..........

For contrast see: http:www.earth-history.com/Jewish/jew-hag-1-1.htm . The maxim "history is written by the victors" can be applied to religion too. This is the sickest creation story I've ever read. Torah is female, in God's lap. Eeeew.

Whirlwind, the author of that link you provide is a nut. One chapter is about Nbiru or Planet X; http://www.earth-history.com/Earth-13.htm
I realize that validates your point, I'm just saying that writer is really NUTS.
I expected to scoff at the first posting but it seems accurate enough.
I recommend anyone read Josephus. He was a wily Jewish general during the Ist jewish revolt against Rome. He wrote the history of the revolt and its revealing.
He had a command in Gallilee and was besieged by the Roman army. He and a handful of other zealots were holed up after the fall of the stronghold literally in a hole. They agreed to commit mass suicide rather than surrender. I think there were about 20 or so. Josephus reminded them that it was a worse sin to kill oneself than to commit murder. On the strength of that he arranged for them to draw straws and kill one another. Of course he also arranged for himself to be among the last two and then talked the other into surrendering to the Romans with him.
He later correctly predicted from prison that the Roman general in charge of the siege of Jerusalem, Vespasian I think, would become caesar. that put him on the road to success; he hung out with the Roman army, shouting up at the furious jews on the wall to surrender and dodging their missiles. he retired to Rome a success, the Chalabi of his day. the Jews hate him still.
An Alexandrian Greek spoke against the Jews and Josephus wrote an apologetic in response that is still extant. Against Apion its called, but thats another interesting story.

One last thing about Josephus; I'm pretty sure it was there I read about a riot in the days leading to the revolt. The Jews were in a constant uproar over pagan Roman occupation and there were numerous feuding political parties and sects among the Jews. Roman Guards watched over the temple to keep the peace and one day during a solemn religious rite one of the Roman guards turned his naked arse to the congregation and let fly a thunderclap flatus. The riot that ensued claimed thousands of Jewish lives.

Old Testament= jews are Gods chosen. Christ killed. New Testament= jews cut off. Can someone explain to me how both books are included in the Bible?

When was this book written? By whom? Please do not take offense. A close friend shares your views. I will not actively try to "convert" him to any other way of thinking. I ask these questions because they beg answers, IMHO.

I heard that the word JEW was never used before the late 1700's, instead they were referred to as Juden, Judes, Judeans, etc, but never "Jews".

Anyone here know anything about this?

[QUOTE=saxonrage]THE BIBLE IS NOT A JEWISH BOOK


Saxonrage why do people like you still insist on clinging to your ridiculous Jewish fables? Christianity is an invention of the Jew to weaken the Aryan race.
There is nothing original in the bible: everything has been plagiarised from earlier Aryan cultures and mythologies. It is the original book of lies.
You must know deep within that racial nationalism and Christianity are diametrically opposed no matter how hard you try to justify your Jewish beliefs.
Are you afraid to let go of this final emotional and mental crutch? Anxious about "hell fire"? Dont be! I rejected Christianity years ago when I felt the call of the blood-when Wotan spoke in my DNA.

Debating religion is pointless, really.

Why is Yahweh more legit than Wotan or Zeus? Why is Wotan a "comic book character" and not Yahweh? Don't quote the Bible either. Religious mythology is just that. Apply reason for once.

Amen, Spengler. Praise Jeebus. If they don't use the Bible, though, we'll start getting Josephus, and I don't know if there's any good time of the day to have to put up with that.

Wotan Zeus God = Allfather.

Greetings!

Of course the bible is a jewish book. Where do you think Christianity came from? Judaism...

The fact that Chrisitanity came from Judaism is common knowledge. Here is the online Encyclopedia on early Chrisitanity.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/se...hristianity.asp

"Christianity is in a direct sense an offshoot of Judaism , because Jesus and his immediate followers were Jews living in Palestine and Jesus was believed by his followers to have fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah"


Library of Congress

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/juda.html

"The Dead Sea Scrolls, which date back to the events described in the New Testament, have added to our understanding of the Jewish background of Christianity. Scholars have pointed to similarities between beliefs and practices outlined in the Qumran literature and those of early Christians...
Many scholars believe that both the literature of Qumran and the early Christian teachings stem from a common stream within Judaism and do not reflect a direct link between the Qumran community and the early Christians."

How can one get more serious than the Library of Congress. Now the CI people will say but they are wrong we are right. They do not know what they are talking about. That is not what the bible really says. So we will be looking at more resources and then go to the bible itself to prove our point. And that point is this...


Christianity is jewish. Jews wrote most of the bible and it stems from mystical Judaic thought. The inventor of Christianity was Paul who was a jew that was trained in Talmudic kabbalism from the head Rabbi of the Sanhedrin. And that many jews were and are not against Christianity but are Messianic Christian jews that believe that Jesus was the supposed Messiah. We will and can prove all of this...


Hebraic Heritage Ministries

http://www.hebroots.com/judaism.html#BasicsJudaism


"The information provided at this site is for Christians who desire to have a basic understanding of modern Judaism. The ROOTS of Christianity come from the culture of Biblical Judaism and the worship of Ancient Israel. The Bible, both Old and New Testament is a Jewish book. Yeshua/Jesus is a Jew. The Disciples of Yeshua/Jesus and the Apostle Paul were Torah Observant Jews. While the beliefs and practices of modern Judaism is not always the same beliefs and practices of Judaism in the 1st Century, the Orthodox Jews have preserved and kept many of the same traditions. In order to connect the past with the present, as more and more Christians are desiring to STUDY the Hebraic/Jewish Roots of Christianity, they want to have a better understanding of the basics of modern Judaism. This Web Page has all the necessary information in order to understand modern Judaism and all the various sects and beliefs within Judaism today. Even though the ROOTS of Christianity comes from Judaism and even though Yeshua/Jesus and His disciples were Torah Observant Jews, because Judaism does not recognize Yeshua/Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, it is UNTHINKABLE for Christians who are studying the Hebraic/Jewish Roots of Christianity to convert to Judaism. Even so, may this page on the "Basics of Judaism" help you in your studies."

saxonrage,
You are looking for something that isnt there and in the process ignoring facts. You didnt mention anything about Paul bieng jewish. And to become a jew your mother must be a jew and Jesus' mother was a Jew hence Jesus is a Jew. Many jews also became followers of Christ (hence makeing them Christians). The jews who were currupt with power were the ones who had him crucified and made a following for themselves to have him crucified (probably using lies and deception as they did with the romans).

Your hatred has blinded and and thus made you into a possesed person who is opposite from Christ the lord.

But hey, maybe you can educate me on something, if Aryans didnt come from Negros, where did they come from? and why is their DNA connected to eve from East Africa. Some people say the Jews in East Africa too are connected by blood to Jews in Arab lands since East Africans and Arabs look almost the same except for skin colour.

But hey, maybe you can educate me on something, if Aryans didnt come from Negros, where did they come from? and why is their DNA connected to eve from East Africa. Some people say the Jews in East Africa too are connected by blood to Jews in Arab lands since East Africans and Arabs look almost the same except for skin colour.

Maybe you came from a "negro" but I damn sure didn't! I also didn't "evolve" from a monkey either!

To say that negroes left Africa and wandered into Europe "millions" of years ago and turned into White people is the height of ignorance!

Hey wasnt Adolf Hitler a christian who sang in church as a little boy. The swastica was also from the German church he went to.

To my scientist brother up there, I forget your name.
You said at the end of your post:
"To sum up: on the afro-view, M and N lineages diverged from the African Eve's lineage, while on my view they are the oldest surviving Eurasian lineages."

Well if 'a' implies 'b' and 'b' implies 'c', does 'a' not imply 'c'?
I belive it does (mathematically speaking). First off, I didnt like your sources. Im a mathematics major and not an anthropology specialist. I went and read an other article and yes there may have been a few details overlooked concerning the out of Africa theory. But you said it was implausible when those other theories never ruled it out. Common, lets get serious, the only reason this caused all this contraversy is because its Africa, who wants to be associated with Africa??

Secondly, I think you put too much of your biases into your reasearch, free your mind and think freely. OK, fine maybe there are plural lineages but how do you explain Eve bieng 150, 000 years old when Indo Europeans entered the scene 50, 000 years ago. Dont you think if there were africans 150,000 years ago when there were no Europeans that they may have been the first to set foot into Europe?


Africans apeared: 150k years ago
East Africans and Southern Yemen apeard: 80k Years ago
Malaysians appeared: 74k years ago
Australians appeared: 70k Years ago
Middle eastern Europeans appeard: 50k years ago
Bering Straigt (Enuit) appeared: 20k years ago
Native North American Indians appeared: 16k Years ago

Source: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/interactive/migration.html

This is what I find to be indisputable the year they appeared on this earth.

And to some other guy that made the comment about us comming from monkeys .... Evolution and human migration are two diffrent things lets not get the confused.

Hey wasnt Adolf Hitler a christian who sang in church as a little boy. The swastica was also from the German church he went to.

To my scientist brother up there, I forget your name.
You said at the end of your post:
"To sum up: on the afro-view, M and N lineages diverged from the African Eve's lineage, while on my view they are the oldest surviving Eurasian lineages."

Well if 'a' implies 'b' and 'b' implies 'c', does 'a' not imply 'c'?
I belive it does (mathematically speaking). First off, I didnt like your sources. Im a mathematics major and not an anthropology specialist. I went and read an other article and yes there may have been a few details overlooked concerning the out of Africa theory. But you said it was implausible when those other theories never ruled it out. Common, lets get serious, the only reason this caused all this contraversy is because its Africa, who wants to be associated with Africa??

Secondly, I think you put too much of your biases into your reasearch, free your mind and think freely. OK, fine maybe there are plural lineages but how do you explain Eve bieng 150, 000 years old when Indo Europeans entered the scene 50, 000 years ago. Dont you think if there were africans 150,000 years ago when there were no Europeans that they may have been the first to set foot into Europe?


Africans apeared: 150k years ago
East Africans and Southern Yemen apeard: 80k Years ago
Malaysians appeared: 74k years ago
Australians appeared: 70k Years ago
Middle eastern Europeans appeard: 50k years ago
Bering Straigt (Enuit) appeared: 20k years ago
Native North American Indians appeared: 16k Years ago

Source: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/interactive/migration.html

This is what I find to be indisputable the year they appeared on this earth.

And to some other guy that made the comment about us comming from monkeys .... Evolution and human migration are two diffrent things lets not get the confused.

This moron gets his information from the discovery channel!!!!! He "finds it indisputable"!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!

DO THEY GET ANY DUMBER!!!!

No, Ciers can't get any dumber. They're as dumb as one can get. Anyone stupid enough to believe that WHITE people are the Real Jews will believe anything.

Ok, I'm with ya bro. that Discovery channel has me convinced! "Free your mind and think freely". Be "plural lineages" and shit!

Enoch be explainin and shit! "Eve bieng 150, 000 years old when Indo Europeans entered the scene 50, 000 years ago. Dont you think if there were africans 150,000 years ago when there were no Europeans that they may have been the first to set foot into Europe"?

If you believe this bullshit spengler than you're dumber than than I thought! Niggers in Europe....because Discovery channel and this punk Enoch told you so. Go back to the 6th grade Speng....cuz if you don't re educate yourself I'm gonna have to slap you around a little bit, boy!

The evidence for the ages in human migration is done by carbon date testing. That is what I find indisputable, Im not ruleing out plural lineages. Even if there were plural lineages, one group could have easily migrated into the other group.

The evidence for the ages in human migration is done by carbon date testing. That is what I find indisputable, Im not ruleing out plural lineages. Even if there were plural lineages, one group could have easily migrated into the other group.

Carbon dating testing is a joke, pal!



How Carbon Dating Works: Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950’s. He calculated the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), and assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breathe CO2 and animals eat plants.
Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth and this energy produces radioactive carbon 14 from nitrogen. This radioactive carbon 14 then slowly decays back into nitrogen. Testing has indicated that the current amount of C14 will decay to half of the current total of C14 molecules in 5730 years. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. After about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 30,000 years old (five times 5730).

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breath CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to nitrogen. Thus, in theory, the older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains.

One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 11,460 years old (the sample has gone through two half lives) and so on.

Problems with Carbon Dating: Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two huge. assumptions.

Assumption #1: What was the original state of the specimen being tested?

Assumption #2: Has the specimen been contamined since its original state?

Assumption 1: People obviously are assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant. If C14 is constantly forming in the atmosphere, why would anyone assume the composition of C14 is the same now as it was back then? How can you assume when you are studying an animal, that that animal alwys ate and breted precisely 0.000 An illustration may help. Imagine you found a candle burning in a room. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would obviously have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and the initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950’s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800’s over a century before there were any radiometric dating methods. Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object’s supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased. For more information, see video tape #7 of the CSE video series on Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs; Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, or Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris (all available from CSE).

A few quotes about radiometric dating:

"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.
--Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.

"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000.
--Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30

"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.
--In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively."
--In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans."
--Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."
--O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54

Intresting...
Carbon dating is BS too huh, so your trying to tell me that we all have been lied to.
I ask you why? why have we been lied to?
And how did they come up with the numbers for the first human bones found in those continents?
How did African bones turn out to be over 150,000 years old as opposed to European bones that were dated at 50,000 years?

I still see these numbers to be accurate since the people conducting them must have knowledge about the method's weaknesses.

If the research done on the age of those bones in incorrect, then what is the correct ages?
And why do the carbon dateing tests come up with these signicant yet convinient diffrences.

