It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Was ‘Jesus’ A ‘Racist Zionist’ Who Described Goyim (‘Gentiles’) As ‘Dogs’ ?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 07:39 PM
a reply to: Sigismundus

It would really depend on if you believe that the actual words of Jesus are in the bible. As opposed to the filtered dogma of the many authors in it.

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 07:41 PM
a reply to: Deetermined

Hi Dee--

You seemed to have cited some slipshod mis-translations from the mangled texts of Trito-Isaiah, but's all grist to my mill howbeit...


Isaiah 56:3-7 'Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to [the Lord], speak, saying, [The Lord] hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith [the Lord] unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to [the Lord], to serve him, and to love the name of [the Lord], to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant, even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all the people...'


I'm not sure the point you are trying to make by citing paleo-Hebrew texts you cannot read, but you should realize the import of the mangled unpointed paleo-Hebrew texts you cite in translation at any rate, viz. that the period in which Tito-Isaiah wrote (or spoke) his oracles, whoever he was (c. 520 BCE) was immediately following the Babylonian Captivity where only 4 of the 24 original priestly families ever bothered to go back to Yerushalayim, and therefore non-Levites had to be inducted to serve two weeks a year, every 24 weeks in rotation in the newly rebuilt temple on mount Moriah dedicated to YHWH alone (no longer 'YHWH and his Asherah'); these non-levitical priestly assistants (considered as ritually unclean as goyim (descendants of the neighbouring Canaanite Gibeonites having mixed in with Babylonians and Assyrians since 587BCE) were called Nethinim ('given-ones', 'helpers') and this is the class of goyim that Trito-Isaiah is here referencing.

The technical phrase, 'joining themselves to YHWH' means full conversion to 'Judaism', right? That would include participating in temple-sacrificial animal blood rituals and duly performing all those involved,ritual niceties that go along with 'keeping the covenant of YHWH' e.g. the mandatory mutilation/circumcision of any males involved in the process, and the immersion into the Mikhvah to 'wash off the filthy goyim' bits, shewing yourselves 3 times a year 'before the face[s] of YHWH, swearing off of idol worship and cessation of eating blood, shellfish, pork-products and other kashrut no-no's, keeping Shabbat and obeying the Torah of Mosheh and disassociation with the goyim, among a host of other things like not-cutting your forelocks, etc.

Certainly the phrase 'my house, saith YHWH, shall be called The House of Prayer for all the People' must surely refer to Israelites and properly mutilated-proselyte goyim who have met all the stringent cultic requirements of 'joining the congregation of YHWH', the post-exilic clan-god of Yisro'el.

The issue of course is that the goyim that even to-day do manage to become 'Jewish proselytes' in order to join 'the congregation of YHWH' have at present no Temple dedicated to that clan-god in order to 'please' him by 'smelling the sacrifices'...even when the various shrines and Temple stood, goyim were never allowed to go past a certain barrier gate.

edit on 24-6-2018 by Sigismundus because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 08:13 PM
a reply to: Sigismundus

We're not surprised that you don't understand what you read.

The verses in Isaiah 56 and Zechariah 2 are speaking of future events that will happen during the Millennial period, where people from all nations will be gathering together to worship and serve God/Jesus, just as it was always intended.

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 08:46 PM
a reply to: MatterIsLight

You cannot believe in the Giver of Peace and Righteous Teacher of earth. I cannot believe, that you choose to believe the Romans when it is so completely obvious in history that they lied to you about the legacy of Christ and the Nazarenes.

Being a Nazarene I do understand your anger and agree with your perspective completely. James was not ever connected to Rome in any manner and most certainly was never a bishop of the church of of Rome. James was the Nasi [High Priest] of the Nazarene movement and did have access to certain rights of the Jerusalem temple in representing the Nazarene sect but was never a bishop of the Christian or Roman church.

James was the Nasi or High Priest. His Deputy High Priest was the Apostle John and was called the Sagan. His Chief Officer of the religious court was the Apostle Peter who in turn was called the Ab Beth-Din. Paul called these three the pillars of the congregation. There were 70 elected representatives who were called the elders with a cabinet of 15 which included a council of of 12 in which there were 3 leaders.

This was not influenced or managed in any form by Rome. In fact the entire liturgy of the first Nazarene synagogue was Hebrew/Aramaic. Greek, Latin or any other language or doctrines were not allowed in this movement but other Greek synagogues were allowed to function under James' authority at a much later time. All of the functions of James' movement were Hebrew/Aramaic. In this movement the letters of the Apostles were not needed as the Apostles and congregation were the teachers. They had no need for a NT book and the NT did not exist at this time. They themselves were the book and the teachers.

The Romans not only murdered the Nazarene's but also took the literature that was not to their likeness and destroyed all that could be found. By the decree of Rome, Peter was ordained to be the first bishop of the Roman movement. The truth is that Rome cannot connect the Roman Catholic Church with the Nazarene James movement in any form whatsoever.

posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 07:07 AM

originally posted by: mymymy
What I find amazing is, "God" created everything, is the epitome of intelligence and all that, but yet can't quote a single sentence that is straightforward. It seems everyone/anyone can interpret it differently, Why is that?

“How do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is correct? It can be interpreted in all kinds of ways!”

Have you heard people say that? Yet, did you know that it is possible to examine the Bible in such a way that it actually sheds light on itself? The secret is this: If the surrounding verses do not make the meaning of a particular statement clear, compare that statement with others in the Bible that discuss the same subject. In this way, we let the Bible, not personal opinion, guide our thinking.

Source: A Key to Understanding the Bible: Awake!—2012

Of course that there are people twisting what the bible says by presenting false interpretations by taking texts out of context for example or using either poorly or mistranslated phrases, is no surprise given what the bible says about that subject. So why do these people interpret the bible "differently" (as you put it, I just called it "twisting")? They have their personal motives and if you really want to, you can do it to any book (cause you asked 'why they can do it' so that's why I changed it to 'why do they do it'; why it's possible even when the arguments make no sense to anyone who knows their bible well, is not really a surprise, lying and twisting is easy especially if you have no intention to make any sense anyway, for example when a particular type of beholder/'target'-reader doesn't care about it making sense in the context of the entire bible and in this situation all of Jesus' teachings relevant to these subjects of racism, Zionism or any subject that was quoted from Jesus and then twisted in the OP to paint a slanderous picture of Jesus as a racist Zionist). Doing it to the bible however facilitates in encouraging and indoctrinating people with your particular feelings about the bible expressed in your comment quoted above. Encouraging your desire to dismiss the whole thing as not being clear enough and allowing for too many different interpretations; therefore being unreliable and too open to personal interpretation. So that can be a motive for why they do it, twisting and intentionally misinterpreting things Jesus said in this case (as recorded in the bible). However, this particular motive is more applicable to their spiritual father (see John 8:44,45).

The one pulling the strings here doesn't want you to pay any attention to what the bible really teaches, so you get the web of phony interpretations and accompanying theologies both to discredit or lead people astray (both having the desired purpose of keeping people in the dark concerning the truth about what the bible really teaches, making them ignore it or when confronted with it, dismiss it as just one of the same kind of interpretations and accompanying theologies, and for the purpose of promoting agnosticism or ignorance regarding these subjects, demonstrated in Pontius Pilate's cynical question: "What is truth?" As if you can't figure it out anyway or as if you can just make your own 'truth', as people say; promoting the philosophy of vagueness, making things more blurry, clouding people's minds with a figurative fog; blurring the lines between right and wrong, and doing the Isaiah 5:20-thingy, turning things upside down, right is now wrong, and wrong is presented as right, true as false, false as true).

Isaiah 5:20,21

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!

Wisdom: Insight, Volume 2

The Biblical sense of wisdom lays emphasis on sound judgment, based on knowledge and understanding; the ability to use knowledge and understanding successfully to solve problems, avoid or avert dangers, attain certain goals, or counsel others in doing so. It is the opposite of foolishness, stupidity, and madness, with which it is often contrasted.​—De 32:6; Pr 11:29; Ec 6:8.

