Something Bad Jesus Did

[Lunitik]

In your post your claims of Jewishness of Hitler, Einstein responsible for atomic bomb, and Jews have killed millions (using your references) were shown false. That is, how most use the work: it does not correspond to any actual events that happened and are of very, very low probability (merely possible, not true).

This is what I have addressed above.

Without e=mc^2 the atomic bomb cannot be constructed, the very idea has stemmed from it and the suggestions Einstein gleams from its insights are exactly what has been used to create the bomb. It is he that got the ball rolling.

It was Hitlers aunt who was fully Jewish as far as I know, she fled the Nazi regime early on. Now, aunt is quite a close relative, but even your ratio shows it is much less than unlikely. It really shows the absurdity of the whole situation, for he has been killing his own people. You are taking offense only due to context, this is a very significant point when you can look at it for what it is. Ultimately, all humans are of the same species, his relations being exactly that which he has hated shows how stupid racism is, and also how stupid identifications can be.

Now will you move on in the discussion, or will you pursue this trivia some more?

 

[Lunitik]

ooo, even closer:

Hitler's father was the illegitimate child of a cook named (Maria Anna) Schickelgruber. This cook, the grandmother of Adolf Hitler, was working for a Jewish family named Frankenburger, when she became pregnant. Frankenburger paid Schickelbruber, a paternity allowance from the time of the child's birth up to his fourteenth year.
From a secret report by the Nazi Hans Frank. Written in 1930

This suggests quite suspiciously that Hitlers own father was 1/2 Jew - else why pay the women extra, why not help her track down the father and get child support or similar from him?

Still, my point remains about the stupidity of identification and hatred.

 

[Lunitik]

More, this seems pretty complete.

I think that addressing the issue directly, and in a way that questions his grandmothers integrity, is probably a cover up. Yet the Times tries to cover it up despite the direct confirmation that this Frankenburger family was his Grandmothers employer.

As I said, it is at least supportable truth.

 

[Lunitik]

Crap, that last link doesn't work directly, search the italic text in my previous post and go to the New York Times link it lists, it seems Google lets you past the pay wall.

 

[Lunitik]

Anyway, I saw it on a History Channel documentary and was quite amused by it.

 

[Lunitik]

Here is the relevant text, in case it still doesn't let you in:

The third possibility is that Adolf Hitler's grandfather was Jewish. Rumours to that effect circulated in Munich cafes in the early 1920s, and were fostered by sensationalist journalism of the foreign press during the 1930s. It was suggested that the name `Huttler' was Jewish, `revealed' that he could be traced to a Jewish family called Hitler in Bucharest, and even claimed that his father had been sired by Baron Rothschild, in whose house in Vienna his grandmother had allegedly spent some time as a servant. But the most serious speculation about Hitler's supposed Jewish background has occurred since the Second World War, and is directly traceable to the memoirs of the leading Nazi lawyer and Governor General of Poland, Hans Frank, dictated in his Nuremberg cell while awaiting the hangman.

Frank claimed that he had been called in by Hitler towards the end of 1930 and shown a letter from his nephew William Patrick Hitler (the son of his half-brother Alois, who had been briefly married to an Irish woman) threatening, in connection with the press stories circulating about Hitler's background, to expose the fact that Hitler had Jewish blood flowing in his veins. Allegedly commissioned by Hitler to look into his family history, Frank reportedly discovered that Maria Anna Schicklgruber had given birth to her child while serving as a cook in the home of a Jewish family called Frankenberger in Graz. Not only that: Frankenberger senior had reputedly paid regular instalments to support the child on behalf of his son, around nineteen years old at the birth, until the child's fourteenth birthday. Letters were allegedly exchanged for years between Maria Anna Schicklgruber and the Frankenbergers. According to Frank, Hitler declared that he knew, from what his father and grandmother had said, that his grandfather was not the Jew from Graz, but because his grandmother and her subsequent husband were so poor they had conned the Jew into believing he was the father and into paying for the boy's support.

