that ‘mountain of bullshit’ I mention above and in another post.”

      No, I don’t see what you mean. Restorationist Christianity played a significant role in the return of the Jews to the Holy Land. Google, for example (inter alia): “Blackstone Memorial, 1891.”

      “If Jesus were really the Moshiach, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

      Why wouldn’t we? — how would that ‘prevent’ it?

      “Listen to CR’s rubbish. I know that you know what I mean.”

      No; so far, actually, I’ve evidently not read enough of C.R.’s posts to detect the ‘rubbish’ therein so that I would “know what [you] mean.” But I’ll keep on reading.

      “I’m just sorry that we have to be opposed to each other…”

      Why be sorry for that? — a good workout never hurt anybody. (Do you regret being ‘opposed’ to your sparring partners in the ring?)

      “[Y]ou’d make one hell of a good friend to the Jews you now trade insults with.”

      Your hangwringing is misdirected.

      — It was never I that drew first blood. I never do.

      I’m a COUNTER-puncher (not to be putting too fine a point on it).

      “Please don’t tear my head off. I’m still your friend.”

      I’ve never suggested you weren’t, Michael. You needn’t keep assuring anybody of your cordiality or ‘harmlessness.’

      — For heaven’s sake, stop worrying about me ‘tearing your head off’; I’ve never been the least bit interested in doing that. (You don’t owe ANYBODY here anything other than common courtesy. Same as anybody else; no more, no less.)

      You sound like you may be playing back an old “loop” that could have been created, perhaps, DECADES ago. Long before you & I ever crossed paths.

    21. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      No, I don’t see what you mean. Restorationist Christianity played a significant role in the return of the Jews to the Holy Land. Google, for example (inter alia): “Blackstone Memorial, 1891.”

      A Real Jew and not a Christian and Christian apologist might have credited the return of the Jews to their G-d as was prophesied.

      If Jesus were really the Moshiach, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

      Why wouldn’t we? — how would that ‘prevent’ it?

      Cm’on Devolin, he knows what you mean, he is baiting you trying to drawn you deeper into his sick mindset like the proverbial spider.
      Oh my G-d, dweller is SATAN, I saw the movie “The Devil’s Advocate” with Al Pacino. The dialogue and his methodology is exactly the same as dwellers. Maybe dweller is Al Pacino?

      “Listen to CR’s rubbish. I know that you know what I mean.”

      No; so far, actually, I’ve evidently not read enough of C.R.’s posts to detect the ‘rubbish’ therein so that I would “know what [you] mean.” But I’ll keep on reading.

      Prov. 30:5, 6: “….. Add you not unto His words, lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar.”

      dweller is a f.. liar he knows damn well what he said, just like he lied when he said Curious wasn’t a missionary…! dweller is duh-devil at least the devils advocate; He sees all through “A Glass Darkly”

      Note: The truth can never be slander.

      “[Yamit] refuses to acknowledge your coming-of-age Christianity…”

      I’ve no idea what the phrase means.

      Another Fib?

      I’ve never regarded myself as a ‘Christian,’ and THEY would NEVER view me as one. I’ve never accepted the Nicene Creed (or any of the subsequent ones) ascribing ‘divinty’ to haNitzri. And my increasing awareness of his significance was not specific to any “coming-of-age” of MINE.

      You can’t have it your way in all arguments. Ethic definition of a Jew is rabbinic. You oppose rabbinic authority and set yourself up as an authority above theirs. You reject the taryag of mitzvot except the universal ones but none specifically applicable to Jews. You cannot base your claim to be Jewish on any credible and authoritative source. No person is allowed to self define themselves as a Jew even dweller.

      Samaritans and Karites were also once considered Jews (sectarians)but they deviated themselves out of Judaism and pretty much out of existence.

      Any believer or follower of Youshka deified or not is a Christian, at the least he does not accept or pray to the Jewish G-d of Israel.

      Deut. 12:32 says, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it. This makes your Youshka a sinner, blemished and unfit for any sacrifice but according to Halacha worthy of execution which is what happened and the Jews did it.

      For Devolin:

      The Community of Israel accepted an obligation to enforce the SAME Law on all members of the Community!

