Theology IV

[brownjenkins]

Self-deception is at the heart of all theology.

[The Telcontarion]

There is so much evidence everywhere. Even the infamous TV series about the life of Shaka Zulu has such proof. In it, it is clearly calls those being captured as slaves the "wandering jews of africa."

History as most of us know it (most, because I donot doubt a great many knew the truth all along) is a complete lie:

Baruch 2:29-31

29 If ye will not hear my voice, surely this very great multitude shall be turned into a small number among the nations, where I will scatter them.

30 For I knew that they would not hear me, because it is a stiffnecked people: but in the land of their captivities they shall remember themselves.

31 And shall know that I am the Lord their God: for I will give them an heart, and ears to hear:

The end is near, "even at the doors." Israel finally remembers, this was prophecied to happen at the end.

[Earniel]

I have split off and moved the persistant Tolkien discussion to the Middle-earth forum. That thread can be found here.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I have split off and moved the persistant Tolkien discussion to the Middle-earth forum. That thread can be found here.

Keep in mind the many scriptures that are brought out in those posts. I don't think that that discussion could continue in the ME forum. The observations are about the scriptures and their influence on ME. The replies would intern be about the scriptures not JRRT as well.

If we talked about theology (christianity) and it's influence on the english language being spread world wide, or on people who practice it, would it belong elsewhere or in the theology thread?

Thought I point that out. We do need to stick to the topic in these threads, though I don't believe we diverged too much.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Moors surrender of Granada (I believe the moors are actually Israelites - calling them moors is a historical lie)

Well I think you are very mistaken in that belief. It was not some obscure sociopolitical/religious entity, (that in some way might have been Jewish), of Grenada that surrendered to the Spanish. It was the Emirate of Grenada that surrendered, in the person of Muhammad XII, the last ruler of the Emirate of Grenada. If you think Muhammad XII is Jewish I have to tell you that I'm the last living blue-eyed descendant of Ghengiz Khan.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Well I think you are very mistaken in that belief. It was not some obscure sociopolitical/religious entity, (that in some way might have been Jewish), of Grenada that surrendered to the Spanish. It was the Emirate of Grenada that surrendered, in the person of Muhammad XII, the last ruler of the Emirate of Grenada. If you think Muhammad XII is Jewish I have to tell you that I'm the last living blue-eyed descendant of Ghengiz Khan.

I proved it. Go back and look up the posts and watch the videos and reply by quoting those videos and what they say and what you disagree with and I will address them.

I will not continue responding to blanket statements.

"the moon bees buzz fart drop size five four 9 and video wasp."

Did that make any sense, no, well that is how the majority of your posts are sounding to me.

(sorry confusing you with count comfect again, but the statement does apply, please provide links and be specific about what you disagree with).

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

I proved it. Go back and look up the posts and watch the videos and reply by quoting those videos and what they say and what you disagree with and I will address them.

I will not continue responding to blanket statements.

"the moon bees buzz fart drop size five four 9 and video wasp."

Did that make any sense, no, well that is how the majority of your posts are sounding to me.

Hehe..

Actually I will respond to whatever videos and proof you have presented but honestly I've tried sorting out your arguments but they are written in all manners and out of context so please offer up the videos and proof again, please..

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Hehe..

Actually I will respond to whatever videos and proof you have presented but honestly I've tried sorting out your arguments but they are written in all manners and out of context so please offer up the videos and proof again, please..

Read the present thread from post #405, that is the best I can do...

[Coffeehouse]

Right, I found the post and is this the part that you are referring to?

You write:
The africans were not capturing and selling into slavery other africans, they were selling the refugees of Israel after it was sacked in 70AD. Over a period of about 1500 years we kept migrating from the east coast of africa to the west coast. Leaving behind as we went stragglers ie. the falashas etc. The greater part settled in west africa and there our enemies eventually rounded us up and put us into bondage.

Questions:
- First, from which part of the eastern coast of Africa did they migrate from?
- Following what route and to what part of western Africa did they migrate to?
- And what archeological evidence is there that Israeli refugees from the sack in 70 AD came to Western Africa?
(To clarify the definition of Western Africa since many confuse it: Western Africa the western arm of Africa beneath the Sahara desert, which does not include modern-day Western Sahara, Morocco, Algeria or Tunisia)

***EDIT:
Sorry I mixed with the other debate What does this migration have to do with the Emirate of Grenada?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

You know, my difficulty with all this discussion is that it isn't grounded in what I understand as science.

Now, people can have personal revelation. I don't know why God would speak to Gomer and not to Gomer Pyle, so I'm okay with that. But vast teams of scientists are doing things like gene sequencing. Archeologists are taking careful notes of potsherds. Linguists are following ancient migrations through language. And none of these people are finding a body of middle eastern peoples suddenly populating Africa.

