Happy Yom Kippur to our Jewish friends

[Picaro]

Even though I'm 0.5% Jewish according to my official DNA test, I will not be celebrating today myself.

How can this be? Ive been told Jewish is not a race but a religion.

They're an ethnic group; not all Jews practice Judaism, in the past or now either. According to the Old Testament, it seems a majority did not, since Jews Behaving Badly are a recurring theme in the OT and the NT both.

 

[admonit]

So, what then is Trinitarian explanation? God is one. There are no three separate persons but only one Being who reveals itself in three ways. So called Son is just some form of revelation in particular time. Is this compatible with Trinitarian version?

No that would be "Modalism". It was condemned as far back as the 1st century.

So, there are three separate persons? Then how is this compatible with oneness?

God in Christianity is just a virtual container.

 

[irosie91]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

If you find a reference to God as plural that would be heresy.

"Then God said, " Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ..." Genesis 1:26, NKJV , and pretty much the same in my NIV version. My version of the NKJV capitalizes "Our", other versions, actually most except the NASB don't; which ones are more accurate? I go with the capitalization, since I seriously doubt God was including the cattle and stuff from 1:24 -1:25; I prefer the NKJV over the rest personally. This type of language occurs because the Bible in many places uses several 'voices' to make points from different aspects.

What does Genesis 1:26 mean?

I don't think the 'angels' are the explanation, the other two explanations fit, and work with each other as well. Angels don't come along til later, and the term isn't capitalized, so they aren't part of the Trinity, they are clearly separate from it.

the book of genesis is written in Hebrew. The PLURAL in Hebrew is used as
a formal superlative even today. In greeting---especially on being introduced---
the standard response is "SHALOM ALEICHEM" which does not mean "shalom to YOU (singular) ----it means "shalom to you (PLURAL)" as if the speaker is talking to many. Try to cope with the fact of the idiosyncrasies of DIFFERENT
:LANGUAGES. Angels, in jewish theology, do not CREATE THINGS. They are creations. What does "angels don't come along till later..." mean?

did you find citations to support your allegation about "orthodox rabbis" ---2000
years ago and since used a "ONE-NESS argument" to refute Christianity and other sects such as ESSENES AND PHARISEES etc etc? Those guys write
and WROTE prolifically-------if it exists, you will have no problem finding it. In
your world are "despeerate rabbis" still down on the trinity issue because THEY CLAIM that it violates the ONENESS ISSUE ?? If so----SOMEONE must have
heard about it

 

[ESay]

Both Joseph and Mary were descendants of David, plus Joseph would be the the 'father' under 'secular' Jewish laws, so that isn't an issue. What 'doesn't hold water'? We know they were related.

Joseph may be the 'father' under some secular law, but he wasn't an actual father of Jesus. So, Jesus can't be a descendant of David.

What 'Don't hold water' is the version about Mary and Joseph being relatives. Where is that said in NT?

It would seem so. Is your arm a part of you, or is it a 'module'? Jesus is still around, according to the NT, and has always been around, not just from a particular time and place, same as your arms if they haven't been lost for some reason

Then in this case we return back to Sabbelianism. There is one God in various revelations. Then may it be said that God 'the father' was crucified? And why in this case it is needed to worship 'son' if worshipping should be applied to God as a whole?

 

[irosie91]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

If you find a reference to God as plural that would be heresy.

"Then God said, " Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ..." Genesis 1:26, NKJV , and pretty much the same in my NIV version. My version of the NKJV capitalizes "Our", other versions, actually most except the NASB don't; which ones are more accurate? I go with the capitalization, since I seriously doubt God was including the cattle and stuff from 1:24 -1:25; I prefer the NKJV over the rest personally. This type of language occurs because the Bible in many places uses several 'voices' to make points from different aspects.

What does Genesis 1:26 mean?

I don't think the 'angels' are the explanation, the other two explanations fit, and work with each other as well. Angels don't come along til later, and the term isn't capitalized, so they aren't part of the Trinity, they are clearly separate from it.

the book of genesis is written in Hebrew. The PLURAL in Hebrew is used as
a formal superlative even today. In greeting---especially on being introduced---
the standard response is "SHALOM ALEICHEM" which does not mean "shalom to YOU (singular) ----it means "shalom to you (PLURAL)" as if the speaker is talking to many. Try to cope with the fact of the idiosyncrasies of DIFFERENT
:LANGUAGES. Angels, in jewish theology, do not CREATE THINGS. They are creations. What does "angels don't come along till later..." mean?

did you find citations to support your allegation about "orthodox rabbis" ---2000
years ago and since used a "ONE-NESS argument" to refute Christianity and other sects such as ESSENES AND PHARISEES etc etc? Those guys write
and WROTE prolifically-------if it exists, you will have no problem finding it. In
your world are "despeerate rabbis" still down on the trinity issue because THEY CLAIM that it violates the ONENESS ISSUE ?? If so----SOMEONE must have
heard about it

Pic is completely stumped by my simple question-----so he has chosen to
GIGGLE

 

[Picaro]

Both Joseph and Mary were descendants of David, plus Joseph would be the the 'father' under 'secular' Jewish laws, so that isn't an issue. What 'doesn't hold water'? We know they were related.

Joseph may be the 'father' under some secular law, but he wasn't an actual father of Jesus. So, Jesus can't be a descendant of David.

What 'Don't hold water' is the version about Mary and Joseph being relatives. Where is that said in NT?

Just your uneducated opinion. Those of us who are aware of the practice of adoption can ignore the usual attempts to screw up the obvious, and anybody can find the answer to that themselves. It's not a disputable point and already discussed re Mathew and Luke's genealogies in another thread.

It would seem so. Is your arm a part of you, or is it a 'module'? Jesus is still around, according to the NT, and has always been around, not just from a particular time and place, same as your arms if they haven't been lost for some reason

Then in this case we return back to Sabbelianism. There is one God in various revelations. Then may it be said that God 'the father' was crucified? And why in this case it is needed to worship 'son' if worshipping should be applied to God as a whole?[/QUOTE]

Nope. Again, just your weird personal interpretation.

For the Peanut Gallery, it is even stated yet again near the very end of Revelations - 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."
22:16:"I, Jesus have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star."

Those unfamiliar with the NT can start here on this particular topic:

Romans 1:3 - concerning His Son,... - Verse-by-Verse Commentary

There are several references to his 'roots' throughout, there is no mistake;and, the 'Son of David' is a messianic title as well, not just a genealogical statement. Then you can look up Mary's relationships after these.

