Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 05-09-2013, 08:13 AM

He was not an honest man and was not a distinguished rabbi except to his immediate followers. Most of the history (with the "other side of the story") are not rendered into English. I have read them in Hebrew, including original documents and texts. The major European and Jerusalem rabbis even issued a prohibition against reading his books, and he was even forced to withdraw one of them from circulation.
To him Zionism was more important than Torah observance. He once made the bizarre statement that people playing football in Tel Aviv were as great as King David and his psalms. Of course he had no consideration for the Zionist colonialism project or for the Palestinians. He believed in the statement of Theodor Herzl: "A people without a land for a land without a people". Nuts.

Chili · 05-09-2013, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Shame!
Was he as bad as this prayer which so very important to Judaism and recited in full glory 3 times a day?

See number 12 : For the destruction of apostates and the enemies of God.
http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/amidah.htm
The prayer has been changed since the time of Ezra and the 120 elders

Double shame as not even a Jew! . . . to not understand that Moses was the enemy of Judaism leading the children of God astray, that still today is their greatest fear and here they crowned him king again, in charge of the purse even.

Triple shame!!

Rav kook was a distinguished Talmudist and an honest man

Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Kook (1865-1935) was a preeminent Talmudic scholar and a Lurian Cabbalist.

"In his penetrating and poetic style, Rabbi Kook teaches that war can often be a catalyst for redemption, uprooting evil, erasing false doctrines, and uncovering Israel's great righteousness." — Rabbi Kook Books (24)

"When one understands that the Redemption of Israel is the goal of world history, one can discover a new spiritual dimension in all of the world's wars and revolutions." — Rabbi Kook (25)

"Modern Western culture, with all of its immorality and falsehoods, will disappear from the world. The holy culture of Israel will be established in its place." — Rabbi Kook (25)

http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br_1.html

Professor Schiffman is another top expert and another honest observant Jew.
Chapters 11 & 12 of Hilchos Melachim from the Mishneh Torah of the Rambam are also also top quality and note 5 informative

Rav Asher Meir is top quality in virtual yeshiva

Talmud - Mas. Shabbath 116a is excellent and Dilling’s comments are priceless and i could post many more .

The difference between a religious fanatic and whatever is whichever.!

But I fully agree with his anti-christian stand, as they will continue to destroy each other, and will spend their own money, their children's inheritance and their children's lives towards that end and we see that in America today.

I have no problem with that, and there is a greater movement going on from behind the scene that poor taxpayers do not even know about, but he fails to understand that Russia (orthodoxy there) and Rome are the maturation of Judiasm itself who will be the great recipient here because they have truth on their side that makes them the enemy above all, to even the Jew who is there only to haul ass for as long as he can.

The point here is that if a Jew finds his home it will be in Rome or he will be a dissenter himself against his own people too.

mountainman · 05-09-2013, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Nobody has addressed the claim that there was in fact no orthodoxy before Nicaea because the hypothetical conflict between earlier orthodoxy and earlier heretics could not have been political since they supposedly borrowed books from each others libraries...

Nobody has addressed the fact that there was NO orthodoxy after the supposed Council of Nicea.

Orthodoxy was moved to the city of Constantine, but the political details of what precisely happened after Nicaea are very sketchy and probably consist of pseudo-historical polemic. Orthodoxy was certainly enforced by the Christian emperors, and the records indicate that Theodosius c.381 CE locked up the loose ends of a conflict that had raged from 325 to 381 CE.

A political history of the second quarter of the 4th century does not exist. The epoch between 325 and 352 CE had represented some sort of "Black Hole" for primary evidence, since the surviving books of Ammianus commence in the year 353 CE. (NB: Ammianus testifies to Christian state religious inquisitions against the pagans in the 350's).

A church history for the second quarter of the 4th century does exist and comes from three heresiologists writing in the 5th century, and it is this account that currently serves, very inconveniently, as a replacement for the political history for the same epoch.

Hence the vital importance of the Nag Hammadi Codices, which may well have been manufactured and assembled during this epoch.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874 · 05-09-2013, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Nobody has addressed the claim that there was in fact no orthodoxy before Nicaea because the hypothetical conflict between earlier orthodoxy and earlier heretics could not have been political since they supposedly borrowed books from each others libraries...

Nobody has addressed the fact that there was NO orthodoxy after the supposed Council of Nicea.

Orthodoxy was moved to the city of Constantine, but the political details of what precisely happened after Nicaea are very sketchy and probably consist of pseudo-historical polemic. Orthodoxy was certainly enforced by the Christian emperors, and the records indicate that Theodosius c.381 CE locked up the loose ends of a conflict that had raged from 325 to 381 CE.