And these times, besides being a blink of the eye, biologically, aren't completely without historians, either.

It's messy, as a theory. No Occams Razor. It's inelegant.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Archeologists are taking careful notes of potsherds. Linguists are following ancient migrations through language. And none of these people are finding a body of middle eastern peoples suddenly populating Africa.

It's interesting to see though what evidence Telcontarian can show us. I'm prepared to be educated about this!

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Right, I found the post and is this the part that you are referring to?

You write:
The africans were not capturing and selling into slavery other africans, they were selling the refugees of Israel after it was sacked in 70AD. Over a period of about 1500 years we kept migrating from the east coast of africa to the west coast. Leaving behind as we went stragglers ie. the falashas etc. The greater part settled in west africa and there our enemies eventually rounded us up and put us into bondage.

Questions:
- First, from which part of the eastern coast of Africa did they migrate from?
- Following what route and to what part of western Africa did they migrate to?
- And what archeological evidence is there that Israeli refugees from the sack in 70 AD came to Western Africa?
(To clarify the definition of Western Africa since many confuse it: Western Africa the western arm of Africa beneath the Sahara desert, which does not include modern-day Western Sahara, Morocco, Algeria or Tunisia)

***EDIT:
Sorry I mixed with the other debate What does this migration have to do with the Emirate of Grenada?

All this is and more is shown in the posts that I made from #405. Read, watch, make notes and get back to me.

I like your detailed questions but to get that kind of info you will have to watch all the videos that I linked to and the entire video series they belong to.

[Coffeehouse]

Okay I haven't read the entire discussion but with my super-scrolling powers refined over many years at least I have deduced that whatever discussion there was about true Israelis versus 'false' Israelis, it veered off into a really, really long religious discussion where Scriptures seemed to be the main source (I take that with a pinch of salt).
- In any case I got to these two last pages, and I see you mention Mohammad XII and the Kingdom (Emirate) of Grenada, but I can't see any sources showing how he somehow is Jewish and that shows that the Moors of Islamic Granada were not Muslims, but Jews (which the part I'm interested in).

Could you also provide links to the migration of Israelis to West Africa (or the western part of North Africa if that is the geographical area that you are talking about) because I can't find them

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Okay I haven't read the entire discussion but with my super-scrolling powers refined over many years at least I have deduced that whatever discussion there was about true Israelis versus 'false' Israelis, it veered off into a really, really long religious discussion where Scriptures seemed to be the main source (I take that with a pinch of salt).
- In any case I got to these two last pages, and I see you mention Mohammad XII and the Kingdom (Emirate) of Grenada, but I can't see any sources showing how he somehow is Jewish and that shows that the Moors of Islamic Granada were not Muslims, but Jews (which the part I'm interested in).

Could you also provide links to the migration of Israelis to West Africa (or the western part of North Africa if that is the geographical area that you are talking about) because I can't find them

This will help you out:

Gamal Abdul Nasser, who was the president of the United Arab Republic said in 1956:

‘I could not respect the present Jews because they left Israel black and came back white.’

Tell the truth:

(Who the true Israelites are)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=405

(Only Israel is to be saved)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=420

(Israel shall judge the world)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=422

(Understanding Obama)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=381

(Love)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=944

(Listen or die)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=433

Focusing my theme throughout the discussion, as simply - Stop being a fool and listen, the truth is undeniable.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

This will help you out:

Gamal Abdul Nasser, who was the president of the United Arab Republic said in 1956:

‘I could not respect the present Jews because they left Israel black and came back white.’

Tell the truth:

(Who the true Israelites are)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=405

(Only Israel is to be saved)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=420

(Israel shall judge the world)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=422

(Understanding Obama)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=381

(Love)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=944

(Listen or die)
http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...&postcount=433

Focusing my theme throughout the discussion, as simply - Stop being a fool and listen, the truth is undeniable.

Although that is quite the exhaustive list of quotes from the Scripture, I can't see much evidence pointing to the Jewish nature of the Emirate of Grenada, which was my initial question

I have some points I'd like to mention though!

In post 405 you write:
"In fact, we are the original kings and queens of those lands.
We founded those countries. That was what the Renaissance was about."