 

[Picaro]

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

If you find a reference to God as plural that would be heresy.

"Then God said, " Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ..." Genesis 1:26, NKJV , and pretty much the same in my NIV version. My version of the NKJV capitalizes "Our", other versions, actually most except the NASB don't; which ones are more accurate? I go with the capitalization, since I seriously doubt God was including the cattle and stuff from 1:24 -1:25; I prefer the NKJV over the rest personally. This type of language occurs because the Bible in many places uses several 'voices' to make points from different aspects.

What does Genesis 1:26 mean?

I don't think the 'angels' are the explanation, the other two explanations fit, and work with each other as well. Angels don't come along til later, and the term isn't capitalized, so they aren't part of the Trinity, they are clearly separate from it.

the book of genesis is written in Hebrew. The PLURAL in Hebrew is used as
a formal superlative even today. In greeting---especially on being introduced---
the standard response is "SHALOM ALEICHEM" which does not mean "shalom to YOU (singular) ----it means "shalom to you (PLURAL)" as if the speaker is talking to many. Try to cope with the fact of the idiosyncrasies of DIFFERENT
:LANGUAGES. Angels, in jewish theology, do not CREATE THINGS. They are creations. What does "angels don't come along till later..." mean?

did you find citations to support your allegation about "orthodox rabbis" ---2000
years ago and since used a "ONE-NESS argument" to refute Christianity and other sects such as ESSENES AND PHARISEES etc etc? Those guys write
and WROTE prolifically-------if it exists, you will have no problem finding it. In
your world are "despeerate rabbis" still down on the trinity issue because THEY CLAIM that it violates the ONENESS ISSUE ?? If so----SOMEONE must have
heard about it

Pic is completely stumped by my simple question-----so he has chosen to
GIGGLE

Rosie should instead be complaining about how her post-exilic racist rabbis kept re-writing and adding to many parts of the Old testament rather than keep whining about Da Evul Xians and babbling rubbish about Constantine re-writing stuff. She would look less insanely bigoted then. She has confused herself with her attempt at being clever, as usual.

 

[irosie91]

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

If you find a reference to God as plural that would be heresy.

"Then God said, " Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; ..." Genesis 1:26, NKJV , and pretty much the same in my NIV version. My version of the NKJV capitalizes "Our", other versions, actually most except the NASB don't; which ones are more accurate? I go with the capitalization, since I seriously doubt God was including the cattle and stuff from 1:24 -1:25; I prefer the NKJV over the rest personally. This type of language occurs because the Bible in many places uses several 'voices' to make points from different aspects.

What does Genesis 1:26 mean?

I don't think the 'angels' are the explanation, the other two explanations fit, and work with each other as well. Angels don't come along til later, and the term isn't capitalized, so they aren't part of the Trinity, they are clearly separate from it.

the book of genesis is written in Hebrew. The PLURAL in Hebrew is used as
a formal superlative even today. In greeting---especially on being introduced---
the standard response is "SHALOM ALEICHEM" which does not mean "shalom to YOU (singular) ----it means "shalom to you (PLURAL)" as if the speaker is talking to many. Try to cope with the fact of the idiosyncrasies of DIFFERENT
:LANGUAGES. Angels, in jewish theology, do not CREATE THINGS. They are creations. What does "angels don't come along till later..." mean?

did you find citations to support your allegation about "orthodox rabbis" ---2000
years ago and since used a "ONE-NESS argument" to refute Christianity and other sects such as ESSENES AND PHARISEES etc etc? Those guys write
and WROTE prolifically-------if it exists, you will have no problem finding it. In
your world are "despeerate rabbis" still down on the trinity issue because THEY CLAIM that it violates the ONENESS ISSUE ?? If so----SOMEONE must have
heard about it

Pic is completely stumped by my simple question-----so he has chosen to
GIGGLE

Rosie should instead be complaining about how her post-exilic racist rabbis kept re-writing and adding to many parts of the Old testament rather than keep whining about Da Evul Xians and babbling rubbish about Constantine re-writing stuff. She would look less insanely bigoted then. She has confused herself with her attempt at being clever, as usual.

Pic cannot find ANYTHING to support his idiotic claim that "orthodox rabbis" have
spent the past 2000 years desperately trying to refute the "trinity" thing. ----
c'mon Pic. Anyone out there EVER read anything by any "orthodox rabbi" ----
about the 'trinity' concept? -----by any rabbi at all? I am not at all surprised
that he adulates Constantine for being the author of the genocidal policy of the
the first Reich (not to mention the second and third) In fact I have never accused Constantine of "re-writing" anything. He, merely, had the power to
decide what got included in the official religious document of the first reich-----written by various roman empire shills

 

[zaangalewa]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

for the record----the use of the plural for "god" in the bible is a feature of
Hebrew grammar. The plural is used as a superlative-------even today in various \
circumstances------the standard greeting "shalom Aleichem"-----is a PLURAL----
something like Hi ya'all. It is a polite form. Christianity "took over..." because the mass murderer CONSTANTINE ---took over. Genghis Khan
did a similar favor for islam

Why do you call Constantine (who was by the way a heathen and not a Christian) a mass-murderer? And Ghengis Khan was not a Muslim - so what did he do for the Islam, how and why?

And what exactly is the superlative and not a plural in the sentence: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ... (1.Mose 1,26) ?

 

[irosie91]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

for the record----the use of the plural for "god" in the bible is a feature of
Hebrew grammar. The plural is used as a superlative-------even today in various \
circumstances------the standard greeting "shalom Aleichem"-----is a PLURAL----
something like Hi ya'all. It is a polite form. Christianity "took over..." because the mass murderer CONSTANTINE ---took over. Genghis Khan
did a similar favor for islam

Why do you call Constantine (who was by the way a heathen and not a Christian) a mass-murderer? And Ghengis Khan was not a Muslim - so what did he do for the Islam, how and why?

And what exactly is the superlative and not a plural in the sentence: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ... (1.Mose 1,26) ?

There is no evidence that adolf hitler ever killed anyone, nor did Stalin.
The empire founded by Constantine engaged in the genocide of
hundreds of millions based on Christian supremacism which started
at the time of HIS rule.. in the course of about 17 centuries
The empire founded largely by Genghis Khan
engaged in the genocide of hundreds of millions based on muslim
supremacy in the course of approximately 8 centuries. As to
Constantine and Genghis THEMSELVES ----their personal
"spiritual beliefs" are no more an issue than the personal spiritual
beliefs of Pol Pot or MAO. There are legends regarding the magical
conversion of Constantine-----kinda on the level of the revelations of
saint paul

 

[zaangalewa]

Christians are a Jewish sect. I know this annoys the more racist Orthodox and especially Chasidics, but that's just a fact.