Frank's story gained wide circulation in the 1950s. But it simply does not stand up. There was no Jewish family called Frankenberger in Graz during the 1830s. In fact, there were no Jews at all in the whole of Styria at the time, since Jews were not permitted in that part of Austria until the 1860s. A family named Frankenreiter did live there, but was not Jewish. There is no evidence that Maria Anna was ever in Graz, let alone was employed by the butcher Leopold Frankenreiter. No correspondence between Maria Anna and a family called Frankenberg or Frankenreiter has ever turned up. The son of Leopold Frankenreiter and alleged father of the baby (according to Frank's story and accepting that he had merely confused names) for whom Frankenreiter was seemingly prepared to pay child support for thirteen years was ten years old at the time of Alois's birth. The Frankenreiter family had moreover hit upon such hard times that payment of any support to Maria Anna Schicklgruber would have been inconceivable. Equally lacking in credibility is Frank's comment that Hitler had learnt from his grandmother that there was no truth in the Graz story: his grandmother had been dead for over forty years at the time of Hitler's birth. And whether in fact Hitler received a blackmail letter from his nephew in 1930 is also doubtful. If such was the case, then Patrick -- who repeatedly made a nuisance of himself by scrounging from his famous uncle -- was lucky to survive the next few years which he spent for the most part in Germany, and to be able to leave the country for good in December 1938. His `revelations', when they came in a Paris journal in August 1939, contained nothing about the Graz story. Nor did a number of different Gestapo inquiries into Hitler's family background in the 1930s and 1940s contain any reference to the alleged Graz background. Indeed they discovered no new skeletons in the cupboard. Hans Frank's memoirs, dictated at a time when he was waiting for the hangman and plainly undergoing a psychological crisis, are full of inaccuracies and have to be used with caution. With regard to the story of Hitler's alleged Jewish grandfather, they are valueless. Hitler's grandfather, whoever he was, was not a Jew from Graz.

 

[Ben Masada]

I do not say that I am happy about it, but that is ok with me. For all I know it may have been a parable. Owe! My poor hands! What good is it if a man gains the whole world but grinds his hands to pulp in the process?

See what I mean? Now, we are at-one-ment.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

Hi bananabrain,

Jesus himself might have been trying to decide whether to become a Talmudist or a Christian.

*BUZZ* false dichotomy alert! at this point, quite apart from the matter that there isn't such a thing as a christian, there isn't really any such thing as a "talmudist".

*BUZZ* lack of subtlety alert! I was continuing my attempt to be funny and I would still argue that, as Jesus was, or became, the first Christian, so could he have eaten the “leaven of the Pharisees” (against which he reportedly warned), the “traditions of men” which were already then in operation, and, had he lived, grown up to become one of the first Talmudists. I know that Rabbinic Judaism was primarily a post-exilic phenomenon.

rabbinic judaism (which is more or less covered by the new testament categories of "pharisees" and "doctors of law", but that's being very simplistic) doesn't come into ascendancy until at least 50 years later, after the destruction of the Temple. and it really doesn't hit its moral stride until the hadrianic persecutions and the bar kokhba revolt. within the "talmudic" strain there are people with more isolationist tendencies as well as those with more universalist tendencies; remember at this point judaism had not started to actively discourage proselytisation and there were still plenty of people coming in and out, plus a myriad of sects, very few of which are really understood by the writers of the NT as i understand it - i mean, it's not that relevant to them except as people who are compared to jesus and found wanting.

Point noted. But, please keep in mind, plenty of us Christians do not rely exclusively upon the New Testament for our understanding of Judaism. I have read Graetz, for instance, and he traces the history of the Gaonate in far more detail than one might need.

Jesus could not have become the world's first Christian, because he would have ceased being a Jew.

That to me is odd logic. As I see it, Jesus became one of the first Jews on record to transcend the limitations of his national exclusivism and bias, thus becoming so universally minded and inclusive that … a dangerous new movement -a universal religion- was soon thereafter named in his honor.

i don't think i would totally disagree with this; that process was what we had to go through after the "causeless hatred" engendered by this resulted in the destruction of the second Temple and the end of the second jewish commonwealth. it is a shame that the kamtzas and bar kamtzas in the knesset do not consider this more often.

I’m glad to see that you don’t always have to take me to task.

… a dangerous new movement -a universal religion …

you have correctly identified precisely what judaism at its best solves by its particularism and which supercessionism in christianity and islam builds into intolerance and oppression.

Could you please elaborate upon this point a bit? I don’t understand how Judaism is thought to solve, by particularism, the problem of universalism (if that, or something similar, is what you are implying).

John Hagee is safely restricted to the precincts of the Court of the Gentiles, he functions as a shameless temple prostitute for Israel.

and we all know what judaism thinks of that sort of person. so-called "christian zionists" are no friends of us; they have an entirely different agenda and the more fool those right-wing idiots that think they can use these maniacs to further their own agenda.

Actually, we do not all know what Judaism thinks of that sort of person. Some of you Zionists (if Zionism be in this case equated with Judaism), especially on this side of the pond, are quite capable of using these Temple prostitutes for especially political purposes. Wrote Michael Lind, for instance:

When I, the descendant, in part, of Jewish immigrants, exposed [Christian Zionist, Televangelist] Pat Robertson's anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in 1995 [referring to Robertson’s book The New World Order], Norman Podhoretz [influential neo-conservative editor of Jewish Commentary Magazine]denounced me, not Robertson, reasoning that while Robertson was objectively anti-Semitic he could be forgiven because of his Christian Zionist support for Israel, on the analogy of the rabbinical rule of batel beshishim, which governs impurities in kosher bread.