Yet what Kings and Queens of Europe were Jewish and is not the Renaissance a direct result of the transfer of knowledge and manuscripts (in many instances the ancient texts of Antiquity, classical Greece, ancient Persia and as far as China) from the vast Muslim (There were certainly Jews involved in this transfer to Europe) archives and libraries that were acquired during the Golden Age of Islam between the 8th and 13th centuries? In many instances the texts from Antiquity concerning mathematics, medicine, philosophy, optics, etc. Was this transfer of knowledge from the Muslim Caliphates not the contributing factor to the Awakening in Europe?
After all one of the reasons the Italian states (Venice and the Genoese), Portugal and Spain prospered so much in the early 15th century was that they were the first recipients of both lost and newfound knowledge..

Also in post 405:
"The crusades were so important to the rulers of Europe
because they were Israelities/Jews and that was their
homeland."

You present an interesting question as to what motivated the Crusades. I think the notion that they happened because the European actors were Jewish doesn't quite add up to historical events.
This brings us back to your argument that there must have been Jewish
Kings and Queens of Europe. But if we take a look at the first European king
to visit Jerusalem as part of the Crusades he certainly was not Jewish. He was, you'll be surprised I think, the Norwegian King Sigurd I, Korsfareren, or the Cross(Crusade)-farer whom went down with his fleet to join in the cause. This was a point in time when Norway had become very Christianized and the early Christians in Norway were particularly religious. King Sigurd I was not Jewish and neither has any king in Norway ever been.
The conventional view of the Crusades can be summed up as being performed in the convincing reality for Europeans of all classes and creeds that to make their way down there was a costly, but adventurous and honourable way to serve penance. For many it proved the death sentence, yet for some it proved very lucrative and that was certainly a message that resounded in Europe in the more rewarding eras of the Crusades.

I think you should avoid quoting too much from the Bible, it makes for selective reading as its history of inspiration to different peoples of different minds have shown. In any case most of the quotes you present are very cirumstancial, so if I were you I'd rely less on extrapolation and more on concrete references to concrete events. For example why would you use a biblical quote to question the moon landings of 1969?

[Count Comfect]

On the motivations for the Crusades: what we know of as "The Crusades" were not the only times the church preached Crusade. In every case (ex: the Albigensian Crusade, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade, the Crusade against the Moors in Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista) the motivation was a defense of Christianity or an attack on its enemies, with not a Jew in sight. Well, except to be kicked out of the country after the Reconquista of course.

[GrayMouser]

Oooops.

Responding to an extraordinary burst of global outrage, especially in Pope Benedict XVI’s native Germany, the Vatican for the first time on Wednesday called on a recently rehabilitated bishop to take back his statements denying the Holocaust.

Late last month, the pope revoked the excommunications of four schismatic bishops from the ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X, including Bishop Richard Williamson, a Briton, who in an interview broadcast last month denied the existence of the Nazi gas chambers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/wo...05pope.html?hp

Classic case of political spin- first deny there's a problem, then blame the people pointing out the problem, then try to shift the blame to lower levels.

The articles covering this generally focus on Williamson's TV interview as an isolated incident, and portray the Pope as being unaware or kept out of touch by Vatican officials.

This would be a lot easier to believe if the Pope's previous position for the last twenty-five years had not been precisely to deal with the Church's response to schismatics and heretics like Archbishop Lefebvre,

As noted above, Lefebvre himself wrote to John Paul II in 1985, three years before his decision to ordain four bishops in defiance of the pope’s authority, to argue that Vatican II’s “Declaration on Religious Liberty” had produced a series of poisonous consequences, including “all the reforms carried out over 20 years within the church to please heretics, schismatics, false religions and declared enemies of the church, such as the Jews, the Communists and the Freemasons.”

This sense of antagonism was lifelong. In 1990, one year before his death, Lefebvre gave an interview to the journal of the National Front in France, suggesting that Catholic opposition to a residence of Carmelite nuns at the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp was being instigated by Jews.

Lefebvre’s followers often share this outlook. In 1997, one of the four bishops ordained by Lefebvre in 1988, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, said, “The church for its part has at all times forbidden and condemned the killing of Jews, even when ‘their grave defects rendered them odious to the nations among which they were established.’ ... All this makes us think that the Jews are the most active artisans for the coming of Antichrist.”

Nor has their record been confined simply to making statements. In 1989, Paul Touvier, a fugitive charged with ordering the execution of seven Jews in 1944, was arrested in a priory of the Fraternity of St. Pius X in Nice, France. The fraternity stated at the time that Touvier had been granted asylum as “an act of charity to a homeless man.” When Touvier died in 1996, a parish church operated by the fraternity offered a requiem Mass in his honor.

In just the past year, controversy arose in Germany when a priest of the fraternity asserted that Jews were “co-responsible” for the death of Christ. Also in 2008, an Italian priest of the fraternity celebrated a Latin Mass in honor of the 63rd anniversary of the death of fascist leader Benito Mussolini.

