IamJoseph

DOUBLE POST

IamJoseph

Its ok to express names in one's own language. The problem is when this is not post-scripted or indexed elsewhere to indicate its original source, while the original source is also being villified, negated and fullfiled away. We know that the correct name for Abraham is Avraham - but the Phoenecien, Greek, Latin and Arabic possessed no 'V' alphabet or sound. There was no such Jewish person in Judea with the name Jesus. Probably, any prayers or dialogue with such a person would get this response:

'HUH! WHAT'S WITH THE LATIN NAME!?'

Its like calling the Pope YISRAEL? :constern02:

J-D

I just told you: the fact that in the story written in the book the character of Judas is shown as betraying the character of Jesus. In exactly the same way, it is a fact that in the story written in Le Morte d'Arthur, the character of Mordred is shown as betraying the character of Arthur.

Baalazel was discussing the fact that the character is named Judas, and so was I.

IamJoseph

That's not a 'fact'!

J-D

How not?

IamJoseph

There was no Judas [not a real hebrew name], no Roman trial and Jews don't do such things - at least there is not a shred of historical evidence of the Gospels reportings. The main thing which occured here is a Roman Holocaust, in the midst of the Gospel writers, and its non mention is the greatest lie-by-omission. Typically, the Gospels glorify depraved Rome and revel in classifying a European holocaust in 70 CE to God - instead of themselves!


"The destruction of Jerusalem was more terrible than anything that the world has ever witnessed, either before or since. Even Titus seemed to see in his cruel work the hand of an avenging God." (C.H. Spurgeon)

"The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70, only five years after our epistle, was the greatest single event of a thousand years, and religiously significant beyond anything else that ever occurred in human history."

The Jews won this war - the right to freedom of belief was never better examplified.

IamJoseph

Responding and correcting various posts with evidence is not in that category. Perhaps you would prefer I do not respond - I think you denied there was a holocaust in 70 CE?

IamJoseph

Christianity is inculcating a genocide of others, and attaches this to its conditional belief in the Creator. It has no proof of any of its charges, and justifies it by 'belief' and as metaphcal and symbolism - as if this is a legitimate justification. This has resulted in a total quagmire for genuinely believing christians - they cannot negate the lie, fearing it may be seen as impacting on belief in the creator also. Its bad for christians to have this cross on their shoulders.

The only symbolism which is legitimate is that based on historical fact. One cannot 'believe' the sun won't rise tomorrow, nor can one declare belief in the charge of murder - while also ignoring the mass murder of millions in its midst. Try it in a court of law?

J-D

It is a fact that there are no such animals as fire-breathing dragons. On the other hand, it is also a fact that in the story of St George and the dragon, St George killed a fire-breathing dragon. It is a fact that in the stories of King Arthur, he defeated the Saxons in the Battle of Mount Badon, and that is still a fact about the stories regardless of whether there ever really was a King Arthur or not. It is a fact that the killer of Harry Potter's parents, in the story, was called Lord Voldemort, and thus if people discuss why the character is called Voldemort, they are discussing a fact. If one person asked 'Why is the character called Voldemort?', it would be an erroneous and irrelevant response to say 'In fact there was no Voldemort'.

Baalazel's answer to the question 'Why is the character called Judas?' in fact only makes sense on the assumption that there was no such person. Baalazel was not supposing that there was a real person; Baalazel was supposing that the character was fictional and then suggesting a possible reason why the author of the fiction might have selected that particular name for the character.

My suggestion of a possible alternative explanation for the fact that the character has that name, on the other hand, would make sense as an explanation regardless of whether it is a fictional name for a fictional character or not, an issue on which I was expressing no opinion one way or the other because it was irrelevant to the point I wanted to make.

Just because you only want to discuss the points that you want to discuss does not make it an error for other people to choose to discuss other points.

Toto

I don't see the point in responding to you. Your posts are incoherent. You persist in using the word holocaust for deaths in war, and in a sense that no holocaust scholar would use the term. The word holocaust is applied to Hitler's attempted genocide to emphasize its uniqueness.

The best I can do is segregate your incoherent posts so they don't overwhelm other threads.