In other words, then, these useful, objective anti-Semites can be used, provided, that is, one doesn’t altogether mind festering pieces of pork lard in one’s loaf of otherwise kosher bread.

Hating Palestinians is, in other words, the only permissible form of antisemitism.

don't fall for that old chestnut. there is no such group as "semites". "semitic" is a term from sociolinguistics, not ethnology. jew-hatred is jew-hatred, arab-hatred is arab-hatred and bigotry, in the final analysis, is bigotry.

The person I was talking to in this case, Ben Masada, often uses the term. So, too, does Norman Podhoretz, to saying nothing of Abe Foxman.

Tell them that, when you speak to them. But, if you do, be forewarned: your building fund might dry up.

and good thing too. it is tainted money.

It seems to me that talk of tainted money, when it comes to the Holy Land, is almost as dangerous as making one’s loaf of kosher bread with pork lard.

There were approximately 1,400 casualties in Gaza, one- or two-thirds of which (depending on whom you ask) were civilians, women, and children.

it is a shame that those maniacs in hamas decided that there was propaganda value in placing their rocket batteries in civilian areas and making weapons dumps in schools. it is a shame that they decided to kidnap …

You are arguing with Uri Avnery at Gush Shalom and I brought him into the discussion as an antidote, a counterpoise, to the sympathizing acolytes of Kach-Kahane, which terrorist organization, by the way, and speaking of hypocrisy, as you were, operates with practical impunity in these United States. It is, after all, the United States, not Israel, which in many of these discussions concerns me most.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[Dream]

that's not really a fair representation of what is actually the case; your language suggests this to be an ongoing situation, whereas this merely represents the sort of language used in the context of a violent pagan society like the roman military governorship or the persian despotism current during the talmudic period.

Noted. The Roman society liked to devour other civilizations. I think they thought that if they killed a country and pinned its culture to the wall in a museum that they were doing it some kind of favor. Like having you become their slave should somehow immortalize all of the best aspects of your culture. Maybe I just like to hear myself talk, but your above comment was of interest to me.

*BUZZ* false dichotomy alert! at this point, quite apart from the matter that there isn't such a thing as a christian, there isn't really any such thing as a "talmudist". rabbinic judaism (which is more or less covered by the new testament categories of "pharisees" and "doctors of law", but that's being very simplistic) doesn't come into ascendancy until at least 50 years later, after the destruction of the Temple. and it really doesn't hit its moral stride until the hadrianic persecutions and the bar kokhba revolt. within the "talmudic" strain there are people with more isolationist tendencies as well as those with more universalist tendencies; remember at this point judaism had not started to actively discourage proselytisation and there were still plenty of people coming in and out, plus a myriad of sects, very few of which are really understood by the writers of the NT as i understand it - i mean, it's not that relevant to them except as people who are compared to jesus and found wanting.

A book that might be good for this is the one titled The Jews in the Time of Jesus. I've only read a little of it, but the book is reasonably priced, well organized and foot-noted. If any page is objectionable, you can recycle it.

perhaps jesus went along with it in order to prevent her shopping him to the authorities on some sort of trumped-up charge: "he cursed my child!" - that would come under a number of halakhic rubrics

Brainstorming it. He may have been "Giving to Caesar what is Caesar's." I don't know what I think about that, but I'll file it away for later consideration.

the gibeonites are extensively treated in the halakhah; they have a special halakhic status called "nethin". there were still a few around at the time, but not anymore; there were restrictions on intermarrying with them but generally speaking they were treated as something more than resident aliens. on the other hand, the canaanites were very much still around - the phoenicians were a canaanite people, but not of the "seven nations" that we were commanded to get rid of (a command we did not in fact carry out) and the confusion over this sort of thing eventually resulted in the decision that "sennacherib mixed up the nations" and hence it was no longer possible to determine someone's "national status" for purposes of "seven-nations idolatry". none of this, of course, is relevant to the writers of the new testament, but jesus would undoubtedly have been aware of it.