By all accounts, this strain reaches a crescendo in Williamson, whose views were a matter of public record well before his most recent comments to Swedish television.

In 1989, for example, police in Canada briefly considered filing charges against Williamson under that country’s hate speech laws after he gave an address in Quebec charging that Jews were responsible for “changes and corruption” in the Catholic church, that “not one Jew” perished in Nazi gas chambers, and that the Holocaust was a myth created so that the West would “approve the state of Israel.”

Williamson also praised the writings of Ernst Zundel, a German-born Canadian immigrant whose works include Did Six Million Really Die? and The Hitler We Loved and Why, both considered mainstays of Holocaust denial literature.

In 1991, Williamson issued a letter from Winona, Minn., where he served as rector of a Lefebvrite seminary, stating, “Until [Jews] rediscover their true Messianic vocation, they may be expected to continue fanatically agitating, in accordance with their false messianic vocation of Jewish world dominion, to prepare the Antichrist’s throne in Jerusalem.”

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/3180

More on the group that Benedict wants to welcome back- and note again, all the condemnation has been directed at Williamson as an individual, not the Society of Saint Pius X:

Lefebvre was always on the hard right. During World War II, he supported the pro-Nazi Vichy regime, a puppet government in the part of France not occupied by the Germans. He lamented the eventual liberation of the country, describing it as "the victory of Freemasonry against the Catholic order of Petain. It was the invasion of the barbarians without faith or law!"
......It is in The Angelus, published monthly by the SSPX press, and on SSPX's website, that the radical anti-Semitism of the order is most evident today. One example now on the website is a 1997 Angelus article by SSPX priests Michael Crowdy and Kenneth Novak that calls for locking Jews into ghettos because "Jews are known to kill Christians." It also blames Jews for the French Revolution, communism and capitalism; suggests a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy has destroyed the Catholic Church; and describes Judaism as "inimical to all nations."

Another document reproduced on the SSPX's current website is a 1959 letter from Lefebvre's close friend, Bishop Gerald Sigaud, who also rejected the Vatican II reforms. "Money, the media, and international politics are for a large part in the hands of Jews," Bishop Sigaud wrote. "Those who have revealed the atomic secrets of the USA were … all Jews. The founders of communism were Jews."

The Angelus Press sells anti-Semitic tomes like Hilaire Beloc's The Jews, which blames Jews for Bolshevism and corrupt financial practices, and Monsignor George Dillon's Freemasonry Unmasked, which purports to explain a centuries-old Judeo-Masonic plot to destroy the Catholic Church. More recent SSPX publications include the 2005 pamphlet Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, by Franz Schmidberger, the former superior general of the SSPX. Schmidberger denounces Third World immigration into Western countries as "destroying our national identity and, furthermore, the whole of Christianity," and accuses the Jews of deicide.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?sid=397

Again, it's simply not credible to believe that the man in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for twenty-five years, charged with the responsibility ""to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines", wouldn't know about the views expressed by the SSPX.

I'm sure they expected some cries of outrage from Jewish groups and liberal Catholics, which could have been brushed off by a few statements condemning anti-Semitism; unfortunately for the Vatican Williamson's interview made it news.

[GrayMouser]

Williamson has also publicly stated that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were "put into man's hands by God".

None of this stuff is obscure; it has long been readily available simply by Googling, but the Vatican is shocked, shocked, to discover that these guys are vicious anti-Semites.

They just hoped to sneak this in under the radar and give the brush-off to anyone complaining- "oh, yeah, just typical politically-correct types whining"- like their original reaction to when the story burst.

[Insidious Rex]

Makes me miss John Paul a bit.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

This would be a lot easier to believe if the Pope's previous position for the last twenty-five years had not been precisely to deal with the Church's response to schismatics and heretics like Archbishop Lefebvre

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a heretic, although you are correct to portray him as a schismatic.

Yes, Williamson's positions are unfortunate. Yes, the general trend of the SSPX crowd tends towards anti-Semitism, and that is unfortunate. Yes, their views of the Jewish people are downright wrong. But that is no reason to prolong schism. The Holocaust is an historical fact, not a doctrine of the faith. So long as the doctrines of the faith are held, there is no valid reason for schism to continue.

Note the press release by Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, on the matter.

The SSPX was, certainly, started through low reactionary tendencies, and a desire to cling fanatically to a certain old-fashioned conservatism. This survives to an extent, as seen in the likes of Bishop Williamson. However, there is more going on than this. The past twenty years have greatly softened the SSPX, and a desire for reconciliation has arisen to the point where it is, very often, stronger than the reactionary element in the society. There are always going to be priests and even bishops who say crazy things.

The Vatican has done nothing wrong in this matter.