      [Deuteronomy 29:29] THE SECRET THINGS BELONG UNTO THE LORD OUR GOD: BUT THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE REVEALED BELONG UNTO US AND TO OUR CHILDREN FOR EVER, THAT WE MAY DO ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW.

      Whenever the Torah says forever it is a timeless Law that cannot be changed or altered and it is applicable in every generation.

      The Torah was given to the whole of Israel as a group at Sinai (A National Revelation) Every Jew alive there some 3 million men women and children heard G-d speak to them and they were commanded to be mutually responsible for each other in keeping it.

      From a common sense point of view if the Almighty said something it had a specific meaning.
      The Torah was given to the whole community to be kept by all members of that community.
      It is not logical that one person should keep Pesach on one day and someone else on another, that one person eats kosher meat and another something else, that one person considers intercourse with certain women permitted and another forbids it.
      This sort of behavior may be OK in a democratic secular society where everyone has different religions.
      Originally however the Torah was given to the Israelites as one whole.
      The religion created the nation, obligated every member of that nation, and if anyone publicly transgressed the commandments they were to be punished by the community.

      dweller by his rejection of the Sinai revelation has set himself above G-d. By accepting a new revelation in it’s place he has if he is a Jew in fact made the most serious sin a Jew can make. Here is the principle Devolin, since the Torah was given the whole nation of Israel as a National revelation the only way it can be rescinded or changed altered or abridged is when The same G-d assembles all of the Jewish people to a New Sinai and tells them so. No new revelation can alter or replace in authority the original without those prerequisites and that has not happened.

      — It was never I that drew first blood. I never do.
      I’m a COUNTER-puncher (not to be putting too fine a point on it).

      In the first instance you remind me of the women who cause most traffic accidents but never are directly involved, so it never shows up in the statistics. They even get safe drivers discounts.

      Counter puncher? You are so punch drunk you don’t Know the difference between piss and rain.

      dweller: Isa. 8:20: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah chapter eight is speaking to the TEN LOST TRIBES and warning them not to invent religious doctrines of their own.
      The Lost Ten Tribes were exiled because they added to the Law and Scripture things that were not so!

    22. Michael Devolin says:

      Not to worry, Yamit. I won’t be drawn into anything again. Ever. I’m here for the long haul. I’ve trimmed my sails and turned into the storm. HaShem is my Rock and my Salvation. There is no other. I’ve submitted long ago to the wisdom of the Jewish people and their G-D. I believe in King David’s words. Every one.

    23. yamit82 says:

      @ Michael Devolin:

      Michael Devolin Said:

      “…doesn’t apply to him (or any other Jew) unless his neighbor happens to be a Jew; anybody ELSE is not his ‘neighbor,’ according to his scenario, and is hence fair game for slander, libel, and any other kind of falsely defamatory behavior toward them.

      Neighbor is a mistranslation. Should be read fellow or compatriot:

      Vayikra – Leviticus – Chapter 19

      Where it refers to STRANGER THE MEANING IS A CONVERT TO JUDAISM.

      (Deuteronomy 10:19); converts were thereafter to be treated strictly on par with native Jews.

      What is the love enjoined to our fellows? The context clarifies: “You shall not oppress your fellow” (19:13), “You shall not hate your brother” (19:17), and the 19:18: “You shall neither take revenge, nor restrain [yourself to take revenge later] at the children of your nation.” This, by the way, refutes the claims that human vengeance is prohibited in Judaism, that it is reserved for the power of G-d only. Revenge is prohibited only against fellow Jews, on the double presumption of their general goodwill and efficient law enforcement. In such a society, revenge on the personal level was superfluous. But taking revenge on the enemies of Jews (even their distant offspring) is not merely a right, but an often-reiterated obligation: “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8).

      Where it says, “You shall not oppress strangers,” the Torah enjoins us against arbitrarily taking the life or property of the submissive resident aliens who are loyal to Judaism. Where it says, “You shall love your fellow just as yourself,” the Torah enjoins a positive attitude toward one’s compatriots, toward like-minded people only.

      dweller like most Christians, understands Judaism through the christian “Glass Darkly”.