That is arcane information, but its good to bring up. Something I have noticed which I'd like to run past you is that in the Genesis narrative, Israel goes into Egypt along with twelve sons and comes out four generations later with twelve huge tribes of various ideologies. A lot of Canaanite people went with Israel into Egypt, but when Israel came out they were all considered Israelites together. To me it seems this story must have been thematic and deeply felt across the Israelite region through most of the dynastic times, probably in the time of Judges as well. This resonates with the fact of the Arab Israeli citizens, and it is a fact that they are not expected to give up their religion in order to vote, a political decision with Biblical roots. (I have heard about some politicians trying to discriminate, and I'm not overlooking that. I just think its significant that Jewish Israelis want to include Arab Israelis in the political process. It would be unfair if it went unmentioned, that and its ancient foundations.)

i don't think i would totally disagree with this; that process was what we had to go through after the "causeless hatred" engendered by this resulted in the destruction of the second Temple and the end of the second jewish commonwealth. it is a shame that the kamtzas and bar kamtzas in the knesset do not consider this more often.

Don't be too sure. King David lived at least a thousand years before Jesus. Also somebody wrote the story of Elijah and Elisha with that Assyrian guy in it who dips seven times and is converted yet not circumcised...unless I'm wrong about that part. There is a narrative of Assyrian enemies that are miraculously blinded and hand delivered into the Israeli king's court, but the prophet tells him to give them a feast and send them home.

you have correctly identified precisely what judaism at its best solves by its particularism and which supercessionism in christianity and islam builds into intolerance and oppression.

It is really good about that, however its fortunately not the only place you can find particularism. Really good ideas hopefully will appear in multiple faiths.

non-religious jews are also marked for murder by those who want us dead, so this way of solving the world's problems is also futile - to say nothing of communism's own pretensions to be a universal religion and its consequent totalitarian development.

Who is Trotsky? Oh, the guy who was assassinated by Stalin. I did not know that Leon is a Russian name.

oh, the irony! hur hur hur. of course, the lubavitchers would *never* acclaim their rebbe as the "king messiah" and then deify him after his death, sorry "occultation"... oh, wait, hang on a minute....

I would not believe that this really happened if I hadn't already met people in cults before. The brain has many screws, some of which may come loose while others remain in place.

for me, of course, this is more about the "mental software packages" available to both sets of followers; the leader/teacher's behaviour is interpreted in terms of how they understand it.

Schneerson... very little comment from me. He's some guy I know very little about. I don't think I'll ever understand what they were thinking by occulting him, and even if I did nobody would care what I thought. You could have a funnier sounding last name than Schneerson.

i think you'll find it's a lot more complicated than "pick a team".

And it should be. I hate having to pick between Democrats, Republicans and the Leftover party. They are just a bunch of people pretending to all have the same opinion, an event that rarely happens. Our representatives are too dependent upon parties, but I shouldn't turn this into a conversation about US politics.

well, to be perfectly blunt, feck you if you don't like it, you smug, self-righteous dismisser of genocide.

I agree. The reason that Jewish people were specifically targeted is that they were in favor of having multiple viewpoints as part of a large national or international conversation. It is because they were involved in society rather than passive. Both Hitler and Stalin saw them as a threat to group think. Christians were next. The return to the holy land was largely engineered by protestant Christian Zionists, not so much by Jewish Zionists. Well, they had to make it work once we started herding them over there, but the timing was our idea. Herschel was involved, but he was not the prime motivator. You could blame it on the English but it was more the result of American style Christianity exported back to England. The 'Middle east problem' is no specific group's fault, but its got squat to do with Karma. Its more like really weird or a perfect storm.

i'm not sure i care for your tone here. long may it remain "current". for us, it is (hopefully) the long-awaited and prophesied return to our homeland that we have awaited and prayed for for nearly 2,000 years - against all odds.

Obvious point. Where would they all go now that they are there?

You believe in prophecies and miracles, and I believe that the Christian Zionists were involved in putting Jews in Israel. If I'm right, does that mean Christian Zionists are approved by God?

you probably know my thoughts on this. oppression of the palestinians is something for which we are paying a heavy price in blood and morality. it will need to be sorted out, but for this to happen the *ENTIRE* problem will need to be fixed. people will need to stop thinking that the jewish presence is "current" or temporary. people will need to stop thinking we will quietly accept annihilation. we will not. but, similarly, arrogance, hubris and causeless hatred will need to cease among EVERYONE concerned.

Its not temporary. Following a bitter war, a lot of refugees from opposite sides have been crammed together, some fundamentalists and some liberal. If there is karma involved, its that 'Spirit of murder' from WWI and WWII. I call it a spirit, but its the bad feelings, paranoia and the result of so many orphans and broken families from that war, and also from that purposeful attempt to eradicate all Jews. The major players in the Middle East come from different sides of the last war, which was only 60 years ago. Only 60 years ago, Jewish people were very nearly all destroyed -- because they wanted to do some good in their community. You just have a very hard situation in the Middle East where the answers are not simple.

but there are now, very definitely, a people called palestinians and they want self-determination. this cannot be denied them. of course, it would be best if their self-determination were exercised in a sensible, peaceable way, without the imposition of selfish outsiders (in which i include the likes of the iranians, the saudis and the hard left).