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

for the record----the use of the plural for "god" in the bible is a feature of
Hebrew grammar. The plural is used as a superlative-------even today in various \
circumstances------the standard greeting "shalom Aleichem"-----is a PLURAL----
something like Hi ya'all. It is a polite form. Christianity "took over..." because the mass murderer CONSTANTINE ---took over. Genghis Khan
did a similar favor for islam

Why do you call Constantine (who was by the way a heathen and not a Christian) a mass-murderer? And Ghengis Khan was not a Muslim - so what did he do for the Islam, how and why?

And what exactly is the superlative and not a plural in the sentence: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ... (1.Mose 1,26) ?

There is no evidence that adolf hitler ever killed anyone, nor did Stalin.

You are confused.

The empire founded by Constantine engaged in the genocide of hundreds of millions based on Christian supremacismwhich started at the time of HIS rule..

Do we speak now about Flavius Valerius Constantinus (pius) nobilissimus Caesar? He was emperor of the Roman empire from about 307-337 A.D. Before him were many emperors of the Roman empire - after him were many emperors of the Roman empire too.

And the whole Roman empire in this time of history were perhaps about 100 million people - what was damned big. And the expression "genocide" makes in context with him not a big sense as far as I can see. Cesar himselve for example I call a mass-murderer on my own (and I would not use the word genocide in this time of history), because he had killed about 50% of the Celts of Gallia (the area of France today) .

in the course of about 17 centuries

You seem to have a very big pot, where you melt everything together.

The empire founded largely by Genghis Khan
engaged in the genocide of hundreds of millions based on muslim
supremacy in the course of approximately 8 centuries.

What for heavens sake do you speak about? Temujin was a Tengrist and not a Muslim and the Mongolian empire, which he had founded, broke in parts very fast after his death - what's perhaps similiar to the empire of Alexander the Great 1500-1600 years before him.

As to
Constantine and Genghis THEMSELVES ----their personal
"spiritual beliefs" are no more an issue than the personal spiritual
beliefs of Pol Pot or MAO.

"Mao, Polpot and Ghengis Constatine?" - are you sure this is the right title of your never written history book?

There are legends regarding the magical
conversion of Constantine-----kinda on the level of the revelations of
saint paul

What a nonsense. And what has this all to do with the revelation and Saint Paul, who had not written the book of the bible with the title revelation?

Constantin was his whole life a heathen. Perhaps he was baptized on his death bed. Perhaps he wan a battle under the sign of the cross. He opened a freedom of religion also for Christians (and Jews, too?) and ended the persecution of Christians. In this case he had stopped mass-murder for example. Constantine was practically the founder of the Orient (East Rome, Byzantium, Constatinople) but nevertheless this was Rome.

 

[irosie91]

Don't you think that Jesus deification contradicts the core principle of Judaism about oneness of God?

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

for the record----the use of the plural for "god" in the bible is a feature of
Hebrew grammar. The plural is used as a superlative-------even today in various \
circumstances------the standard greeting "shalom Aleichem"-----is a PLURAL----
something like Hi ya'all. It is a polite form. Christianity "took over..." because the mass murderer CONSTANTINE ---took over. Genghis Khan
did a similar favor for islam

Why do you call Constantine (who was by the way a heathen and not a Christian) a mass-murderer? And Ghengis Khan was not a Muslim - so what did he do for the Islam, how and why?

And what exactly is the superlative and not a plural in the sentence: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ... (1.Mose 1,26) ?

There is no evidence that adolf hitler ever killed anyone, nor did Stalin.

You are confused.

The empire founded by Constantine engaged in the genocide of hundreds of millions based on Christian supremacismwhich started at the time of HIS rule..

Do we speak now about Flavius Valerius Constantinus (pius) nobilissimus Caesar? He was emperor of the Roman empire from about 307-337 A.D. Before him were many emperors of the Roman empire - after him were many emperors of the Roman empire too.

And the whole Roman empire in this time of history were perhaps about 100 million people - what was damned big. And the expression "genocide" makes in context with him not a big sense as far as I can see. Cesar himselve for example I call a mass-murderer on my own (and I would not use the word genocide in this time of history), because he had killed about 50% of the Celts of Gallia (the area of France today) .

in the course of about 17 centuries

You seem to have a very big pot, where you melt everything together.

The empire founded largely by Genghis Khan
engaged in the genocide of hundreds of millions based on muslim
supremacy in the course of approximately 8 centuries.

What for heavens sake do you speak about? Temujin was a Tengrist and not a Muslim and the Mongolian empire, which he had founded, broke in parts very fast after his death - what's perhaps similiar to the empire of Alexander the Great 1500-1600 years before him.

As to
Constantine and Genghis THEMSELVES ----their personal
"spiritual beliefs" are no more an issue than the personal spiritual
beliefs of Pol Pot or MAO.

"Mao, Polpot and Ghengis Constatine?" - are you sure this is the right title of your never written history book?

There are legends regarding the magical
conversion of Constantine-----kinda on the level of the revelations of
saint paul

What a nonsense. And what has this all to do with the revelation and Saint Paul, who had not written the book of the bible with the title revelation?

Constantin was his whole life a heathen. Perhaps he was baptized on his death bed. Perhaps he wan a battle under the sign of the cross. He opened a freedom of religion also for Christians (and Jews, too?) and ended the persecution of Christians. In this case he had stopped mass-murder for example. Constantine was practically the founder of the Orient (East Rome, Byzantium, Constatinople) but nevertheless this was Rome.

your discussion is very ill-informed and a real mess. btw---did I suggest that
paul wrote the book of the bible called "revelations"? Is English not your first
language?. At the risk of being parochial-------Constantine and his minions
committed genocide upon the jews of Palestina. The legend associated with
Constantine is that he converted to Christianity on the battle field and THEREFORE won. Probably just a legend---but his mother, Helen was an ardent
Christian-------it was his Nazi bastard grandson JUSTINIAN who invented the
genocidal laws that formed the basis of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE genocidal
"inquisition" thing and was responsible even for the genocide of native americans. The Justinian canon crap is also forerunner of filth of Islamic dhimmia. which was also the basis for the genocide of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS----. Constantine was the first
emperor NOT OF ROME but of DA HOLEY ROMAN EMPIRE---first reich. ---big time murdering mess from first to third reichs