      Check out his reactions to the links to my comment #8 bottom of page Here

      Read for yourself my comment and links then read closely his reply or non reply to mine.

      That’s his method.

    24. Bernard Ross says:

      @ Michael Devolin:

      dweller Said:

      You sound like you may be playing back an old “loop” that could have been created, perhaps, DECADES ago. Long before you & I ever crossed paths.

      HMMMMM??? No Psychobabble here!!!
      Note the placement, at the end as a parting shot.
      As I have previously mentioned, the use of character defamation as a form of argument. Ad hominem??????
      In this case the added touch of a couched insult.
      Must be an example of that courtesy we hear so much about.
      dweller Said:

      You don’t owe ANYBODY here anything other than common courtesy. Same as anybody else; no more, no less.

      A clever and intelligent mind, with many interesting perspectives and insights, however a touch of the disingenuous and covertly vindictive. Hows that for psychobabble?
      as Yamit said

      supercilious faux pretensions of insight and wisdom.

      this obscures the message

    25. Michael Devolin says:

      “There’s nothing we can do. Look, everyone is going after him!”

      Isn’t this a Christian scripture? Regardless even if this was the case, he was nevertheless rejected (unto this very hour) by the Jewish people, Dweller.

      “Would you have said the same to him about mine?”

      I could never do that, Dweller, because Yamit lives as his fellow Jews (rabbis included) prescribe for him to live. Also, Yamit is not defending Christianity. I remember when I was on the security team in Texas a guy there (I can’t get into specifics) told us he was Jewish. One of our team, an Jew, asked him, “If you’re Jewish, why are you wearing a cross?” And this is how I am puzzled over your statements concerning your defence of [your version] Christianity. Either you’re right about your version of Christianity (the version without the god-man status) and Jesus’ claims to being Moshiach and the rest of Jewry are mistaken, or, conversely, the rest of the Jewish world is correct for rejecting Jesus’ claims and you’re rebelling against the Torah and your fellow Jews.

      “I certainly DO accept the Jews as [God's] ‘light unto the nations’ — but not for the Jews’ OWN sakes; rather, for HIS sake.”

      I also “certainly DO” accept the Jews as G-D’s ‘light unto the nations’ PRECISELY for HIS sake. This is effectively my ABSOLUTE rejection of all versions (even yours, Dweller) of Christianity. I follow the instructions of the Jewish people in living as a Noachide because the Jews have taught me that this is the way a goy should live his life outside of Jewish halacha. You would be the first to defend my “intuitions” about the G-D of the Jewish people (as I said, I can believe that you are a very compassionate person), so if I sense G-D in my obedience to the prescribed path set out for me by the Jewish people and their Torah (not mine, and definitely not Christianity’s either), why do you insist I must surely be mistaken? This is why you seem to me sometimes argumentive, sometimes even to the point of actually enjoying disceptation. I don’t understand such a passion, Dweller. Whatever happened to “turn the other cheek”? (Is there an interpretation of this proverbial saying I’m missing?)

      Maybe it’s time to concede that your version of Jesus is too ambiguous and lost to the past to ever have real meaning again to the Jewish people. The Jews have moved on from that tumultuous time, have outlasted many Christian anti-semites many of them rulers and kings beyond then, and today they are fighting the fight of their lives against Islam. Why not stop observing the clouds (I know that sounds SO unctuous, Dweller, I’m sorry) and join with them. To hell with who Jesus was or was not. As my mother used to say, “Get a mitt and get in the game.”

      Thanks for listening to my babble, Dweller.

    26. Bernard Ross says:

      Michael Devolin Said:

      As my mother used to say, “Get a mitt and get in the game.”

      I have been enjoying the quotes of your parents. If you have enough of them you should compile a book or pamphlet. I was thinking of going back to retrieve the others. They are great!

    27. Bernard Ross says:

      yamit82 Said:

      Oh my G-d, dweller is SATAN, I saw the movie “The Devil’s Advocate” with Al Pacino. The dialogue and his methodology is exactly the same as dwellers. Maybe dweller is Al Pacino?

      Gotta say, you crack me up!