That is true.

If you ask me, what they really need over there is for the Christian Zionists to stop being fundamentalist. It is the underlying foundation that connects many players adding complexity to an already complex situation.

what a simplistic, one-sided leftie-media-driven nonsense view. so what about the israeli arabs who are in government, run hospitals, vote? what about the palestinians that brutally murder jews for being jews? what about the fact that your so-called "native people" can be demonstrably shown to share not only their linguistic roots, but a lot of their DNA with the "colonisers"? what about the half of israel's population that came from arab states and the way they were treated there? as veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle are now starting to stand up and say, people who consider israel to be "apartheid" simply don't understand what apartheid was and that cheapens and degrades the struggle that south africa went through. try reading something other than the guardian once in a while.

Apartheid was a black vs. white thing and a struggle against mercantilism.

not without the israelis and palestinians, the jews and the arabs and the muslims all wanting to solve the problem equitably. i actually highlighted one of the more sensible peace plans not so long ago; search for "ray hanania" on this site.

Ok, will have a look.

 

[Ben Masada]

Apparently, you missed the bit where the tourist brochure provides the scripture which gave the Jews buried on the Mount of Olives the strange, inexplicable, indefensible, absurd, fantastical, fabulous and ridiculous notion that they would be resurrected at the time of their messiah. If they are not going to be resurrected, perhaps you, as a sort of messiah in residence, should dig them up and tell them that their hopes are, after all, in vain.

Only Jewish fools aim at being buried in Israel with the foolish thought of bodily resurrection. The desire to be buried in Israel comes as a result of the sense of belonging. The learnt ones would spew the idea that they had to be raised from their burial spot in Israel to continue wandering all over again.

You heap both scorn and ridicule upon your orthodox coreligionists and those buried on the Mount of Olives.

There are fools among us too.

"… It [Kasher’s argument] states, in effect, that it is permissible to kill enemy civilians without restraint in order to avoid casualties among our [Israeli] soldiers. (In retrospect, we should be glad that the British soldiers who fought the Irgun and the Lehi did not conduct themselves in a similar manner.)

Talking about the British soldiers, I bet you have never read about the scuna, a ship crowded with Jews, old adults, women and children fleeing Germany, were drawn by the British to prevent them from entering our own Land. So much for the morality of the British. We should have killed many more of them to revenge their human injustice.

Tragically, it appears that the IDF operated in accordance with this principle during the Gaza war, and to the best of my knowledge, this was the first time it did so. In order to prevent the death of a single one of our soldiers, it was considered permissible to kill ten, a hundred, or even a thousand enemy civilians.

On the contrary, Israeli soldiers, save exceptions, constitute the most merciful and moral army in the world. We rather try to minimize the death of civilians on both populations ours and theirs. The unnecessary death among the Palestinians is caused by themselves.

Israel is pursuing in its jihad against the Palestinians and others.

On the contrary. They have been pursuing their jihad against the Jews. We only defend ourselves. If to kill to live must be the consequence, so let it be.

Where are those “Noahide Laws” given in scripture? If I am going to be tried by them, I want to read them: chapter and verse.

Nobody will be tried by the laws. Neither the Noahide laws nor the Jewish ones.According to the law of cause and effect, we suffer the consequences for our transgressions here on earth. Go ahead and break them. You will be tried here for breaking the law.

Now, all of a sudden, you are a “traditionalist?” You have gone from being a sort of crypto-Karaite (in your discussions with bananabrain) to a traditional Talmudist in six short posts. Ben, thy name is Mercury.

You do not understand what you are talking about. I am in favor of our traditions as long as they do not contradict the Scriptures.

Ben

 

[Dream]

oh, for feck's sake. i'm a zionist. i don't believe in violence except in self-defence. i've never heard of illuminati outside dan brown and conspiracy websites. don't be so silly.

The idea of the illuminati was not much thought about for a long time and regained popularity in the 80's with the Christian fundamentalist movement books like The Late Great Planet Earth and The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow. Its just another example of how CZ is subtly connected to the pressure on the Middle East, drumming up problems where none exist.

and we all know what judaism thinks of that sort of person. so-called "christian zionists" are no friends of us; they have an entirely different agenda and the more fool those right-wing idiots that think they can use these maniacs to further their own agenda.