 

[zaangalewa]

No. We see references of 'God' in the plural sense beginning in Genesis with the creation narrative. The Old Testament has many 'voices' throughout its writings. The Christian 'Trinitarian' doctrine doesn't violate any ' Oneness' doctrine; that's a red herring argument from some Orthodox rabbis desperate to bring many Jews back into the fold after they did their best to alienate and run off as many of their own people for some 500 years; with the advent of such sects as the Essenes, Christians, Pharisees, the popularity of Greek culture and writings with Jewish scholars, the various 'schools' that all started popping up around 200 B.C. or so, the status quo was threatened from a number of sides, not just Da Evul Xians; the latter was just far more successful and closest to the original dynamism of the Mosaic era, and for very good, and obvious, reasons it took over and drove progress. The NT is not separate from the OT, historically, literally, or philosophically, despite all the confusion to the contrary. It is reliant on the Torah, as was Jesus ministry.

for the record----the use of the plural for "god" in the bible is a feature of
Hebrew grammar. The plural is used as a superlative-------even today in various \
circumstances------the standard greeting "shalom Aleichem"-----is a PLURAL----
something like Hi ya'all. It is a polite form. Christianity "took over..." because the mass murderer CONSTANTINE ---took over. Genghis Khan
did a similar favor for islam

Why do you call Constantine (who was by the way a heathen and not a Christian) a mass-murderer? And Ghengis Khan was not a Muslim - so what did he do for the Islam, how and why?

And what exactly is the superlative and not a plural in the sentence: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ... (1.Mose 1,26) ?

There is no evidence that adolf hitler ever killed anyone, nor did Stalin.

You are confused.

The empire founded by Constantine engaged in the genocide of hundreds of millions based on Christian supremacismwhich started at the time of HIS rule..

Do we speak now about Flavius Valerius Constantinus (pius) nobilissimus Caesar? He was emperor of the Roman empire from about 307-337 A.D. Before him were many emperors of the Roman empire - after him were many emperors of the Roman empire too.

And the whole Roman empire in this time of history were perhaps about 100 million people - what was damned big. And the expression "genocide" makes in context with him not a big sense as far as I can see. Cesar himselve for example I call a mass-murderer on my own (and I would not use the word genocide in this time of history), because he had killed about 50% of the Celts of Gallia (the area of France today) .

in the course of about 17 centuries

You seem to have a very big pot, where you melt everything together.

The empire founded largely by Genghis Khan
engaged in the genocide of hundreds of millions based on muslim
supremacy in the course of approximately 8 centuries.

What for heavens sake do you speak about? Temujin was a Tengrist and not a Muslim and the Mongolian empire, which he had founded, broke in parts very fast after his death - what's perhaps similiar to the empire of Alexander the Great 1500-1600 years before him.

As to
Constantine and Genghis THEMSELVES ----their personal
"spiritual beliefs" are no more an issue than the personal spiritual
beliefs of Pol Pot or MAO.

"Mao, Polpot and Ghengis Constatine?" - are you sure this is the right title of your never written history book?

There are legends regarding the magical
conversion of Constantine-----kinda on the level of the revelations of
saint paul

What a nonsense. And what has this all to do with the revelation and Saint Paul, who had not written the book of the bible with the title revelation?

Constantin was his whole life a heathen. Perhaps he was baptized on his death bed. Perhaps he wan a battle under the sign of the cross. He opened a freedom of religion also for Christians (and Jews, too?) and ended the persecution of Christians. In this case he had stopped mass-murder for example. Constantine was practically the founder of the Orient (East Rome, Byzantium, Constatinople) but nevertheless this was Rome.

your discussion is very ill-informed and a real mess. btw---did I suggest that paul wrote the book of the bible called "revelations" Is English not your first language?

I'm a German.

At the risk of being parochial-------Constantine and his minions committed genocide upon the jews of Palestina.

Jews were citizens of Rome since the early 3rd century. Constantine was Roman emperor in the early 4th century. So what do you speak about? What is "genocide" (an UN-convention of the year 1948 => 1100 years after Constantine)? The Temple of the Jews was destroyed in the year 70 AD - but this was a war and not a genocide.

The legend associated with Constantine is that he converted to Christianity on the battle field and THEREFORE won.

That's nonsense. If he became a Christian, then he became a Christian on his death bed. But this information is not very reliable too.

Probably just a legend---but his mother, Helen was an ardent Christian-------it was his Nazi bastard grandson JUSTINIAN who invented the genocidal laws that formed the basis of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

The holy empire was founded from the Frankonian Charlesmagne in the year 800. It ended in 1806.

genocidal "inquisition" thing

The inqusition was much later. And I'm quite sure you know not a lot about the real inquisitions.

and was responsible even for the genocide of native americans.

How do you think at all? How - fro exmale - is a Roman emperor of the year 306/7-337 able to be responsible for the behavior of many US-Amerviasn who shoot out of train windows with the evil intention to kill as many buffalos as possible, so Red Indians will have to die on hunger?

The Justinian canon crap is also forerunner of filth of Islamic dhimmia.

For what?

which was also the basis for the genocide of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS----.

Sounds mad.

Constantine was the first emperor NOT OF ROME but of DA HOLEY ROMAN EMPIRE---first reich.

The only "Reich" ever had existed in Germany was the holy empire => the holy Roman empire => the holy Roman empire of German (=united) nation from the years 800-1806. Afterwards the German nations had no empire any longer. The next emperor came from France - his name was Napoleon. He forced Germans under the banner of France in many wars - for example in a first war against Russia. International soldiers from all over Europe fought in Germany against Napoleon. They wan. As a result of this the Prussians had started to conquer one by one German nation and made them to colonies of Prussia (colonies because the british part of their family had colonies and the Prussians liked to have colonies too) - until in 1870 the Prussian king was made in Versailles to the emperor over Germany. (What caused by the way the Queen of England to become empress of India, because she liked also to be an emperor). This call some people the 2nd empire in Germany, what makes absolutelly not any sense, because nothing of this empire (in times of industrialization) had to do with the holy empire.

q ---big time murdering mess from first to third reichs

The so called "third empire" under Hitler - also called the "1000 years empire" - was only a propagandistic nonsense of the Nazis. The Nazis had no roots in the history of Germany. They had created a totally new structure - a kind of military dictatorship with their private armies SA and SS - and they overtook also the commmand over all policemen, all soldiers and all other civil servants. That this worked had to do with the wrong discipline of the Prussians (called an army, which had country) - but not with the traditions of the very old Germany. Public critics was under the Nazis impossible. For sure it had existed nothing in the "third empire" or "1000 years empire" from 1933-1945, what had only a little to do with the very peaceful holy empire from 800-1806. An emperor of the holy empire was seen as a good emperor, when he was able to avoid wars. The holy empire was not very expansive. In the end France - and the rest of Europe including the German nations and the Prussians too - had payed a very high price for the destruction of the holy empire.

