forum.christogenea.org

Nayto wrote:

While one might not like the source of the Aramaic Targums, still he must concede that this evidence brings the Scriptures into context, and many Hebrew scholars recognize this.

It was quite a surreal experience to read this sentence. Sometimes people go too far to try and support their argument even grasping at the writings of jews.

I find this "no non-White sources" approach rather short-sighted. Bill has said many times that there is much to learn from some jewish sources, such as the Masoretic Text and even, yes, The Talmud, in helping us understand Scripture and support CI points of view.

And considering we are often trying to reach judeo-Christians--and other White people who do give jews credibility--I have found that if I offer a jewish source that supports our arguments, people are actually much more receptive. I have often used the expression, "Even the jews themselves admit this to be true in their own publications..." As a argumentative strategy, I've had great success using words of the jews against them and in support of our side.

EzraLB wrote:

Nayto wrote:

While one might not like the source of the Aramaic Targums, still he must concede that this evidence brings the Scriptures into context, and many Hebrew scholars recognize this.

It was quite a surreal experience to read this sentence. Sometimes people go too far to try and support their argument even grasping at the writings of jews.

I find this "no non-White sources" approach rather short-sighted. Bill has said many times that there is much to learn from some jewish sources, such as the Masoretic Text and even, yes, The Talmud, in helping us understand Scripture and support CI points of view.

The only appropriate time to quote those sources is to demonstrate their corruption or possibly where they admit their guilt. We do not consult jews to teach us about our Scripture.

Jews added to the word of God to come up with that which Clifton quoted. The Masoretic text is at least closer to its origin.

My mind reels at your own admission. To use the imaginings of jews as basis for your theology is painfully short sighted.

Where do you draw the line? I suppose you can quote them as long as it suits you and condemn them as long as it suits you. In that way, the use of their sources is ultimately up to your own whims! Brilliant!

Staro said.......

Mchawe,
Whenever you do find yourself backed into a corner without an answer ALWAYS make sure to get the person[s] contact info and tell them you'll get back to them. And of course get back to them.

Point taken. I will ask the Forum in future !

Nayto wrote:The only appropriate time to quote those sources is to demonstrate their corruption or possibly where they admit their guilt. We do not consult jews to teach us about our Scripture.

Jews added to the word of God to come up with that which Clifton quoted. The Masoretic text is at least closer to its origin. My mind reels at your own admission. To use the imaginings of jews as basis for your theology is painfully short sighted.

Where do you draw the line? I suppose you can quote them as long as it suits you and condemn them as long as it suits you. In that way, the use of their sources is ultimately up to your own whims! Brilliant!

Who is this royal "we" you are referring to? Your mind "reels"? Really? Cut the melodrama. If you've studied Bill's podcasts, you'd know he consulted the Talmud on certain passages on Scripture. Does that mean that the CNT is corrupt? We all have quoted the KJV, which is heavily influenced by jewish sources. You provide an arbitrary excuse for using the Masoretic text because it's "closer to the source". Really? It was written almost 1,000 years AD. Is that your idea of close?

No one said by quoting jewish sources that we should embrace or give credence to the entirety of those sources. And good luck trying to find any so-called "White" sources that are absolutely un-touched by jewish influence. By your standard, we shouldn't read or cite anything by Martin Luther, who was heavily influenced by jewish ideas.

Bill has quoted jewish historian Heinrich Graetz many times; yet, I don't recall you taking him to task for it. How could Bill do any work on the Protocols without extensively quoting jewish sources? Even the ante-Nicean Christian writers were influenced by jewish sources. But you seem to have some magical ability to decide what is completely jew-free and what is jew-corrupted--a unique talent, to say the least.

And it isn't just jews who add and take away from Scripture--White Christians have done it also from the very beginning. Without quoting jewish sources, we could never have refuted the Holocaust or the official narrative of 9/11. Satan hates when we use his own words to condemn him, but if we chose to follow your "White only" standard, this would be impossible.

