Charles Guliani - Jesus was a zionist zealot?

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Speaking of Redden, I saw him a few weeks ago in a grocery store.

[Whaler]

The report [Report From Iron Mountain] considered ways in which the public could be preoccupied with non-important activities so that it would not have time to participate in political debate or resistance. Recreation, trivial game shows, pornography, and situation comedies could play an important role, but blood games were considered to be the most promising of all the options. Blood games are competitive events between individuals or teams that are sufficiently violent in nature to enable the spectators to vicariously work off their frustrations. [...] In this fashion, their anger at "society" is defused and focused, instead, on the opposing team. The emperors of Rome devised the Circuses and gladiator contests and public executions by wild beasts for precisely that purpose.

— G. Edward Griffin; The Creature From Jekyll Island

Yeah, No doubt that is their goal. but...The reason they can implement their sick agenda is because they have control of the tv networks and sports betting(biggest driving cash source for pro-sports)

[Whaler]

Speaking of Redden, I saw him a few weeks ago in a grocery store.

Yeah hockey is Canada's game....No doot aboot it  

Just saying.....Massachusetts is no slouch. There was a big migration of French Canadian mill workers that came to New England to work in the factories during the late 1800s and early 1900's. The Frogs brought their game of hockey down to New England with them. So hockey here is a pretty big deal...My grandfather was playing high school hockey in the 40's.


70% of the rest of America doesn't give a fuck about hockey....Canada is the kingpin of hockey. Kick Betman out and move the headquarters to Toronto...where it belongs.

[mgt23]

im not really bothered about what he looks like, just the content of what his argumentation is. I will try and find a pic for the board tho. Charles has a very similar position to mine.... does that make me a shill or shabbas goy?....obviously not. lets stick to the OP please and pick out where you think he is wrong and what proof you have that he works for the jews directly. as for the distraction activities, thats a given.

[pas]

Timothy_Fitzpatrick wrote :

I don't trust that photo you provided. Surely there must be some video of him. IF there isnt, that raises alarms.

So the pic doesn't look jewish enough?
Do you have video material of Ognir?

You keep coming with accusations, but with nothing of substance.

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

Timothy_Fitzpatrick wrote :

I don't trust that photo you provided. Surely there must be some video of him. IF there isnt, that raises alarms.

So the pic doesn't look jewish enough?
Do you have video material of Ognir?

You keep coming with accusations, but with nothing of substance.

Don't you find it strange that Tim_Fitz is demanding to see pictures and video material of other men?  :eh:  :sick:

Why doesn't Tim_Fitz post his pics so we can confirm he's not Abe Foxman?

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Timothy_Fitzpatrick wrote :

I don't trust that photo you provided. Surely there must be some video of him. IF there isnt, that raises alarms.

So the pic doesn't look jewish enough?
Do you have video material of Ognir?

You keep coming with accusations, but with nothing of substance.

That is beside the point pas. If Guliani is some sort of leader type in the patriot movement, he ought to have video up. Who among patriot leaders today doesn't have video up? It is quite rare and quite suspicious.

The photo provided is not sufficient proof of Guliani's alleged gentileness.

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

That is beside the point pas. If Guliani is some sort of leader type in the patriot movement, he ought to have video up. Who among patriot leaders today doesn't have video up? It is quite rare and quite suspicious.

Where's your video?  :think:

The photo provided is not sufficient proof of Guliani's alleged gentileness.

But in your mind there is sufficient proof for Jesus walking on water and rising from the dead because it says so in a 2000 year old book written by men that also speaks of talking snakes?   :lol:  :lol:

Where's your photo, Abe? It doesn't look good on you that you are demanding photos/videos of other men whilst you proclaim to be a wholesome Christian. Some closet homo shit going on here with Fitzyboy.

 

Btw if Guiliani was Jewish (which he isn't) what difference does that make to you? He speaks out against Jews doesn't he? You don't seem to have any problem that your 'friend' Brandon Dean is a Jew who says Jews are not the enemy. Hmmmm....  :think:

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

BTW, FWIW... here's Pastor William Fink's account of his time on Guiliani's show:

http://www.christogenea.org/audio/downl ... -10-11.mp3

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Thanks for that, CSR.