 

[irosie91]

for the record----the use of the plural for "god" in the bible is a feature of
Hebrew grammar. The plural is used as a superlative-------even today in various \
circumstances------the standard greeting "shalom Aleichem"-----is a PLURAL----
something like Hi ya'all. It is a polite form. Christianity "took over..." because the mass murderer CONSTANTINE ---took over. Genghis Khan
did a similar favor for islam

Why do you call Constantine (who was by the way a heathen and not a Christian) a mass-murderer? And Ghengis Khan was not a Muslim - so what did he do for the Islam, how and why?

And what exactly is the superlative and not a plural in the sentence: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ... (1.Mose 1,26) ?

There is no evidence that adolf hitler ever killed anyone, nor did Stalin.

You are confused.

The empire founded by Constantine engaged in the genocide of hundreds of millions based on Christian supremacismwhich started at the time of HIS rule..

Do we speak now about Flavius Valerius Constantinus (pius) nobilissimus Caesar? He was emperor of the Roman empire from about 307-337 A.D. Before him were many emperors of the Roman empire - after him were many emperors of the Roman empire too.

And the whole Roman empire in this time of history were perhaps about 100 million people - what was damned big. And the expression "genocide" makes in context with him not a big sense as far as I can see. Cesar himselve for example I call a mass-murderer on my own (and I would not use the word genocide in this time of history), because he had killed about 50% of the Celts of Gallia (the area of France today) .

in the course of about 17 centuries

You seem to have a very big pot, where you melt everything together.

The empire founded largely by Genghis Khan
engaged in the genocide of hundreds of millions based on muslim
supremacy in the course of approximately 8 centuries.

What for heavens sake do you speak about? Temujin was a Tengrist and not a Muslim and the Mongolian empire, which he had founded, broke in parts very fast after his death - what's perhaps similiar to the empire of Alexander the Great 1500-1600 years before him.

As to
Constantine and Genghis THEMSELVES ----their personal
"spiritual beliefs" are no more an issue than the personal spiritual
beliefs of Pol Pot or MAO.

"Mao, Polpot and Ghengis Constatine?" - are you sure this is the right title of your never written history book?

There are legends regarding the magical
conversion of Constantine-----kinda on the level of the revelations of
saint paul

What a nonsense. And what has this all to do with the revelation and Saint Paul, who had not written the book of the bible with the title revelation?

Constantin was his whole life a heathen. Perhaps he was baptized on his death bed. Perhaps he wan a battle under the sign of the cross. He opened a freedom of religion also for Christians (and Jews, too?) and ended the persecution of Christians. In this case he had stopped mass-murder for example. Constantine was practically the founder of the Orient (East Rome, Byzantium, Constatinople) but nevertheless this was Rome.

your discussion is very ill-informed and a real mess. btw---did I suggest that paul wrote the book of the bible called "revelations" Is English not your first language?

I'm a German.

At the risk of being parochial-------Constantine and his minions committed genocide upon the jews of Palestina.

Jews were citizens of Rome since the early 3rd century. Constantine was Roman emperor in the early 4th century. So what do you speak about? What is "genocide" (an UN-convention of the year 1948 => 1100 years after Constantine)? The Temple of the Jews was destroyed in the year 70 AD - but this was a war and not a genocide.

The legend associated with Constantine is that he converted to Christianity on the battle field and THEREFORE won.

That's nonsense. If he became a Christian, then he became a Christian on his death bed. But this information is not very reliable too.

Probably just a legend---but his mother, Helen was an ardent Christian-------it was his Nazi bastard grandson JUSTINIAN who invented the genocidal laws that formed the basis of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

The holy empire was founded from the Frankonian Charlesmagne in the year 800. It ended in 1806.

genocidal "inquisition" thing

The inqusition was much later. And I'm quite sure you know not a lot about the real inquisitions.

and was responsible even for the genocide of native americans.

How do you think at all? How - fro exmale - is a Roman emperor of the year 306/7-337 able to be responsible for the behavior of many US-Amerviasn who shoot out of train windows with the evil intention to kill as many buffalos as possible, so Red Indians will have to die on hunger?

The Justinian canon crap is also forerunner of filth of Islamic dhimmia.

For what?

which was also the basis for the genocide of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS----.

Sounds mad.

Constantine was the first emperor NOT OF ROME but of DA HOLEY ROMAN EMPIRE---first reich.

The only "Reich" ever had existed in Germany was the holy empire => the holy Roman empire => the holy Roman empire of German (=united) nation from the years 800-1806. Afterwards the German nations had no empire any longer. The next emperor came from France - his name was Napoleon. He forced Germans under the banner of France in many wars - for example in a first war against Russia. International soldiers from all over Europe fought in Germany against Napoleon. They wan. As a result of this the Prussians had started to conquer one by one German nation and made them to colonies of Prussia (colonies because the british part of their family had colonies and the Prussians liked to have colonies too) - until in 1870 the Prussian king was made in Versailles to the emperor over Germany. (What caused by the way the Queen of England to become empress of India, because she liked also to be an emperor). This call some people the 2nd empire in Germany, what makes absolutelly not any sense, because nothing of this empire (in times of industrialization) had to do with the holy empire.

q ---big time murdering mess from first to third reichs

The so called "third empire" under Hitler - also called the "1000 years empire" - was only a propagandistic nonsense of the Nazis. The Nazis had no roots in the history of Germany. They had created a totally new structure - a kind of military dictatorship with their private armies SA and SS - and they overtook also the commmand over all policemen, all soldiers and all other civil servants. That this worked had to do with the wrong discipline of the Prussians (called an army, which had country) - but not with the traditions of the very old Germany. Public critics was under the Nazis impossible. For sure it had existed nothing in the "third empire" or "1000 years empire" from 1933-1945, what had only a little to do with the very peaceful holy empire from 800-1806. An emperor of the holy empire was seen as a good emperor, when he was able to avoid wars. The holy empire was not very expansive. In the end France - and the rest of Europe including the German nations and the Prussians too - had payed a very high price for the destruction of the holy empire.

reread your post-----you did nothing more than argue semantics. As to the genocide of jews------try to learn something beyond your sunday school education---Take a look at the laws governing non Christians in "palestina" and in the Roman
empire and later "holy roman empire" according to JUSTINIAN LAW (which was nothing more than a codifications of CONSTANTINE's policies) which was ultimately CANON LAW (the legal code of the holy roman empire) You are not alone------the seeds of the NUREMBURG LAWS are not widely taught to children

 

[zaangalewa]

Why do you call Constantine (who was by the way a heathen and not a Christian) a mass-murderer? And Ghengis Khan was not a Muslim - so what did he do for the Islam, how and why?

And what exactly is the superlative and not a plural in the sentence: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ... (1.Mose 1,26) ?

There is no evidence that adolf hitler ever killed anyone, nor did Stalin.

You are confused.

The empire founded by Constantine engaged in the genocide of hundreds of millions based on Christian supremacismwhich started at the time of HIS rule..

Do we speak now about Flavius Valerius Constantinus (pius) nobilissimus Caesar? He was emperor of the Roman empire from about 307-337 A.D. Before him were many emperors of the Roman empire - after him were many emperors of the Roman empire too.

And the whole Roman empire in this time of history were perhaps about 100 million people - what was damned big. And the expression "genocide" makes in context with him not a big sense as far as I can see. Cesar himselve for example I call a mass-murderer on my own (and I would not use the word genocide in this time of history), because he had killed about 50% of the Celts of Gallia (the area of France today) .

in the course of about 17 centuries

You seem to have a very big pot, where you melt everything together.

The empire founded largely by Genghis Khan
engaged in the genocide of hundreds of millions based on muslim
supremacy in the course of approximately 8 centuries.

What for heavens sake do you speak about? Temujin was a Tengrist and not a Muslim and the Mongolian empire, which he had founded, broke in parts very fast after his death - what's perhaps similiar to the empire of Alexander the Great 1500-1600 years before him.

As to
Constantine and Genghis THEMSELVES ----their personal
"spiritual beliefs" are no more an issue than the personal spiritual
beliefs of Pol Pot or MAO.

"Mao, Polpot and Ghengis Constatine?" - are you sure this is the right title of your never written history book?

There are legends regarding the magical
conversion of Constantine-----kinda on the level of the revelations of
saint paul

What a nonsense. And what has this all to do with the revelation and Saint Paul, who had not written the book of the bible with the title revelation?

Constantin was his whole life a heathen. Perhaps he was baptized on his death bed. Perhaps he wan a battle under the sign of the cross. He opened a freedom of religion also for Christians (and Jews, too?) and ended the persecution of Christians. In this case he had stopped mass-murder for example. Constantine was practically the founder of the Orient (East Rome, Byzantium, Constatinople) but nevertheless this was Rome.

your discussion is very ill-informed and a real mess. btw---did I suggest that paul wrote the book of the bible called "revelations" Is English not your first language?

I'm a German.

At the risk of being parochial-------Constantine and his minions committed genocide upon the jews of Palestina.

Jews were citizens of Rome since the early 3rd century. Constantine was Roman emperor in the early 4th century. So what do you speak about? What is "genocide" (an UN-convention of the year 1948 => 1100 years after Constantine)? The Temple of the Jews was destroyed in the year 70 AD - but this was a war and not a genocide.

The legend associated with Constantine is that he converted to Christianity on the battle field and THEREFORE won.

That's nonsense. If he became a Christian, then he became a Christian on his death bed. But this information is not very reliable too.

Probably just a legend---but his mother, Helen was an ardent Christian-------it was his Nazi bastard grandson JUSTINIAN who invented the genocidal laws that formed the basis of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

The holy empire was founded from the Frankonian Charlesmagne in the year 800. It ended in 1806.

genocidal "inquisition" thing

The inqusition was much later. And I'm quite sure you know not a lot about the real inquisitions.

and was responsible even for the genocide of native americans.

How do you think at all? How - fro exmale - is a Roman emperor of the year 306/7-337 able to be responsible for the behavior of many US-Amerviasn who shoot out of train windows with the evil intention to kill as many buffalos as possible, so Red Indians will have to die on hunger?

The Justinian canon crap is also forerunner of filth of Islamic dhimmia.

For what?

which was also the basis for the genocide of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS----.

Sounds mad.

Constantine was the first emperor NOT OF ROME but of DA HOLEY ROMAN EMPIRE---first reich.

The only "Reich" ever had existed in Germany was the holy empire => the holy Roman empire => the holy Roman empire of German (=united) nation from the years 800-1806. Afterwards the German nations had no empire any longer. The next emperor came from France - his name was Napoleon. He forced Germans under the banner of France in many wars - for example in a first war against Russia. International soldiers from all over Europe fought in Germany against Napoleon. They wan. As a result of this the Prussians had started to conquer one by one German nation and made them to colonies of Prussia (colonies because the british part of their family had colonies and the Prussians liked to have colonies too) - until in 1870 the Prussian king was made in Versailles to the emperor over Germany. (What caused by the way the Queen of England to become empress of India, because she liked also to be an emperor). This call some people the 2nd empire in Germany, what makes absolutelly not any sense, because nothing of this empire (in times of industrialization) had to do with the holy empire.

q ---big time murdering mess from first to third reichs

The so called "third empire" under Hitler - also called the "1000 years empire" - was only a propagandistic nonsense of the Nazis. The Nazis had no roots in the history of Germany. They had created a totally new structure - a kind of military dictatorship with their private armies SA and SS - and they overtook also the commmand over all policemen, all soldiers and all other civil servants. That this worked had to do with the wrong discipline of the Prussians (called an army, which had country) - but not with the traditions of the very old Germany. Public critics was under the Nazis impossible. For sure it had existed nothing in the "third empire" or "1000 years empire" from 1933-1945, what had only a little to do with the very peaceful holy empire from 800-1806. An emperor of the holy empire was seen as a good emperor, when he was able to avoid wars. The holy empire was not very expansive. In the end France - and the rest of Europe including the German nations and the Prussians too - had payed a very high price for the destruction of the holy empire.

reread your post-----you did nothing more than argue semantics.

Crazy statement.

As to the genocide of jews------try to learn something beyond your sunday school education---

I have on my own Jewish ancestors, who died in the Holocaust. What you say about genocide in context Jews and Holocaust is just simple an extraordinary stupid nonsense without any historic relevance. You hate history - you hate Christains, Muslims, Tangritst and so on - and I don't know why, because your "arguments" are only an empty hateful chatter. I'm able to imagine you have not really someting to do with Jews and you misuse the victims of the Holocaust only, because you think this victims are able to justify your weird historical nonsense.