A political history of the second quarter of the 4th century does not exist. The epoch between 325 and 352 CE had represented some sort of "Black Hole" for primary evidence, since the surviving books of Ammianus commence in the year 353 CE. (NB: Ammianus testifies to Christian state religious inquisitions against the pagans in the 350's).

A church history for the second quarter of the 4th century does exist and comes from three heresiologists writing in the 5th century, and it is this account that currently serves, very inconveniently, as a replacement for the political history for the same epoch.

Hence the vital importance of the Nag Hammadi Codices, which may well have been manufactured and assembled during this epoch.

I am amazed that you are relying on known sources of fiction and forgeries to assemble your history of the Church.

"Church History" attributed to Eusebius is a product of fraud and forgery.

The author called Eusebius inadvertently showed that there was NO history of the Church as is found in the very writing entitled "Church History".

The author of Church History has exposed that the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian were unknown to him.

Both Tertullian and Irenaeus claimed to know the History of the Church.

Examine the words of the so-called Eusebius.

Church History 1.1.

Quote:

4. But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise, for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path.

I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived.

Eusebius did NOT know of the supposed Bishops of Rome.

He could NOT find their footsteps.

No-one had ever traveled in the footsteps of the Bishops of Rome.

"Church History" is a massive forgery or a heavily manipulated source.

How in the world could "Eusebius" claim to be unable to find the bare footsteps of those berore him?

Tertullian knew the RECORDS of the Roman Church before Eusebius.

Tertullian knew the footsteps of those before him.

Tertullian' Prescription Against the Heretics

Quote:

....For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.

In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind...

"Church History" must have or most likely have MULTIPLE authors. The author of Church History 1.1.4 did NOT know of Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics, Tertullian's Against Marcion, and Irenaeus' "Against Heresies".

It would appear that Eusebius did NOT WRITE our present "Church History".

mountainman · 05-10-2013, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Nobody has addressed the claim that there was in fact no orthodoxy before Nicaea because the hypothetical conflict between earlier orthodoxy and earlier heretics could not have been political since they supposedly borrowed books from each others libraries...

Nobody has addressed the fact that there was NO orthodoxy after the supposed Council of Nicea.

Orthodoxy was moved to the city of Constantine, but the political details of what precisely happened after Nicaea are very sketchy and probably consist of pseudo-historical polemic. Orthodoxy was certainly enforced by the Christian emperors, and the records indicate that Theodosius c.381 CE locked up the loose ends of a conflict that had raged from 325 to 381 CE.

A political history of the second quarter of the 4th century does not exist. The epoch between 325 and 352 CE had represented some sort of "Black Hole" for primary evidence, since the surviving books of Ammianus commence in the year 353 CE. (NB: Ammianus testifies to Christian state religious inquisitions against the pagans in the 350's).

A church history for the second quarter of the 4th century does exist and comes from three heresiologists writing in the 5th century, and it is this account that currently serves, very inconveniently, as a replacement for the political history for the same epoch.

Hence the vital importance of the Nag Hammadi Codices, which may well have been manufactured and assembled during this epoch.

I am amazed that you are relying on known sources of fiction and forgeries to assemble your history of the Church.

But aa5874 my statements above were directed on the history of church for the epoch from 325 onwards which, as outlined, have been furnished by the tax-exempt heresiologists - three of them - from the 5th century.

I must agree with your assessment that these sources represent fiction and forgery more than history. They represent a church history whuich has been used - in the ABSENSE of Ammianus's political history, or anyone elses's political history - as a history of the post Nicaean history of the so-called centralised monotheistic state church.

In a general sense, the monotheistic christians state heresiologists wrote pseudo-historical polemic.

May I also say that I agree with everything else you write here.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Quote:

"Church History" attributed to Eusebius is a product of fraud and forgery.

The author called Eusebius inadvertently showed that there was NO history of the Church as is found in the very writing entitled "Church History".

The author of Church History has exposed that the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian were unknown to him.

Both Tertullian and Irenaeus claimed to know the History of the Church.

Examine the words of the so-called Eusebius.

Church History 1.1.

Quote:

4. But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise, for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path.

I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived.

Eusebius did NOT know of the supposed Bishops of Rome.

He could NOT find their footsteps.

No-one had ever traveled in the footsteps of the Bishops of Rome.

"Church History" is a massive forgery or a heavily manipulated source.