Fink says Guliani can quote scripture after scripture, but fails to understand the bigger picture. Bang on. All scripture isolationists suffer this same problem. But it doesn't matter much if they can dazzle people (pull the wool over their eyes).

But Guliani does understand the bigger picture, he just doesn't like it. So, he misleads people about that picture.

Fink says he cut him off when responding. Guliani also played this game with Texe Marrs. He cut Texe Marrs off when Texe was going to explain genocide in the OT. And the genocide in the OT is Guliani's MO. Without it, he is just another blowhard patriot wannabe. But Guliani presents a different version of the truth. He claims Marrs and Fink couldn't answer and were "tripping all over themselves." Who else in the patriot movement do we know who constantly cuts people off?

This is exactly why I say Guliani is from the same John Gray/Khashoggi/Genesis cookie cutter as Alex Jones, Alan Twatt etc...

Guliani's agenda is a Jewish agenda, because it's an agenda of integration. —Fink

True.

[pas]

Timothy_Fitzpatrick wrote :

Guliani's agenda is a Jewish agenda, because it's an agenda of integration. —Fink

True.

Not true at all.
If you'd be a regular listener, you would have heard numerous times, Giuliani's opinion that the jew is behind forced destructive integration and immigration.Wich i share, despite being of mixed races myself, and are also (as is Charlie) opposed of.
To call this ''jewish agenda'', is yet another unsubstantiated claim and a personal attack.

Funny, i just listened to the latest JoeBlow show, and he's on the same page as you about Giuliani.Maybe you can team up to provide some evidence for your claims.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Pas, I find it rather amusing that you put so much faith in a guy whose predominant arguments are that God is a genocidal maniac and that ELITE JEW PIGS run the world. Could he possibly be any more generalizing?

[pas]

Timothy_Fitzpatrick wrote :

Pas, I find it rather amusing that you put so much faith in a guy whose predominant arguments are that God is a genocidal maniac and that ELITE JEW PIGS run the world. Could he possibly be any more generalizing?

We're not gonna agree on the religious aspect, so i'm not going into that.But i don't deny that elite jew pigs run the world.
And how is this generalisation? As Whaler pointed out to you, the term ''ejp" exludes your low-level average working-clas jews and explicitly points to the top crime network.
I hope this ''faithfull'' post will amuse you some more.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Timothy_Fitzpatrick wrote :

Pas, I find it rather amusing that you put so much faith in a guy whose predominant arguments are that God is a genocidal maniac and that ELITE JEW PIGS run the world. Could he possibly be any more generalizing?

We're not gonna agree on the religious aspect, so i'm not going into that.But i don't deny that elite jew pigs run the world.
And how is this generalisation? As Whaler pointed out to you, the term ''ejp" exludes your low-level average working-clas jews and explicitly points to the top crime network.
I hope this ''faithfull'' post will amuse you some more.

Well of course Jews run the world, but it's just so tacky and fake the way he says it. It's as fake as Alex Jones saying the Rulers of Darkness run the world. Use your discernment. There is just something wrong with this man's approach. I reeks of shillery.

[pas]

Timothy_Fitzpatrick wrote :

it's just so tacky and fake the way he says it. It's as fake as Alex Jones saying the Rulers of Darkness run the world. Use your discernment. There is just something wrong with this man's approach. I reeks of shillery.

Well, that almost the exact feeling i had when i first heard him (Giuliani).I my view Charles just said ''EJP'' where Alex"d had said ''Illuminati death cult", but i think this is just a bit of an ''American'' way.Not to say Americans are ''over the top'', i'd call it ''passion''. (real or fake, that's the main question)

So, i do see your point.

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

Well of course Jews run the world, but it's just so tacky and fake the way he says it. It's as fake as Alex Jones saying the Rulers of Darkness run the world. Use your discernment. There is just something wrong with this man's approach.

Then why don't you start your own show and do it your own way instead of sitting behnd a keyboard bad-mouthing your superiors like a whiny Jew? Show everyone how it should be done big boy. :up:

I reeks of shillery.

Freudian slip?   Indeed, you do reek of shillery.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Pas, MGT, another prominent strawman argument that Guliani uses is that Christians use circular reason, i.e. ...Because God said so.

While it may be true that some Christians may use circular reasoning, this is certainly not the predominant form of reasoning employed by educated and veteran Christians. While you may feel that this strawman argument of Guliani's is somewhat irrelevant, consider how often he brings it up. And as already stated, the other predominant strawman that Guliani uses is that God is a genocidal, infanticidal maniac.

[pas]

Timothy_Fitzpatrick wrote :

Pas, MGT, another prominent strawman argument that Guliani uses is that Christians use circular reason, i.e. ...Because God said so.

While it may be true that some Christians may use circular reasoning, this is certainly not the predominant form of reasoning employed by educated and veteran Christians. While you may feel that this strawman argument of Guliani's is somewhat irrelevant, consider how often he brings it up. And as already stated, the other predominant strawman that Guliani uses is that God is a genocidal, infanticidal maniac

I don't see how those are strawman arguments.
I think they are very valid in pointing out problems and inconcistencies of religion, in this case Christianity.

They main argument, Charles uses (you'd probably call this ''strawman'' too   ) is the ''schizofrenic'' nature of of the book.Because of the many contradictions found in the text,wich are not (purposely) put out of context to further any other agenda.(Atleast, imo.)

The jewish assault on Christianity is mainly an assault on the high moral standards Christians (suppose to) have.(It's the same for Islam)Charles acknowledges this fact and would never participate in this. (I hope   )

Having high moral standards is one of the most important things in life, i think.And if religion can help to achieve this, it's ok, but not a necessity.

The day that Charles (or myself for that matter) start to attack morality, then you''ll know the jews got to him.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Timothy_Fitzpatrick wrote :

Pas, MGT, another prominent strawman argument that Guliani uses is that Christians use circular reason, i.e. ...Because God said so.

While it may be true that some Christians may use circular reasoning, this is certainly not the predominant form of reasoning employed by educated and veteran Christians. While you may feel that this strawman argument of Guliani's is somewhat irrelevant, consider how often he brings it up. And as already stated, the other predominant strawman that Guliani uses is that God is a genocidal, infanticidal maniac

I don't see how those are strawman arguments.

Remember that a straw man argument is a sham argument set up to be defeated. The more untrue the straw man is, the more easily it can be defeated.

Guliani asserts that Christians use "because God said so" as the only argument when debating aspects of the Bible. Obviously, "because God said so" is not a legitimate answer to any question. This is an easily defeatable "argument." Guliani rarely or never brings up the legitimate answers that Christians have for his questions. Instead, he only focuses on the straw man. This is evidence of highly flawed argument on Guliani's part.

I think they are very valid in pointing out problems and inconcistencies of religion, in this case Christianity.

They don't actually get into the nuts and bolts of the Bible, Instead, they simply pick and choose passages upon which to formulate their argument, which is based on preconceived ideas about Christianity.

They main argument, Charles uses (you'd probably call this ''strawman'' too   ) is the ''schizofrenic'' nature of of the book.Because of the many contradictions found in the text,wich are not (purposely) put out of context to further any other agenda.(Atleast, imo.)

Many of the apparent contradictions can be easily explained. For example, it is often said that the Bible is contradictory when it teaches love, then turns around and preaches hate. Atheists—and Guliani— often use the passage where Jesus says to hate your brother, your mother, and father. At face value this is contradictory; however, Jesus was not speaking of moral hate but speaking of allegiances. If you put your brother, your family, or even your spouse ahead of God, you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. The word "hate" in the Bible is often used to express priority and preference rather than emotional hatred. (Examples in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 the word refers to a preference rather than an emotional hatred. The same is true of Malachi 1:2-3.) Understanding this, there is absolutely no contradiction.

So, again, Charles uses the strawman. He presents a false picture of what is being said about hate and love in the Bible, thus making for an easily defeatable argument. Let's look at the passage at face value:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 10:34-37

and

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:26


Jewish understanding was that the messianic era would be preceded by a time of disharmony in family and social relationships. By these sayings, Jesus was announcing the messianic age and his own messiahship.

In fact, Jesus was quoting from the Jewish prophet Micah who spoke of the messianic age in these terms:

Do not trust a neighbor; put no confidence in a friend. Even with her who lies in your embrace be careful of your words. For a son dishonors his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies are the members of his own household.

Micah 7:5-6

Context is the key to Jesus' words. In Matthew 10:34, Jesus is speaking about the divisions that will come, even among family members, over their belief or lack of belief about Him. In that respect, He has come to bring division. This context is also related in Luke 12:51.