    28. Bernard Ross says:

      sorry, lost the Al pacino link from yamit in my last post
      http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/18453740.jpg
      “The Devil’s Advocate” with Al Pacino.

    29. Michael Devolin says:

      Mr. Ross, my grandfather used to wake us up in the morning for chores by shouting at us, “Wipe that fairy sh#t out of your eyes and c’mon!!” Good idea about the book. There are many Canadian sayings too. We call a pry-bar back here a “glass-cutter” (as in a break-and-enter tool). Another one is, “Life is like using a chain saw: you learn something every day (because in the bush, if you’re not learning something every day, you’re soon going to get hurt). There’s many more. Another one, if someone says something bad to you, you respond with: “Say that again and I’ll be all over you like a killer frost!”

      Don’t get me started!

      Shabat shalom, everyone.

    30. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “No, I don’t see what you mean. Restorationist Christianity played a significant role in the return of the Jews to the Holy Land. Google, for example (inter alia): “Blackstone Memorial, 1891.”

      “A Real Jew and not a Christian and Christian apologist might have credited the return of the Jews to their G-d as was prophesied.”

      A little slow on the uptake, aren’t you?

      I said that Restorationist Christianity “played a significant role” in the return of the Jews

      — did not say they directed the production (let alone, wrote the script).

      “If Jesus were really the Moshiach, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

      “Why wouldn’t we? — how would that ‘prevent’ it?”

      “Cm’on Devolin, he knows what you mean, he is baiting you trying to drawn you deeper into his sick mindset like the proverbial spider.”

      Not so, Michael. To this very moment, even as I write, I’ve no idea what you meant. (Maybe it’s I who am slow here; I can’t even tell what you were trying to say. Or why.)

      “Listen to CR’s rubbish. I know that you know what I mean.”

      “No; so far, actually, I’ve evidently not read enough of C.R.’s posts to detect the ‘rubbish’ therein so that I would ‘know what [you] mean.’ But I’ll keep on reading.”

      “dweller is a f.. liar he knows damn well what he said…

      I am no liar. I’ve yet to detect any ‘rubbish’ in what posts of CR’s I’ve actually read. (Frankly, the constant boldface print can be tiring, not to say distracting; so I don’t always make a point of reading those posts.)

      “… just like he lied when he said Curious wasn’t a missionary…!”

      Who’s the actual LIAR here? — The posting record is clear: What I said was that I was unaware of Curio being a ‘missionary’; I hadn’t seen anything of his stating that he was.

      “The truth can never be slander.”

      A pity that PresentCompany has yet to understand that.

      Have to finish this in subsequent post[s]. Closing time.

    31. Michael Devolin says:

      “Frankly, the constant boldface print can be tiring, not to say distracting”

      LOLOLOL!! Took the words right out of my mouth, Dweller. Well said.

      “If Jesus were really the Moshiach, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation”

      What I meant, Dweller, is that wouldn’t the world be completely dissimilar to what it is today if J had really been the promised Moshiach? Am I wrong to assume this? My point was, Dweller, that everything would be different: everyone would have known and accepted J as Moshiach, the Jewish people would have announced to the non-Jewish world that J was indeed the Moshiach. And Israel would have been in a far different position than it is today.

      “Listen to CR’s rubbish. I know that you know what I mean.”

      What I meant, Dweller, is that I assumed you picked up on CR’s blanket condemnation of world Jewry; “wicked Jews” and the rest of this common and overused Christian type reference to “the Jews.” This is what makes me dislike this type of religious, particularly Christian fundamentalists, this type of excoriative generalization (which would include you also, Dweller, hence my assumption that you picked up on it. I don’t understand how you can so insouciantly tolerate his type).

      “But I’ll keep on reading”

      Thankyou, Dweller. I appreciate your giving my views or suspicions your respect. My intuition tells me he is a Christian anti-semite, the Martin Luther, no holes barred type. I’ll look forward to hearing what you think after you’ve read more of the bold print (LOLOL).

      Have a good night, Dweller.