How in the world could "Eusebius" claim to be unable to find the bare footsteps of those berore him?

Tertullian knew the RECORDS of the Roman Church before Eusebius.

Tertullian knew the footsteps of those before him.

Tertullian' Prescription Against the Heretics

Quote:

....For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.

In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind...

"Church History" must have or most likely have MULTIPLE authors. The author of Church History 1.1.4 did NOT know of Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics, Tertullian's Against Marcion, and Irenaeus' "Against Heresies".

It would appear that Eusebius did NOT WRITE our present "Church History".

aa5874 · 05-10-2013, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

But aa5874 my statements above were directed on the history of church for the epoch from 325 onwards which, as outlined, have been furnished by the tax-exempt heresiologists - three of them - from the 5th century.

I must agree with your assessment that these sources represent fiction and forgery more than history. They represent a church history whuich has been used - in the ABSENSE of Ammianus's political history, or anyone elses's political history - as a history of the post Nicaean history of the so-called centralised monotheistic state church.

In a general sense, the monotheistic christians state heresiologists wrote pseudo-historical polemic.

May I also say that I agree with everything else you write here.

My argument is that the Jesus cult called Christians predated the 4th century and that "Church History" attributed to Eusebius is a massive forgery or heavily manipulated source.

1. There was No orthodoxy before and after the so-called council of Nicea.

2. There probably was NO Council of Nicea c 325 CE as described in "Church History".

3. It is wholly implausible that "Church History" could have been composed by Eusebius WITHOUT any input from the Bishop of Rome.

4. It is wholly implausible that Council of Nicea was convened WITHOUT the Bishop of Rome.

5. The claim by Eusebius in Church History 1.1.4 that he could NOT find the bare footsteps of those BEFORE him is compatible with the writings Justin Martyr who exposed a Big Black Hole of 100 years for those BEFORE him, that is, there was nothing known of the Activities of the Jesus cult c 33-133 CE.

6. Certain claims made in "Church History" about the chronology and time period of the Bishops of Rome were CONTRADICTED by Alexander of Hippo, Optatus, Rufinus and the Liberian Catalogue. It must be noted that these contradictions happed AFTER "Church History" was supposedly composed.

7. Up to the 5th century, the chronology and time period of the Bishops of Rome were unknown for almost 100 years AFTER "Church History" should have been written.

As soon as the author declared that he could not find the bare footsteps of those before him and that he was the FIRST to attempt such a task then "Church History" itself is part of the Forgery Mill which includes the writings attributed to Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen.

Iskander · 05-10-2013, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

He was not an honest man and was not a distinguished rabbi except to his immediate followers. Most of the history (with the "other side of the story") are not rendered into English. I have read them in Hebrew, including original documents and texts. The major European and Jerusalem rabbis even issued a prohibition against reading his books, and he was even forced to withdraw one of them from circulation.
To him Zionism was more important than Torah observance. He once made the bizarre statement that people playing football in Tel Aviv were as great as King David and his psalms. Of course he had no consideration for the Zionist colonialism project or for the Palestinians. He believed in the statement of Theodor Herzl: "A people without a land for a land without a people". Nuts.

A contemporary translation of King- Messiah .

http://mordochai.tripod.com/mashiyah.html#top

Notice that Yeshu the Notzri was sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin and executed.

Could there be any greater deception than Judaism? All the Prophets foretold that the King-Messiah will redeem and rehabilitate Yisrael but that one brought about only the slaughter of himself by the sentence of the Sanhedrin and hence disaster for Yisrael

Quote:

The "King-Messiah"
by Prof. Mordochai ben-Tziyyon, Universitah Ha'ivrit, Y'rushalayim

http://mordochai.tripod.com/mashiyah.html#top

Chapter 11

10. As for Yéshu the Notz'ri ["man from Notzrat"], who claimed to be the King-Messiah and was sentenced to death by the Sanhedrin [Hebrew Supreme Court] and executed—Daniyyél had already prophesied about him: "...sons of rebels among your own people will raise themselves and try to establish a 'vision'—but they will stumble" (Daniyyél 11:14).

Could there be any greater deception than christianity? All the Prophets foretold that the King-Messiah will redeem and rehabilitate Yisraél, will gather together again the scattered ones and strengthen their observance of the commandments—but that one brought about only the slaughter of Yisraél by the sword and the dispersal and persecution of the remnant, tried to alter the Torah, and caused most of the World to be lured into the service of an idol instead of Adonai

Rav Kook was, according to Wiki, one of the most celebrated and influential rabbis.