You have no idea. You just don't seem aware of how connected CZ is to the problems Jews in Israel are facing. In many ways its not subtle, but subtly its a tiny pressure that has been pushing for a very long time like a tree root under a wall. I can only explain it as analogous to a multiplier that affects many variables. Call it oversimplification, but the day that Christian Zionists stop being fundamentalist the pressure in the Middle east will be greatly reduced.

and good thing too. it is tainted money.

Thanks for saying that.

it is a shame that those maniacs in hamas decided that there was propaganda value in placing their rocket batteries in civilian areas and making weapons dumps in schools. it is a shame that they decided to kidnap gilad shalit in the first place. it is a shame that they view their own dead as a *positive* outcome. you should read the [british] colonel richard kemp on the tactics used in gaza. then you might try comparing it with the tactics that the assad clan are using to hang on to power against their own people, not even an aggressive nation-state bordering on their own. more than 5,000 people they've killed. where are the protests? where are the bleeding-heart liberals demanding action? where are the marches, the campaigns, the boycott, divestment and sanctions crew? i don't see george galloway or the IHH organising flotillas to syria. what hypocrites people are.

I cannot say how to directly change that situation and don't have any comforting words, except that it could be worse. Under these circumstances many Israelis have shown themselves very brave, and bravery is a sign of morality. I think that some of their allies should be commended for sticking to their promises.

that's just as simplistic. we need more than the IDF to build a sustainable culture. i am not saying that the ability to defend ourselves isn't important, of course, it's critical. it's just not enough to base an entire civilisation on. for that we also need, as the sages said, Torah, righteousness and compassion. this also, incidentally, means that yeshivas are not the answer to everything either, nor are hi-tech start-ups, nor are settlements, nor are universities, nor are forests, nor are human rights groups or anything else. read rav kook. it's all about *everything*. geulah (redemption) cannot come from the blood of innocents - ours or theirs.

One book about the history of the IDF is The Sword and the Olive by Creveld

 

[radarmark]

See my view of the Illuminati is a trifle different (as are most of my views). Straight out of "Illuminatus Trilogy"-- try it. Right up ther with "Hitch Hiker's Guide" as one of the all-time put-ons!

Anyone who takes the Illuminati Cult as foisted by the CZ seriously has a problem. A serious problem. The traditional "hard right christian" groups have for over a century proclaimed "Illuminati" = "Freemasonry" = "International Jewish Conspiracy".

That is the beuty of RAW's vision (the man who wrote the trilogy). He wraps it all together to show how idiotic it is.

 

[Ben Masada]

I just want to address this concern... How dare you say that Jesus Christ did something bad? As I can see your wisdom of the Bible is not enough... Jesus Christ did not sinned... So how dare you say that he did something bad? Isn't that contradicting to what God said? Isn't that illogical? What I can advice is to focus on your salvation other than seeking evil or corruption in the book...

Well, ask yourself if you would like to be addressed to as a dog, would you? That Canaanite mother did not object because the cure of her daughter was more important. Jesus also whipped the money changers at the Temple, causing them physical and financial damages. Do you think they liked the havoc Jesus caused among them? Obviously not. (John 2:15) Then, if you read Matthew 23, for more than several times Jesus cursed the Scribes and Farisees with being hypocrites, serpents and vipers. Do you think they liked that? What does the Golden Rule say? "Don't do unto another what you would not like he did unto you." Therefore, Jesus broke that law. So much for being claimed to have been sinless. What do you say now? Was Jesus still sinless? I bet you will keep the same opinion because faith has too stiff a neck to bend before Reason.
Ben

 

[radarmark]

ooo, even closer:

Hitler's father was the illegitimate child of a cook named (Maria Anna) Schickelgruber. This cook, the grandmother of Adolf Hitler, was working for a Jewish family named Frankenburger, when she became pregnant. Frankenburger paid Schickelbruber, a paternity allowance from the time of the child's birth up to his fourteenth year.
From a secret report by the Nazi Hans Frank. Written in 1930

This suggests quite suspiciously that Hitlers own father was 1/2 Jew - else why pay the women extra, why not help her track down the father and get child support or similar from him?

Still, my point remains about the stupidity of identification and hatred.

No, it says a lot about your unmitigated arrogance. No sourcing--you really expect us to take your word for it?

I did the research. Again "possibly" but "not likely". Sorry dude, to claim truth, there cannot be any fuzz. Another mistake or another falsehood?