    32. Michael Devolin says:

      Thought my American Jewish friends should read this quote from CR’s website, ‘The American Crisis’:

      SATURDAY, MAY 28, 2011
      “Will Jews Vote For Obama In 2012?
      Most American Jews will vote for the Marxist anti-Semite Barack Obama in 2012. American Jews mostly vote for Marxist politicians due to a belief in that Marxist ideology; and most American Jews love their Marxist ideology–and not Israel, or America, so they pathetically keep voting for those who hate them–and this most assuredly is the Marxist American left! Also most American Jews are self hating–so of course they hate Israel too. How’s that hope and change working out for you? Hmm?”

      Remember I mentioned CR’s grand generalizations? The above is one example. Here he vilifies “most American Jews” as “the Marxist American left!”

    33. Michael Devolin says:

      SUNDAY, JULY 1, 2012

      “Democracy mostly only works for good when the people are highly moral–most of the Jewish people either inside or outside of Israel are not highly moral, but rather highly immoral–and when the people are not highly moral, democracy mostly works to promote evil.” –from CR’s website

      Another generalization.

    34. Michael Devolin says:

      “The majority of Jewish people cannot handle democracy, they have proven this for thousands of years–they have also proven their overwhelming capacity to rebel against God and cause all manner of harm to themselves and to others.” –CR July 1/2012

    35. Michael Devolin says:

      WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2010
      Oliver Stone And The Jewish Media
      “The Jewish leftist Oliver Stone–says Jews control the media for the benefit of Israel; the truth is somewhat different than the anti Semitic leftist viewpoint. [Here we have another case of a self hating, God hating, USA hating Jew--Oliver Stone.] While it is true that there are many Jews in the American media and their Jewish conspirators in government do have a lot of control; they for the most part are not in support of Israel or of The United States of America–in fact they for the most part are extremely anti Israel, anti American–pro Arab–pro Muslim. The self hating, God hating Jewish media are big proponents of and go out of their way to push the homosexual agenda, to promote Muslim extremism and hatred of and toward Israel and hatred of and toward The United States of America and Christians. They are doing everything in their power to undermine The United States of America and everything which has made this nation the greatest nation in the history of the world.”

      Here CR uses the old “double loyalty” canard about the Jews. More excoriative generalizations of the Jews.

    36. Michael Devolin says:

      “[Note--progressivism is truly regressivism--they are moving backwards not forwards!] And the main purveyors of this UnAmerican evil are Jewish intellectuals and their stooges, e.g., The Anti Defamation League–how pathetic these immoral Jewish fools are to work to undermine the very foundations that have made The United States of America the greatest free nation in the history of the world”

      Another example of CR’s eloquence.

    37. yamit82 says:

      @ Michael Devolin:

      If CR were in Canada.. (STORY WITHOUT NO JEWS)
      Canada Criminalizes Harry Potter

      It is apparently illegal to pretend to be a sorcerer in Canada:

      On Tuesday, Toronto Police announced that Gustavo Valencia Gomez, 40, of Mississauga, had been charged under Section 365 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits pretending to “exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration.”

      If found guilty, Gomez is to be burned at the stake.

    38. Michael Devolin says:

      Those damn Canadians, Yamit!

      Both USA and Canada should arrest those Europeans who come to North America and pretend to be hockey players!

      I’m so proud of Canada today. Saddened for the situation Israel is now in, but proud that Canada supported Israel. As for those other countries: Der oilem iz a goilem.

    39. Michael Devolin says:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luKmSLXukaw&sns=em

      A song for all those politicians who voted for the “Palestinians”.

    40. dionissis mitropoulos says:

      @ yamit82:
      yamit82 Said:

      Maybe dweller is Al Pacino?

      No, he is just a member of the terrorist group “Al Christa”.

      My question, yamit, is: is CR a high-ranking official of it, or a mere operative?

      I would also appreciate it if:

      1) when you decapitate missionaries like Curious American you will let me watch.

      2) you will spare dweller’s life, he is a friend of mine.

    Site Membership



    Google Site Search

    Editor

      Ted Belman

      tbelman3-at-gmail.com

    Mission

      News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

    Polls

    Will Israel attack Iran

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS




    Tolerism2

    Iran islam

    Sharing

    mandate4

    Daily Archives

    April 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Mar    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930  

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Sponsors

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites