brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Fri Aug 23 13:34:12 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>St. Paul wrote:  "And I became as a Jew to the Jews, that I might gain Jews;
>to those under Law as under Law, that I might gain those under Law; to those
>without Law as without Law (not being without Law of God, but under the law
>of Christ), that I might gain those without Law.I became to the weak as
>weak, that I might gain the weak. To all I have become all things, that in
>any and every way I might save some."
>
>How could he have become "AS a jew" if he was already a jew? 

We already went over this.  Once he converted to Christianity, he was
no longer a Jew in his mind, though at that point Christianity was
still considered a sect of Judaism.  He did not "convert" to Jewish
traditions, he REVERTED to them.

>He wasn't born a jew.

You call St. Paul and the Holy Bible a liar?
>I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in
> Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and
> taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and
> was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.  (Acts 22:3)

>  He was born an Israelite:
>
>"Are they Hebrews? I also. Are they Israelites? I also. Are they Abraham's
>seed? I also", 2 Corinthians 11:22

Funny man.  Who are the "they" in that verse?  Guess what: the Jews. 

Indeed, many of the peoples that Paul visited, in Corinth and
elsewhere were likewise "born Jews" living outside the Holy Land, who
had converted to Christ.  There were millions of such Jews.
Christianity at that point was a sect of Judaism.  Paul was trying to
separate it from Holy Land Judaism.

Furthermore, you've claimed that the Israelites were in the Caucasus
or even in Europe by this point.  If they were, then don't you think
that the Romans would have noted the existence of "Israelites" who
were distinct from "Jews", who lived within the Empire?  They didn't,
and in fact Christians were considered to be a kind of Jew for at
least 100 years after Christ died.

>St. Paul wrote no less than 30 times that "the jews tried to kill me" and
>not once did he write "I don't know why my fellow jews tried to kill me",

He knew why.  The same reason why Jews have such anger towards the
Jews for Jesus, the modern era Pauls that go back and try to covert
their fellow Jews.

>because it was understood that Israelites and jews are two different RACES:

The modern concept of race did not exist then.  There were "peoples",
"tribes", "nations".

>Yes it did, and here is a direct quote from Christ Himself with Strong's
>numbers so you can look up each word:
>
>John 8:39 They answered611 and2532 said2036 unto him846, Abraham11 is2076
>our2257 father3962. Jesus2424 saith3004 unto them846, If1487 ye were2258
>Abraham's11 children5043, ye would do4160, 302 the works2041 of Abraham11.

And you are incapable of recognizing a subjunctive case statement,
because the English subjunctive has become so rare.  Jesus is telling
them what they should do BECAUSE they were Abraham's children.

>The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan
>and demon-possessed?", John 8:48
>
>Where did these "jews" come from who Jesus was talking to--heaven?  No,
>Edom.  There were no other jews in Jerusalem at the time, and the only
>people in Jerusalem who Jesus could have honestly accused of not being
>"children of Abraham" [read: descendants of Abraham] are the Edomites who
>were KNOWN to have been in Jerusalem then.

So the Pharisees and Sadducees who ruled Jerusalem, the masses of Jews
who called for Christ to be crucified, were not Jews?  The Romans who
cleaned out Jerusalem a few decades later were not attacking Jews?
Gawd, you need to really twist things to make your story work.

>Pretty strong languge, eh?  God "hated Esau".  What was there for God to
>"hate" about Esau, other than marrying Canaanite [read: jewish] women?

Who are YOU to tell God the reasons he might hate Esau?

>Of course, you mongrels will always accuse us Israelites of being "racists"
>because you're mighty jealous of our racial purity,

Pure nincompoopery.

(How much can we bet that we'd find in this "racially pure" nincompoop
someone whose ancestry was less pure than he's like to admit?  Just
like Hitler.)

>We'd prefer the title "racist" over "mongrel" any day of the week.

Speak for yourself, nincompoop.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list