So African bones are older, so what? So maybe primates, even hominids, evolved in Africa; the smart ones got the hell out and that is what is important. What is left there stews in the same primordial orgy of dancing, fucking, murder, and cannibalism. Take your old monkeybones and stuff them, you have no point.

They're actually finding bones a lot older than that all over the fucking planet. They've even dug up some remains in the northern U.S. that date back to the time that the Injuns were crossing the land bridge. The problem is that the remains appear to be of a different origin than those of the Injuns. So, naturally, the Injuns apply the red tape and have the remains confiscated so that they won't lose their government supplied meal tickets claiming that the remains are those of ancient Injuns and then the case is closed. European type remains in N.America dating back 10 000 years? I don't see why not.

I don't believe that we evolved from monkeys (apes, whatever), either. Related, sure. We're mammals, after all.

Is the Bible a Jewish book? Well let the Jews themselves explain it:


"This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible."
--Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser "Judaism and the Christian Predicament" (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967) p. 59

Hey, Jewishrage, Jesus died for your sins:

http://www.wischik.com/irene/cross/4-jesus-meets-his-mother.jpg
:rolleyes: That doesn't prove shit!

Hey wasnt Adolf Hitler a christian

Indeed he was! Even the Table Talks, which are often used to prove Hitler's anti-Christianity actually have Hitler speak positively about Christ and his teachings. The most the Table Talks prove is that Hitler was an anti-clerical Christian; much like Goebbels.

Greetings!

Of course the bible is a jewish book.

*sigh*


"This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible."
--Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser "Judaism and the Christian Predicament" (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967) p. 59


Where do you think Christianity came from? Judaism...


The French Jewish scholar Joshua Jehouda would disagree:

"The current expression 'Judaeo-Christian' is an error which has altered the course of universal history by the confusion it has sown in men's minds, if by it one is meant to understand the Jewish origin of Christianity . . . If the term 'Judaeo-Christian' does point to a common origin, there is no doubt that it is a most dangerous idea. It is based on a 'contradictio in abjecto' which has set the path of history on the wrong track. It links in one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcileable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or black and white, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavouring to construct a civilisation." (l'Antisemitisme Miroir du Monde pp. 135-6).


The fact that Chrisitanity came from Judaism is common knowledge.


Christianity is jewish. Jews wrote most of the bible and it stems from mystical Judaic thought.

Kind interesting considering that scholars have noted the heavy Greek influence in the New Testament accounts. So much so that historians and theologians even belief that at least one of the Gospels(Luke's) was written by a Greek Christian.


And that many jews were and are not against Christianity but are Messianic Christian jews that believe that Jesus was the supposed Messiah. We will and can prove all of this...

Please tell me when exactly Jews ever constituted a majority in the Christian church. In fact by the time of Paul writing his letters the vast majority of Christians were Romans and Greeks. So whatever "Jewishiness" Christianity had it disappears altogether within 20 years after the death of Jesus.


"Despite the ostensible merging of Judean and Jew even in certain New Testament passages and by the rabbis who became rulers of Palestine in the third century and continued to use Hebrew and Aramaic more than Greek, the roots of Christianity were not Jewish. Christianity did not derive from the Judaism of the pharisees, but emerged like Judaism from the wider Judean milieu of the first century. Both Christians and Jews stemmed from pre-70 Judean-ism as heirs of groups that were to take on the role of primary guardians or interpreters of scripture as they developed on parallel tracks in relation to each other."
-- Robert and Mary Coote "Power, Politics, and the Making of the Bible"

They're actually finding bones a lot older than that all over the fucking planet. They've even dug up some remains in the northern U.S. that date back to the time that the Injuns were crossing the land bridge. The problem is that the remains appear to be of a different origin than those of the Injuns. So, naturally, the Injuns apply the red tape and have the remains confiscated so that they won't lose their government supplied meal tickets claiming that the remains are those of ancient Injuns and then the case is closed. European type remains in N.America dating back 10 000 years? I don't see why not.

I don't believe that we evolved from monkeys (apes, whatever), either. Related, sure. We're mammals, after all.

Common ?!?!
What kind of crap is this? dont bring some half backed conspiracy theories. lol

I have nothing more to say on this thread... for now.

Enoch when you want to abbreviate the phrase come on, common doesn't do. Try c'mon or just type come on.
Steer clear of those "conspiracy theories."

Point well taken Momus.
I didnt even notice doing that.

Half baked conspiracy theory? You are an ignoramus. Meaning your ignorance is huge. christian. Fits.