The basic terms signifying wisdom are the Hebrew chokh·mahʹ (verb, cha·khamʹ) and the Greek so·phiʹa, with their related forms. Also, there are the Hebrew tu·shi·yahʹ, which may be rendered “effectual working” or “practical wisdom,” and the Greek phroʹni·mos and phroʹne·sis (from phren, the “mind”), relating to “sensibleness,” “discretion,” or “practical wisdom.”

Wisdom implies a breadth of knowledge and a depth of understanding, these giving the soundness and clarity of judgment characteristic of wisdom. The wise man ‘treasures up knowledge,’ has a fund of it to draw upon. (Pr 10:14) While “wisdom is the prime thing,” the counsel is that “with all that you acquire, acquire understanding.” (Pr 4:5-7) Understanding (a broad term that frequently embraces discernment) adds strength to wisdom, contributing greatly to discretion and foresight, also notable characteristics of wisdom. Discretion implies prudence and may be expressed in caution, self-control, moderation, or restraint. The “discreet [form of phroʹni·mos] man” builds his house on a rock-mass, foreseeing the possibility of storm; the foolish man builds his on sand and suffers disaster.​—Mt 7:24-27.

To me it's obvious that in this thread the main purpose is to slander the bible and in particular one of the main characters: Jesus Christ. While pretending to be knowledgeable regarding what the bible says or the history surrounding its main characters. Just casting doubt about something is sufficient for the purpose of making you feel the way you do about the bible. I recon there's no doubt in the minds of those who have read the bible that Jesus wasn't a racist Zionist, there is no debate here. Just mindless foolish slander to the point of being absolutely ridiculous. Apparently, the arguments don't even have to appear reasonable to bible students, just slanderous and sensational enough so that people who think like you gulp it down eagerly (not as in believing it to be true, but being evidence that the bible can be interpreted anyway you want without causing issues with reason and logic, i.e. without demonstrating to be obvious nonsense, crap, filth, see my earlier comment in this thread about a dog that returns to its own vomit). And slanderous and sensational enough to provoke responses, stars, flags, attention, whatever. The slanderer gets pleasure in revealing things that cause sensation (again referring back to my previous comment about slander and abusive speech and the bible's teachings about that subject and those easily affected by it in different ways).
edit on 25-6-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2018 @ 11:44 AM

originally posted by: Seede
Being a Nazarene I do understand your anger and agree with your perspective completely.

Anger? Just because I am emotional due to the absence of people yearning for truth, does not mean I am angry. I refuse to have anger and if anger approaches me from behind I will quickly give it in return for other emotions that I will naturally feel from a situation that is not just in my opinion, because I do not believe anger is a part of love.

James was not ever connected to Rome in any manner and most certainly was never a bishop of the church of of Rome.

I did not say that, in no way can you quote me in saying that James was the bishop or a bishop of Rome.

Look, if I am going to have to refute every single sentence that you utter because I am in disagreement with you, which is what is happening, this is not worth my time. And even though that would happen, you are still not going to understand me or believe me so it would all be for nothing.

Clearly, you are very egotistical. You make judgments of me that are not correct based on misconceptions from my writing, and when I explain to you that your judgments are not right, you do not believe me and just find another way to argue with me. Your pride and your ego are creating an incredible desire within you to be more knowledgeable than I am as if you were elevating your ego above mine to prove your learning. That is the opposite of me and that is not what God is about. I cannot play this endless game with you. I have no animosity. You can be right all day and I can be wrong all day and it doesn't change anything - because I Believe in Good. I Believe in Truth. I Believe in Love. And I walk down the path of the Almighty. Clearly, I wrote something and you accused me of writing something else that I did not write because your Ego is restless. You misunderstood me and you will not allow yourself to understand me - because of your pride and your ego. I do not have pride. My ego is something that I stomp on daily. I will keep to myself what I know and I will understand that you attempted to put words in my mouth in order to manipulate our discussion. Too many people are just like you. Maybe one day you will mature.

new topics

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in