Take a look at the laws governing non Christians in "palestina"

I have not only a little idea about what laws you try to speak in this context. The laws from Romans for Romans were not the same as the laws for others in the Roman empire. Rimans were privileged in their own empire. This was one of the real problems of Rome. And when the Romans had destroyed the biggest sanctuary of their own ancient world - the temple in Jerusalem - they had also renamed Israel in Palestine - a reference to the Philistines, who had not lived there any longer as far as I know. It was a provocation to do so. Somehow funny, that they had used this expression, beause the people from Carthago were Philistines, as far as I heard. Even 300 years, after they had erased Carthago from this planet, the Romans lived still in fear Carthago could come back.I guess somehow mirrors this name "Palestine" the bad conscience the Romans had.

and in the Roman empire and later "holy roman empire"

Very short: The most Germanic tribes (or nations) never liked to destroy the Roman empire - they liked to be members of the Roman empire. Main reason: the stability, peace and the rule of law of the Romans. Germans never reached this - but Jews became citizens of Rome in the early 3rd century. Nevertheless the Romans decided to go under. In Rome once lived a million people - hundreds of years later lived there only ten thousand people any longer, who used Rome as a big stone quarry. And in this stone quarry the last cultural and civilisatoric Roman instance, which still had existed there, was the holy catholic church. In the year 800 Charlesmagne and his men (Germans) decided not to wait and to dream any longer: they decided to recreate Rome far from Rome in Aachen. This was in 800 A.D. You seem not to have any concrete idea about, how "poor" this idea really was. No one knew to make bridges with stones any longer for example. The holy empire (the Occident) started from a civilisatoric level in the near of 0 - and is today known under the expression "the western world". Parallel had the Roman empire still existed - not in Rome but in Constantinople. This was what we call today "the Orient". It had once the highest civilisatoric level.

according to JUSTINIAN LAW (which was nothing more than a codifications of CONSTANTINE's policies) which was ultimately CANON LAW (the legal code of the holy roman empire) You are not alone------the seeds of the NUREMBURG LAWS are not widely taught to children

The Nurnberg laws? Is this what we call "Die Nürnberger Kriegsverbrecherprozesse"? This was a trying to solve problems of wars, war crimes and humanitarian crimes with international laws. This idea goes back to Hebrew textes from the bible and to ideas of philosopers like Immanuel Kant for example. Peace under the nations in the world is only able with strict international laws. And without no one will survive, because we have meanwhile weapons, which are to powerful for our little planet. But this process started unfortunatelly in 194x also on a very low level. We will see what will be in 1200 years, if we will not be dead in this time of history. In the moment it looks like the USA is destroying the western world in a similiar way, how Napoleon had destroyed once the holy empire in 180x.

So what. It's not really important what will happen, because only a big mass of educated people with good will are able to save the world - and with this world perhaps all and every life which ever had existed in the Cosmos.

Tell me what's for you a conclusion out of your very weird world view. What do you like to do against all Christians and Muslims, who are in your uncorrectable view to the world an extreme threat for the survival of the Jews since 1700 years? By the way - let me nevertheless try to correct something in your system of wrong ideas: The Holocaust was a political idea with a philosophical background in social Darwinism - and not a Christian idea. The anti-Christian terror idea of the Nazis was for example an heritage of the French revolution. And he terrorized the most little and most weak group of the Germans here - the Jews. Hitler and his criminal gang had created a wide spread anti-Semitism, who had not really existed in a noteworthy degree, before the Nazis had started to propagate massively their aggressive nonsense.

 

[irosie91]

not only was the "holocaust" genocide the child of CANON LAW (holy roman empire)-----but even the genocide of hindus and Zoroastrians in the hundreds
of millions was the child of CANON LAW. You want to disassociate canon law
from Christianity------THAT IS KINDA FUNNY. ain't got nuthin' to do with
KANT ---------it is roman thru and thru. As to your reference to bibilical law---
you is delusional-----it harkens back to THE GREEKS ----try reading "plato's republic" Your sophistry is kinda cute

 

[zaangalewa]

not only was the "holocaust" genocide the child of CANON LAW (holy roman empire)-

The holocaust had happenend abhout 150 years after the holy roman empire was dead. And I do not have only a light idea about what you could call "canon law" in this context.

---but even the genocide of hindus and Zoroastrians in the hundreds
of millions was the child of CANON LAW.

Again: What for heavens sake do you speak about? Muslims had conquered the empire of the Sassanids in 636 AD. In this context Zoroatrism in Persia became more and more unimportant. But this was not a genocide. It was a more a kind of culture fight. Since 900 years (and about 500 years after Muslims had conquered Persia) Zoroatrism is nearly dead there. And around the years 0-1000 AD existed a world population of about 300-310 million people worldwide. If someone really had killed "hundreds of millions" in this time of history then we would know this - or we would all together not exist.

You want to disassociate canon law

I want what? All churches have laws or rules. Anglicans, Orthodox and Catholics call their rules "canon law". This here is the canon law of the catholic church in the current revision from the year 1983: Code of Canon Law - Table of Contents - IntraText LT

from Christianity------THAT IS KINDA FUNNY.

What is funny?

ain't got nuthin' to do with
KANT ---------it is roman thru and thru.

Germans in general are a mix of Celts, Germanics and Romans. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher of the enlightenment. He lived in Königsberg (today called "Kaliningrad"; Kalinin was an extremistic idiot and mass-murderer, who never had to do anything with this city).

As to your reference to bibilical law---
you is delusional-----it harkens back to THE GREEKS ----try reading "plato's republic" Your sophistry is kinda cute

Plato wrote two books about republics: "Politeia" and "Nomoi". I have to say I did not read both. The first seems to be about perfect ideas in context "state" - and the other one seems to be more realistic. I was astonished when I took a little look now at this all and found out that Plato seems to be the first eldest father of the emancipation of women. A slow process - nevertheless a mighty process. I'm a little sad about when I see in history, how the holy catholic church always fought for this idea too - an abbess and an abbot have even the same rank like a bishop for example. It's really time to stop with all this nonsense, which separates men and women. Men and women are the same children of god - so women should also be able to be soldiers (=full citizens) - as Plato said - and priests too (what was normal in the Greece of Plato).

