View Single Post
Old October 2nd, 2017 #48
Emily Henderson
Intellijintly Dezined
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Pre-Rapture, USA ⚛️
Posts: 3,871
Emily Henderson
Default Bible Skool is now in Session

Originally Posted by Rolf View Post
I think Christian Identity uses the one drop rule. The New Testament is somewhat different in this regard.

"You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies."
That is the quote the CI tie to Cain. John 8:44.

Thank you for bringing up John, it will illustrate the lie of Jesus very effectively.

John claims to be an eyewitness account---a contemporary of Jesus.

Matt, Mark, and Luke have Jesus ministering 2-3 years.

John has it at one year.

We know John could not be a contemporary of Jesus because of the papyrus evidence the gospel is written on. The manuscripts are from the Johannine Community.

John is where the early Church first tries to separate their Xtian thing from traditions of Jews who don't except the Ultimate in Jewtasticness, Jesus.

The crucifixion of Peter was added way later than the earlier document as well.

Even Wiki can explain why this Jewish Christian community had an oppositional attitude toward certain Jews of the day:

"..John is usually dated to AD 90110.[17][Notes 6] It arose in a Jewish Christian community in the process of breaking from the Jewish synagogue.[18] Scholars believe that the text went through two to three redactions, or "editions", before reaching its current form.[19][20]

John, which regularly describes Jesus' opponents simply as "the Jews", is more consistently hostile to "the Jews" than any other body of New Testament writing.[21][Notes 7] Historian and former Roman Catholic priest James Carroll states: "The climax of this movement comes in chapter 8 of John, when Jesus is portrayed as denouncing 'the Jews' who were gathered at the Temple as the offspring of Satan."[22] In John 8:44 Jesus tells the Jews: "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him." In 8:38 and 11:53, "the Jews" are depicted as wishing to kill Jesus. However, Carroll cautions that this and similar statements in the Gospel of Matthew and the 1 Thessolonians should be viewed as "evidence not of Jew hatred but of sectarian conflicts among Jews" in the early years of the Christian church.[23]

As noted by New Testament scholar Obrey M. Hendricks, Jr.: "Although its scathing portrayal of the Jews has opened John to charges of anti-Semitism, a careful reading reveals 'the Jews' to be a class designation, not a religious or ethnic grouping; rather than denoting adherents to Judaism in general, the term primarily refers to the hereditary Temple religious authorities."[24] In later centuries, John was used to support anti-Semitic polemics, but the author of the gospel regarded himself as a Jew, championed Jesus and his followers as Jews, and probably wrote for a largely Jewish community.."

Originally Posted by Rolf View Post
If we take it literal the New Testament teaches that there are good men and evil men, good men come from good fathers, and evil men come from evil fathers. This is supposedly accomplished through the spirit which connects father and son.

So Christianity appears to teach that some people are the devil's children, or more precisely, some men are the devil's sons.

Statistics suggest that Jesus might be on to something.
Jesus is on to nothing.

There is a mind, but there is no 'soul'. There is no 'holy ghost' and there likely was no Jesus.

And what should be a discussion ender on CI is the fact that Jesus would have been an Essene Jew himself.

You cannot have a 'Pure White' religion with a Jew as itz head.

Becoming redundant.

I agree with a Pastor I used to study under about one thing: Study the book, if you want to know what it says. Only by doing that will you know.

Stop asserting what you 'heard' and learn it for yourself. Where did it come from? Who wrote it? Is it true?

That's where to start. If you want to know about anything that's where you start.

And if you want to take it on faith and learn nothing, then admit that is your choice, and that you don't care if it's true or not.

Otherwise, provide evidence to support your claims.
"Inquiry and doubt are essential checks against deception."--Richard Carrier