Jesus was implying that by swearing allegiance to a family member or spouse over him was like putting their sinful nature ahead of God's perfect moral nature.

Matthew 10:34; Luke 2:14; 22:36 and Mark 9:50; John 14:27; 16:33; Acts 10:36

No Peace
(Matthew 10:34-36) - "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man's enemies will be the members of his household."
(Luke 12:51,52) - "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..."
(Luke 22:36) - "And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one."
Peace
(Mark 9:50) - "Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."
(John 14:27) - "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
(John 16:33) - "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace..."
(Acts 10:36) - "The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)."

[pas]

Timothy_Fitzpatrick wrote :


If you put your brother, your family, or even your spouse ahead of God, you cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Guess i'll be roasting in Hell then.My family and friends will always have the highest priority for me.How can this be considered to be so evil? and if so i honestly will have nothing to do with the Kingdom of God.


Jesus was implying that by swearing allegiance to a family member or spouse over him was like putting their sinful nature ahead of God's perfect moral nature.


Again, if expressing loyalty to family and friends, is to defy God's perfect moral nature..
I don't have to be trown in the ''pitts'', i'll jump myself.
And remember one of the main assaults on Christianity is because of its strong family ties and values, so don't you see a little contradiction here too , Tim?
Jews would love a Christianity where family allegiance is tossed aside and families get divided.


(Luke 22:36) - "And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one."

I agree with this one.
People should be prepared to defend themselves, or be well enough equiped to ''sanitize'' their surroundings.
I love those American and Canadian gun laws.

[youtube:2r6gwcfh]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD-_NJS-148[/youtube]2r6gwcfh]All i got to defend myself is a 20 yr old hockey stick

[Yo Mama]

It's amusing watching Christian apologists try to defend the nonsensical, contradictory, and hateful teachings of the mythical Jew named "Jesus Christ."

An exercise in futility, I would say.

[mgt23]

according to charles its not jesus but joshua. anyway point is Yahweh is a jewish God and whats happening here is althrough the regs here are against EJPgs the spiritual war is whether or not one should trust anyone who worships a jewish theological invention. that is what the movement faces. this doesnt mean atheism as charles point out, one can still have faith in the transcendental. if the jews have as much complete control over the archealogical txts fake or otherwise and control the verification means then its very difficult to escape jewish culture.....isnt that is what one is trying to do? Hence those who are used to cult busting are asked to have sympathy with christians just because they are against the jew. Truth seekers are primarily skeptics and like it or not we will not side with judaism for whites. Those that are logical and keep on burrowing want to be free of all indoctrination and use political forensics to reconstruct our history, identify the enemy and struggle against that in a personal liberation and then a cultural one.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Guess i'll be roasting in Hell then.My family and friends will always have the highest priority for me.How can this be considered to be so evil? and if so i honestly will have nothing to do with the Kingdom of God.

Again, you have misunderstood the passage. It in no way implies to abandon your family. What it means is that if your family interferes with your enlightenment and progress of truth, God must come ahead. For example, your wife allows your kid to smoke cigarettes. Do you allow it simply not to cause strife with your wife? In this case, the truth should supersede the poor judgment on your wife's part. Stand for the truth and tell your kid no. Explain to your wife why. Not a great example, but you should get the idea of what I mean. In effect, the passage means that truth is the highest priority. If truth is not, then you will drag your wife and your family down with you. Do you want to drag them down merely because you played the part of a pushover when it came to standing in the truth?

Look at all the parents today that are pushovers with their children. What results? Not being able to tell your kids no is directly related to the passage where Jesus tells us to give preference to Him (truth) over spouses, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers. They are not the source of truth, only God is. By giving preference to God and honouring Him above all else naturally results in strong bonds between you and your family. If the bond breaks as a result from standing in the truth, you have done yourself a great service—separating the wheat from the chaff, the mice from the men.

A man who cannot stand for the truth, who fails his children as a parent, who fails to protect his wife against evil, is disgraceful. Just leadership does not come from man alone but also by the grace of God.

And remember one of the main assaults on Christianity is because of its strong family ties and values, so don't you see a little contradiction here too , Tim?
Jews would love a Christianity where family allegiance is tossed aside and families get divided.