 

[radarmark]

Here is the relevant text, in case it still doesn't let you in:

The third possibility is that Adolf Hitler's grandfather was Jewish. Rumours to that effect circulated in Munich cafes in the early 1920s, and were fostered by sensationalist journalism of the foreign press during the 1930s. It was suggested that the name `Huttler' was Jewish, `revealed' that he could be traced to a Jewish family called Hitler in Bucharest, and even claimed that his father had been sired by Baron Rothschild, in whose house in Vienna his grandmother had allegedly spent some time as a servant. But the most serious speculation about Hitler's supposed Jewish background has occurred since the Second World War, and is directly traceable to the memoirs of the leading Nazi lawyer and Governor General of Poland, Hans Frank, dictated in his Nuremberg cell while awaiting the hangman.

Frank claimed that he had been called in by Hitler towards the end of 1930 and shown a letter from his nephew William Patrick Hitler (the son of his half-brother Alois, who had been briefly married to an Irish woman) threatening, in connection with the press stories circulating about Hitler's background, to expose the fact that Hitler had Jewish blood flowing in his veins. Allegedly commissioned by Hitler to look into his family history, Frank reportedly discovered that Maria Anna Schicklgruber had given birth to her child while serving as a cook in the home of a Jewish family called Frankenberger in Graz. Not only that: Frankenberger senior had reputedly paid regular instalments to support the child on behalf of his son, around nineteen years old at the birth, until the child's fourteenth birthday. Letters were allegedly exchanged for years between Maria Anna Schicklgruber and the Frankenbergers. According to Frank, Hitler declared that he knew, from what his father and grandmother had said, that his grandfather was not the Jew from Graz, but because his grandmother and her subsequent husband were so poor they had conned the Jew into believing he was the father and into paying for the boy's support.

Frank's story gained wide circulation in the 1950s. But it simply does not stand up. There was no Jewish family called Frankenberger in Graz during the 1830s. In fact, there were no Jews at all in the whole of Styria at the time, since Jews were not permitted in that part of Austria until the 1860s. A family named Frankenreiter did live there, but was not Jewish. There is no evidence that Maria Anna was ever in Graz, let alone was employed by the butcher Leopold Frankenreiter. No correspondence between Maria Anna and a family called Frankenberg or Frankenreiter has ever turned up. The son of Leopold Frankenreiter and alleged father of the baby (according to Frank's story and accepting that he had merely confused names) for whom Frankenreiter was seemingly prepared to pay child support for thirteen years was ten years old at the time of Alois's birth. The Frankenreiter family had moreover hit upon such hard times that payment of any support to Maria Anna Schicklgruber would have been inconceivable. Equally lacking in credibility is Frank's comment that Hitler had learnt from his grandmother that there was no truth in the Graz story: his grandmother had been dead for over forty years at the time of Hitler's birth. And whether in fact Hitler received a blackmail letter from his nephew in 1930 is also doubtful. If such was the case, then Patrick -- who repeatedly made a nuisance of himself by scrounging from his famous uncle -- was lucky to survive the next few years which he spent for the most part in Germany, and to be able to leave the country for good in December 1938. His `revelations', when they came in a Paris journal in August 1939, contained nothing about the Graz story. Nor did a number of different Gestapo inquiries into Hitler's family background in the 1930s and 1940s contain any reference to the alleged Graz background. Indeed they discovered no new skeletons in the cupboard. Hans Frank's memoirs, dictated at a time when he was waiting for the hangman and plainly undergoing a psychological crisis, are full of inaccuracies and have to be used with caution. With regard to the story of Hitler's alleged Jewish grandfather, they are valueless. Hitler's grandfather, whoever he was, was not a Jew from Graz.

Again, no sourcing, no points. And shame! we call this "plagarism" in academia.

 

[Servetus]

Hi Radarmark,

See my view of the Illuminati is a trifle different (as are most of my views). Straight out of "Illuminatus Trilogy"-- try it. Right up ther with "Hitch Hiker's Guide" as one of the all-time put-ons!

Anyone who takes the Illuminati Cult as foisted by the CZ seriously has a problem. A serious problem. The traditional "hard right christian" groups have for over a century proclaimed "Illuminati" = "Freemasonry" = "International Jewish Conspiracy".

That is the beuty of RAW's vision (the man who wrote the trilogy). He wraps it all together to show how idiotic it is.

I haven't read RAW, but, as I see it, and quite apart from the Christian Zionista interpretations (which usually stop considerably short of including the Jewish aspects of the Conspiracy, despite Pat Robertson's citations of Eustace Mullins), anyone who dismisses or altogether disregards the role of secret societies in especially European history hasn't read history. As for me and my house, then, we would go with Benjamin D'Israeli.


Serv

 

[radarmark]

More, this seems pretty complete.

I think that addressing the issue directly, and in a way that questions his grandmothers integrity, is probably a cover up. Yet the Times tries to cover it up despite the direct confirmation that this Frankenburger family was his Grandmothers employer.

As I said, it is at least supportable truth.