I'm not interested in a laundry list. In this case it was so obviously wrong. If I come across it and disagree, I'll certainly take that person to task and pay no respect to persons, just as I have objected to things Bill has said before on this very forum.

I stead of laundry listing and obfuscating the matter, why dont you instead try to reason on Clifton's behalf here how quoting Jewish sources was the correct path? Exercise some independent thought and let's focus on the here and now.

Very often when discussing the holyhoax myth with those who believe the mainstream story I tell them to watch David Cole's videos first. The idea that a jew set out to disprove the "deniers" and then became a denier himself seems to be quite effective at getting them to at least look at the information once. Cole's videos are excellent, even if he today regrets making them.

Staropramen wrote:Very often when discussing the holyhoax myth with those who believe the mainstream story I tell them to watch David Cole's videos first. The idea that a jew set out to disprove the "deniers" and then became a denier himself seems to be quite effective at getting them to at least look at the information once. Cole's videos are excellent, even if he today regrets making them.

Yeah as I mentioned -- in not quite the same words -- jews implicating themselves ifs fine. On the other hand, actually using the Talmud as a foundation for Christian theology is nuts. The footnote with the rest of our assumptions on Genesis is enough. Why look to rabbi embellishments?

If Christ was preaching universalism why’d they kill Him? Why would they destroy a man that welcomes everyone? Judeo Christians twisted Christ into a Shabbos goy that would be welcomed on CNN & Fox jews and friends. College campuses would have Him as an honored speaker.

I was taught Jesus preached love but the people thought it was hate. But where’s the hate in the Judeo Christian narrative? Everyone is welcome, so where’s the hate? Why was Christ such a threat the jews destroyed Him? I asked my mom this question when I was a kid and she said “Because people were crazy back then.” So lame

To reduce some of the disputes here to just a few facts, as I see them.

Actually I have quoted Heinrich Graetz and probably a few other Jewish writers, in certain contexts. I would rather not read their works at all, and I generally do not read books produced by Jews.

But sometimes Jewish sources must be perused when non-Jewish histories are either absolutely wanting, or are seemingly ignorant of a Jewish involvement in something, where Jews admit involvement. Graetz and, as E. Michael Jones' work may illustrate, certain other Jewish writers are useful in those aspects.

BUT this does not necessarily have a bearing on the Aramaic Targums. It cannot be told whether the early Targums are really Jewish, or Judaean. Targums were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of the Targums contain absurdities, no doubt, and others are more balanced. The Targums are only attempted explanations of Scripture by men, whether those men were good or bad.

But what the Aramaic Targums do prove concerning Genesis 4:1 is this: that early commentators on Scripture had realized that the Hebrew text to Genesis 4:1 was broken or incomplete, and they were trying to fill in the blanks. This is basically how I explained them in Pragmatic Genesis, and it is how I have always explained them.

With that being understood, the same exact phenomenon is found in Origen's Hexapla for Genesis 4:1, and I have added appropriate notes to Clifton's paper on the issue, as Nayto has already noted.

And once all that is understood, along with the plethora of Biblical and Apocryphal evidence we have provided showing that Cain could not have been the son of Adam, so far as I am concerned the only logical conclusion is this:

That we cannot use the glossed verse of Genesis 4:1, the only witness to the claim, to uphold the idea that Cain was the son of Adam.

One faulty witness proves nothing. One faulty witness cannot be used to negate a half dozen or more valid witnesses.

CrochetRacist wrote:I was taught Jesus preached love but the people thought it was hate. But where’s the hate in the Judeo Christian narrative? Everyone is welcome, so where’s the hate? Why was Christ such a threat the jews destroyed Him? I asked my mom this question when I was a kid and she said “Because people were crazy back then.” So lame

Life is funny like that, the gut feelings we get as kids that something isnt right in the world are affirmed later in adulthood when we learn the truth.

As a kid sitting in Sunday school, or in the pews at church, I found it a little odd that Christ could have been a Jew when it was these same Jew bastards that nailed Him on a cross. Even kids get basic logic, the character of Christ was the polar opposite of the way Jews think and act.