 

[irosie91]

read plato again---his 'ideal society' was the forerunner of Nazism As to female equality----
keep in mind that you should really being congratulating SPARTA ----another
forerunner of Nazism. Does the term "animated tool" (clearly not greek
language but a good rendition of the plato concept of non-greeks). In both canon
law and SHARIAH-------the "infidel" became something like the non greeks or for
SPARTA---the HELOTS----remember them? They were something like a
"caste" who were completely disarmed and could LEGALLY be killed for violating
their serf like status. Justinian imposed the same restrictions on NON-CHRISTIANS
in the holy roman empire. Justinian law is the legal basis for the era of the
Inquisition. As to genocide-----yes hundreds of millions, in the genocides enacted
by the GLORIOUS AGE OF ISLAMIC CONQUEST and the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE
(starting with Constantine and the development of canon law)

 

[zaangalewa]

read plato again---his 'ideal society' was the forerunner of Nazism

Hitler used the fascism of Musolini (Italy). This fascism was - as far as I know - without anti-Semitism. And when a Nazi had quoted Plato then I guess everyone had laughed about this "Schöngeist" (aesthete). The program of the NSDAP was very simple. I had exactly 2 words: "Adolf Hitler".

As to female equality----
keep in mind that you should really being congratulating SPARTA ----another
forerunner of Nazism.

What a nonsense. Sure were the Spartans though and rough warriors. But what do you think were the Prussians? And the racistic nonsense from Hitler came in most cases form the English empire adn the USA.

Does the term "animated tool" (clearly not greek
language but a good rendition of the plato concept of non-greeks). In both canon
law and SHARIAH-------the "infidel" became something like the non greeks or for
SPARTA---the HELOTS----remember them?

Good grieve. No comment.

They were something like a
"caste" who were completely disarmed and could LEGALLY be killed for violating
their serf like status. Justinian imposed the same restrictions on NON-CHRISTIANS
in the holy roman empire. Justinian law is the legal basis for the era of the
Inquisition.

Nearly everything what today people say about the inquisitions is wrong. Indeed the inquisition was always a very modern form of criminal jurisdiction - compared with other possibilities in their time of history. The inquisition had for example also a defender - what was not normal in former times of history. The most burnings of witches were fro example made from courts under chair of Mr. Lynch. Where the inquisition was mighty nearly never witches were burned.

As to genocide-----yes hundreds of millions, in the genocides enacted
by the GLORIOUS AGE OF ISLAMIC CONQUEST and the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

In the holy roman empire lived alway much less than 100 million people. It's the Frankonian empire since the year 800.

holy roman empire

(starting with Constantine and the development of canon law)

read plato again---his 'ideal society' was the forerunner of Nazism As to female equality----
keep in mind that you should really being congratulating SPARTA ----another
forerunner of Nazism. Does the term "animated tool" (clearly not greek
language but a good rendition of the plato concept of non-greeks). In both canon
law and SHARIAH-------the "infidel" became something like the non greeks or for
SPARTA---the HELOTS----remember them? They were something like a
"caste" who were completely disarmed and could LEGALLY be killed for violating
their serf like status. Justinian imposed the same restrictions on NON-CHRISTIANS
in the holy roman empire. Justinian law is the legal basis for the era of the
Inquisition. As to genocide-----yes hundreds of millions, in the genocides enacted
by the GLORIOUS AGE OF ISLAMIC CONQUEST and the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE
(starting with Constantine and the development of canon law)

I don't restart always from the same wrong points again.

 

[irosie91]

read plato again---his 'ideal society' was the forerunner of Nazism

Hitler used the fascism of Musolini (Italy). This fascism was - as far as I know - without anti-Semitism. And when a Nazi had quoted Plato then I guess everyone had laughed about this "Schöngeist" (aesthete). The program of the NSDAP was very simple. I had exactly 2 words: "Adolf Hitler".

As to female equality----
keep in mind that you should really being congratulating SPARTA ----another
forerunner of Nazism.

What a nonsense. Sure were the Spartans though and rough warriors. But what do you think were the Prussians? And the racistic nonsense from Hitler came in most cases form the English empire adn the USA.

Does the term "animated tool" (clearly not greek
language but a good rendition of the plato concept of non-greeks). In both canon
law and SHARIAH-------the "infidel" became something like the non greeks or for
SPARTA---the HELOTS----remember them?

Good grieve. No comment.

They were something like a
"caste" who were completely disarmed and could LEGALLY be killed for violating
their serf like status. Justinian imposed the same restrictions on NON-CHRISTIANS
in the holy roman empire. Justinian law is the legal basis for the era of the
Inquisition.

Nearly everything what today people say about the inquisitions is wrong. Indeed the inquisition was always a very modern form of criminal jurisdiction - compared with other possibilities in their time of history. The inquisition had for example also a defender - what was not normal in former times of history. The most burnings of witches were fro example made from courts under chair of Mr. Lynch. Where the inquisition was mighty nearly never witches were burned.

As to genocide-----yes hundreds of millions, in the genocides enacted
by the GLORIOUS AGE OF ISLAMIC CONQUEST and the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

In the holy roman empire lived alway much less than 100 million people. It's the Frankonian empire since the year 800.

holy roman empire

(starting with Constantine and the development of canon law)

read plato again---his 'ideal society' was the forerunner of Nazism As to female equality----
keep in mind that you should really being congratulating SPARTA ----another
forerunner of Nazism. Does the term "animated tool" (clearly not greek
language but a good rendition of the plato concept of non-greeks). In both canon
law and SHARIAH-------the "infidel" became something like the non greeks or for
SPARTA---the HELOTS----remember them? They were something like a
"caste" who were completely disarmed and could LEGALLY be killed for violating
their serf like status. Justinian imposed the same restrictions on NON-CHRISTIANS
in the holy roman empire. Justinian law is the legal basis for the era of the
Inquisition. As to genocide-----yes hundreds of millions, in the genocides enacted
by the GLORIOUS AGE OF ISLAMIC CONQUEST and the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE
(starting with Constantine and the development of canon law)

I don't restart always from the same wrong points again.[/QUOTE

OH "wrong points" yes----that biggie "WRONG POINT" that the era of the
INQUISITION was SO BENIGN. no one REALLY BURNED -----and it had nothing to do with the genocide of native americans. I have relatives (thru marriage) who still speak Spanish (in LADINO FORM) whose ancestors have not lived in a Spanish speaking country for more than 500 years. No genocides -----right Whole immense communities simply jumped into the sea. -----isn't
LITERACY A Bitch