"Supportable" implies OPINION, not truth. Still not bloody likely, one person's or one family's opinion.

Possible, yes. How possible? Out of 14,533 "hits" on "Hitler's ancestry" on Google Scholar, 13 stayed when "Jewish" was added, hmmm... last time I checked that is about .001%. I can live with that. Possible, but about as likely as either of my Grandmothers (one a Papist one a Jewess) have being named Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[radarmark]

I will take further replys to further misrepresentations, errors, or falsifications on Lunitik's part to my "A New Beginning". It's getting tiresome, in that I like reading what BB, BM, Serv, and Dream are doing.

 

[Servetus]

There are fools among us too.

Apparently.

Nobody will be tried by the laws. Neither the Noahide laws nor the Jewish ones ...

Let’s hope not. I am somewhat reassured to hear that there are laws on the books which will not be enacted. Wrote Maimonides:

“Moses our Teacher was commanded by God to compel all human beings to accept the commandments enjoined upon the descendants of Noah. Anyone who does not accept them is put to death.” (p. 221)

Now, I ask you (again), what are the scriptural sources for what this sage says? Where, in scripture, are the laws God supposedly gave to Noah and which relate to me, a gentile? I want to read them, chapter and verse, whether or not I shall ever be tried by them.

Serv

 

[Saltmeister]

such an offer has already been presented, how many are even aware of this?

I would like to hear what this offer is. It better not be the usual stuff, because as you would know, the usual stuff is not the solution.

Debating the number of people who have died during the many wars noted in the Bible, and the many more since is useless. If we want to count the entire Abrahamic line it undoubtedly goes into billions.

The world population was never big enough for so many people to die over "religion," and if you were to take into consideration the social, political, economic and geographical factors, you wouldn't have so many people dying even if the world population was that big.

Historically, countries were never able to field armies large enough for that purpose until recently. Armies would have been 1-30% of a country's population and they would have been expensive to support. Wars were expensive too and it wasn't until the 1600s with King Louis XIV that monarchs started to have standing armies. Before then, kings had to consult the nobility.

In a world where there is no Internet, no telegraph and when Gutenberg's printing press wasn't even invented, communication was poor and most people never saw much beyond their own village.

You were unlikely to have been able to mount a large-scale massacre of Muslims and Christians -- numbering in the billions -- even if you wanted to do this. Killing Jews would have been much easier because there were never that much of them, however (and because their rabbis banned proselytisation).

The world population did not reach the billions until recently so it's pretty ridiculous to claim that billions have died because that is definitely an exaggeration.

Your own views on the matter are irrelevant, I have spoken the truth.

Not true, unfortunately. Billions did not die.

Jews are the same way towards Christians as Muslims are, and of course we all know the rest of the history here...

Not everyone has benefited from the Internet and a modern education system. This should not be a reason to declare a religion as inherently destructive. As long as a religion has room for "education," it is wrong to make such declarations.

If all Jews, Christians and Muslims were like what you described, I wouldn't be able to have any meaningful dialogue with bananabrain.

There are videos of their camps all over YouTube as well, just as there is similar for Muslims. Israels very military is a religious entity, it cannot be otherwise.

Of course, I have seen plenty of Christianity vs Islam, Judaism vs Christianity, Judaism vs Islam web sites. That's what I saw when I first started reading about religions on the Internet. Back then it was all about arguments to convert the others to this religion and that. I have, however grown out of that and most of the time I now look at scholarly articles, biblical and historical research and articles that answer questions I have and interesting arguments on various topics.

I have come a long way from all the sectarianism. There will still be factions, as people have different opinions on things. Factionalism is not the same thing as sectarianism. Sectarianism says you're evil or going to hell and you should be cursed or damned. Factionalism says ok, you're wrong but I still respect you and your sincere efforts to do what's right. Factionalism permits debate, sectarianism asserts that debate is pointless.

I used to be a "sectarianist," now I'm a "factionalist."

You can say 'not all are like this', but that is irrelevant, for it shows the possibility is there - that is enough. It shows that raising your offspring in this environment, these things can be a possible result. Maybe not that generation or the one after it, but there remains a chance.

That's a pretty cynical view isn't it?

Jesus himself says a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, I must conclude that they are each bad trees, I must conclude that truth must be somewhere else.

That's the problem with mysticism. It asserts certain "natural laws" that aren't proven to exist.

A religion is only ever as good as the people that make it. You can't blame the "whole tree" if some of the people start becoming violent. A religion is just a set of ideas written down on a few pieces of paper. It isn't alive. It's the people who read that stuff that give it meaning. The tree cannot make the people good or bad. If the people become violent from reading the texts, it has more to do with their lack of education and culture.