Perhaps, in those Biblical passages, you need to replace God (Jesus) with the word truth. Re-read it in that context and see if it doesn't make more sense. I think maybe your misunderstanding is a result of separating God from truth and morality. God doesn't merely enforce truth, His very being is Truth itself.

[Yo Mama]

according to charles its not jesus but joshua.

Yes, 'Jesus' is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name 'Yeshua'.  'Yeshua' means "Yahweh saves" or "Yahweh is salvation'.  The whole thing is just a silly pun in Hebrew.  'Yeshua'(Jesus) was the savior, and his name just so happens to mean "Yahweh saves".  Oy vey.

Can it be any more obvious that the Jesus story is a literary myth?

 :lolno:

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

'Jesus' is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name 'Yeshua'.

According to which Biblical scholar??

[pas]

Timothy_Fitzpatrick wrote :

Again, you have misunderstood the passage.

Yeah, i know, but why?
Is it because the way it's been put, or is Y.M. right and it's impossible for me to understand certain things because i'm only half White? (cheap shot, i know )

In effect, the passage means that truth is the highest priority.

Why doesn't it simply state that?I agree with that!(basicly, it depends on the context though)
It seems that it's rare to make the right conlusions from the text.All of the Christians i know hold only a priority in THEIR truth.Wars, holohoax, 911, usury ; things like this are unimportant to them.They explain it away as "Gods plan", screw the the facts.

If the bond breaks as a result from standing in the truth, you have done yourself a great service—separating the wheat from the chaff, the mice from the men.

That might be, but i'm starting to be the black sheep of the family over this.
Who's to blame here? the only the lonely atheist, or the MacDonald-lovin' Christians.(and i don't mean Kevin MacDonald )

Bottom line :I like your interpretation, but it's still leaves the fact that Christians themselves are very divided and i don't see any other reason other than that the text isn't perfect.And it should be because of its supposed importance.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Timothy_Fitzpatrick wrote :

In effect, the passage means that truth is the highest priority.

Why doesn't it simply state that?I agree with that!(basicly, it depends on the context though)
It seems that it's rare to make the right conlusions from the text.

Jesus spoke in parables much of the time in order to give His listeners a deeper understanding of what He was teaching. By getting someone to think something through in their own mind, helps them understand it better and also helps them remember it better as opposed to someone just telling you something flat out. Consider that certain methods of modern education also employ similar methods.

Another reason why Jesus rarely spoke plainly was to hide the truth from the "wise." He knew that powerful men would attempt to exploit the Bible and thus so spiced things up and left them somewhat open ended at times. Above all, parabolic speaking in the Bible is meant to encourage people to seek the Holy Spirit for understanding rather than mere words on paper. The Bible calls this the law "written on your heart."

That might be, but i'm starting to be the black sheep of the family over this.
Who's to blame here? the only the lonely atheist, or the MacDonald-lovin' Christians.(and i don't mean Kevin MacDonald )

Bottom line :I like your interpretation, but it's still leaves the fact that Christians themselves are very divided and i don't see any other reason other than that the text isn't perfect.And it should be because of its supposed importance.

Christianity is largely divide primarily due to external forces at work the world—largely the result of Jewish-Masonic undermining—as well as the fact that Christianity is inter-racial. Judaism, in contrast, is ethno-centric, and finds an easier time uniting its members. Christianity never nor ever will be a group evolutionary strategy. Only God will be able to preserve Christianity. This also begs the question: Have Jews survived for thousands of years merely due to their ethnocentrism and evolutionary strategies, or has an external power, like God, preserved them for some reason?

All of the Christians i know hold only a priority in THEIR truth.Wars, holohoax, 911, usury ; things like this are unimportant to them.They explain it away as "Gods plan", screw the the facts.

This sounds like something a Calvinist or Christian Zionist would say. They obviously don't believe in Freewill. God cannot partake in evil. If things like the Holohoax and 9/11 were part of God's plan, then he was using evil as an instrument of His will—this contradicts all traditional and Orthodox teaching of God and his nature, especially the precious doctrine of freewill.

[Yo Mama]

God cannot partake in evil.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I Yahweh do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

God cannot partake in evil.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I Yahweh do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7

God's void "creates" darkness—evil, just as when you withdraw a lamp from a dark room, the absence of it "creates" darkness. Nothing contradictory here.

[Yo Mama]

I make peace, and create evil: I Yahweh do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7