brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
jwknight at polbox.com
Sat Aug 24 01:01:25 EST 2002
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:t9tcmukm3b6gg38s9sc1473ufmq5pdgjjm at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >St. Paul wrote: "And I became as a Jew to the Jews, that I might gain
> >to those under Law as under Law, that I might gain those under Law; to
> >without Law as without Law (not being without Law of God, but under the
> >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
> >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.
What's this "we"? The only person in the entire world who's ever "read"
in the Holy Bible is you.
Christianity was never considered a "sect" of anything, least of all
"Judaism". The term "Judaism" never even appears in the entire Holy Bible,
so this is a specious argument from the start. Jesus Christ referred to the
preachings of the jews as "the tradition of men", and he accused the jews of
following this rather than obeying God's Law:
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God,
that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, whoso
curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is
Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by
me; he shall be free.
Except for Paul, we know of no other Israelite who ever followed these
"traditions of men", or studied under a Pharisee, or "became as a jew", [or
in your vernacular, "converted to Judaism"]. Only jews followed that
practice, and Christ the Israelite condemned them for it, and they crucified
Him for challenging their authority.
Paul didn't ever convert back and forth between "Christianity" and
The only account of him ever "converting to Christianity" is the following:
Act 9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul
certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
Act 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is
the Son of God.
Act 9:21 But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that
destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for
that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
Act 9:22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews
which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Act 9:23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to
Act 9:24 But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the
gates day and night to kill him.
This occurred AFTER he "became as a jew" by studying under the Pharisee
Paul wasn't a "Christian" before he "became *as* a jew". He was an
> >He wasn't born a jew.
> You call St. Paul and the Holy Bible a liar?
You're the LIAR. The Holy Bible comes nowhere close to supporting your
> >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
> >seed? I also", 2 Corinthians 11:22
> Funny man. Who are the "they" in that verse? Guess what: the Jews.
Oh, really? If Paul was a jew, and "they" were the jews, then why did he
say "they"? The fact that he didn't say "we", but that you think "they"
refers to "the jews", suggests that you already know Paul wasn't a jew.
> 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.
You're an absolute idiot for claiming that "Christianity at that point was a
sect of Judaism"! Christ was crucified by the jews because he revealed the
TRUTH about them, which is that they were not descendants of Abraham [read:
Abraham"], which means that they weren't Israelites, where HE was.
He was making a clear and distinct statement about the difference in the
heritage of jews and Israelites.
> 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.
To this very day, most Christians are descendants of the Twelve Tribes of
Israel, whereas (according to the jews' own writings), jews are descendants
of Moab, Esau, Canaan, Cush, and Ashkenazi. Some jews even claim that
"Ashkenazi jews" aren't even descendants of Ashkenaz, but are instead
descendants of the Khazars who didn't even convert to Talmudism until the
9th Century AD.
To this very day, the children of a jewish man who marries an Israelite
[read: a "gentile"] are not considered jews, and are not accepted by the
jewish community. The Israelite law, which is still in exactly the same
form in the Holy Bible that it's been for millennia, has never recognized
the children of an Israelite who marries a non-Israelite (jew or otherwise)
How could they be two separate and distinct races today if they are
"descendants" of the same racial soup, as you seem to be claiming?
Don't skip over this question. If the jews and Israelites were two distinct
races for thousands of years before Jesus Christ, as the Holy Bible
describes, how could they have become one racial soup at the time of His
birth, only to become two COMPLETELY different races again today?
You already know this is impossible.
> >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.
Do you know what the Talmud prescribes for a jew who is baptized, unless he
does it to deceive Christians?
The death penalty.
> >because it was understood that Israelites and jews are two different
> The modern concept of race did not exist then. There were "peoples",
> "tribes", "nations".
The Israelites were FAR, FAR more aware of their race than you are of the
existence of Caucasians, that's for sure. The word "tribe" is translated
from the Greek word "phule":
>From G5453 (compare G5444); an offshoot, that is, race or clan: - kindred,
Note that "race" is one of the definitions of "phule". These Twelve Tribes
of Israel weren't just a figment of the imagination: each was a different
*race*. Each *race* had many provisions for protecting its own race, not
the least of which were inheritance laws that made it unprofitable to marry
a member of a different *race* [read: Tribe of Israel], which is the only
reason they managed to survive as distinct "tribes" for thousands of years.
Marrying outside of the Tribes, whether a jew, Canaanite, or whatever, got
you thrown out
of the Tribe, just as Esau got removed from his people
> >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
> 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.
No, He told them that they were NOT obeying God's law *because* they were
descendants of the devil himself:
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye
will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his
own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
He's referring to their genealogy, not their state of mind. He's telling
them that there's no *hope* of them ever telling the truth, because they're
descendants of "a liar, and the father of it".
It's a precise description of the state of the jewish race today.
> >The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a
> >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.
Many of the Romans were Israelites. Paul was a Roman and an Israelite. As
you pointed out yourself, we know of only one jew who was ever given Roman
It was the JEWS [read: the Pharisees, Saduccees, and othe Edomites], who
were a minority of the population, who demanded Christ be crucified, not the
You have not a shred of evidence that jews were a higher percentage of the
population then than they are today. Just like they're 95% of the
population but less than half a percent of the population now, they might
have been an even bigger percentage of the problems then, and even less of
The rest of the population of Jerusalem, a minimum of 90% and up to 99.5%,
was made up mostly of Israelites and other Romans.
> >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?
This was a direct quote from the Holy Bible: "As it is written: 'I loved
Jacob but hated Esau'", Romans 9:13
Who are you to dispute the Holy Bible?
> >Of course, you mongrels will always accuse us Israelites of being
> >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.
There's no race-conscious White Christian Israelite who'd ever claim to be
speaking for you, or any other race traitor. You're on your own.
More information about the Neur-sci