Quote:

Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935) was the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of the British Mandatory Palestine, the founder of the Religious Zionist Yeshiva Merkaz HaRav, Jewish thinker, Halachist, Kabbalist and a renowned Torah scholar. He is known in Hebrew as הרב אברהם יצחק הכהן קוק HaRav Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook, and by the acronym הראיה (HaRaAYaH), or simply as "HaRav." He was one of the most celebrated and influential rabbis of the 20th century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Isaac_Kook

Clivedurdle · 05-10-2013, 05:32 AM

AA, what do you think was happening in the fourth century? What was Julian reacting about?

I understand Constantine and his relatives to be Arian, but is this later thinking, matters at the time maybe were vague theologically?

Why do you think Rome was actually a centre of xianity in the fourth century?

Might Ambrose actually be the key person?

"Lovely bath"

Duvduv · 05-10-2013, 08:54 AM

Can anyone even imagine that with so much data and apologetics against heresy and heretics going back allegedly to the mid 2nd century there would be even the slightest possibility of acceptability of a "deviant" doctrine called Arianism? After 200 years the antennae would have been up and these deviants would have been arrested and burned at the stake right then and there at Nicaea. Gosh, from Justin and Irenaeus all the way to Nicaea, and they still had to fighting and tolerating and dealing and edicting and meeting and discussing and debating!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

AA, what do you think was happening in the fourth century? What was Julian reacting about?

I understand Constantine and his relatives to be Arian, but is this later thinking, matters at the time maybe were vague theologically?

Why do you think Rome was actually a centre of xianity in the fourth century?

Might Ambrose actually be the key person?

"Lovely bath"

Iskander · 05-10-2013, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

AA, what do you think was happening in the fourth century? What was Julian reacting about?

I understand Constantine and his relatives to be Arian, but is this later thinking, matters at the time maybe were vague theologically?

Why do you think Rome was actually a centre of xianity in the fourth century?

Might Ambrose actually be the key person?

"Lovely bath"

Arianism had a long and prosperous life for a very long time in Europe.

Quote:

Emperors such as Constantius II, and Valens were Arians, as well as prominent Gothic, Vandal and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and that none of these groups was out of the mainstream of the Roman Empire in the 4th century.

While Arianism continued to dominate for several decades even within the family of the Emperor, the Imperial nobility, and higher-ranking clergy, in the end it was Trinitarianism which prevailed in the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century.

Arianism, which had been taught by the Arian missionary Ulfilas to the Germanic tribes, was dominant for some centuries among several Germanic tribes in western Europe, especially Goths and Lombards (and significantly for the late Empire, the Vandals), but ceased to be the mainstream belief by the 8th century.

Trinitarianism remained the dominant doctrine in all major branches of the Eastern and Western Church and later within Protestantism.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tm.../Arianism.html

The Arian Theodoric made Ravenna a city of tolerance, leaning and art.

Quote:

The political decline of Rome was matched by the rise of Ravenna, which became a truly imperial capital under the Ostrogothic leader Theodoric, who set up his government and court there in 489.

In his building activity, patronage of late antique culture and wearing of purple robes he certainly followed imperial practice. In the first quarter of the sixth century, Theodoric undertook a major programme of building in Ravenna to celebrate the pro-Arian faith of the Goths, with the cathedral dedicated to Christ (now Sant'Apollinare Nuovo), the Arian baptistery and a palace decorated in typical imperial style.

Byzantium, Judith Herrin, Penguin Books, 2008. Pg 64-66, ISBN 9780141031026

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-09-2013, 08:13 AM	#121
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	He was not an honest man and was not a distinguished rabbi except to his immediate followers. Most of the history (with the "other side of the story") are not rendered into English. I have read them in Hebrew, including original documents and texts. The major European and Jerusalem rabbis even issued a prohibition against reading his books, and he was even forced to withdraw one of them from circulation. To him Zionism was more important than Torah observance. He once made the bizarre statement that people playing football in Tel Aviv were as great as King David and his psalms. Of course he had no consideration for the Zionist colonialism project or for the Palestinians. He believed in the statement of Theodor Herzl: "A people without a land for a land without a people". Nuts.

05-10-2013, 05:32 AM	#128
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	AA, what do you think was happening in the fourth century? What was Julian reacting about? I understand Constantine and his relatives to be Arian, but is this later thinking, matters at the time maybe were vague theologically? Why do you think Rome was actually a centre of xianity in the fourth century? Might Ambrose actually be the key person? "Lovely bath"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.