Charles Giuliani: A Nihilist Saboteur of the Truth Movement?

[pas]

Blue ocean wrote:

pas wrote:

    Were the statements that I made concerning Hitler factual or dogmatic?And I do like an answer to this question because I don't like and agree with the implications you make.



The statements you made are based upon cherry picked facts that stem from when your eyes where opened to the jew propaganda about hitler

I don't agree that i'm ''cherry picking'' here because I take all information in consideration it just seems clear to me that all of the most important points are in favor of the man.

ever since I think you swung to the other extreme of idolising hitler.

I idolize actions rather than people but, like I said, it seems he made a lot of great actions.Unless you have more convincing evidence on the contrary, ofcourse?

My view of hitler stems from a position of being jew wise and keeping in mind the managed opposition that hitler was, for all the zionist goals were fulffiled, without hitler no state of israel etc etc.

If you refuse to look at all the evidence you might come to that conclusion, I also held similar views but I don't stop searching since i'm a very curious fellow.
The ''managed opposition'' is debunked in my opinion and you don't bring arguements to the table nor do you debunk the arguements i've brought up, all you do is beat around the bush and make jokes.

Your sentence about having evidence that the Times articles can contain lies or not is very very funny................ Its the TIMES!!!!

If your done laughing please provide some evidence that the lodges weren't closed in Germany.Probabely the only reason they published a little truth was to get some sympathy from the dumb Goyim.

Jew propaganda in the netherlands and all over the world deny the rotchilds or jewish bankers have any power whatsoever, hence my distrust of articles that propone heavy blows being dealt to such bankers......................

The points was whether the Rothschilds were dealt heavy blows by the Nazi's.I think yes.Your dancing around the point.

Off course I listened to the whole thing, I was just giving a pre update about the first 15 minutes.

Thanks for not debunking.

Reagarding nazis, isn´t weird that Geert wilders PVV basically runs the same type of campaign as the NSDAP?

You're joking again, right?
Virtually nothing of any importance the two have in common.

and that we know that he gets his funding from jews, yet people call him fascist and a nazi etc. I think wilders is a modified repeat of pre WWII jew manipulations.

The very obvious fact that Geertje is jew-agent born and raised is not the point.There is no clear link to national socialism and people here in Holland call anyone a ''fascist'' or ''nazi''
that's just jew-propaganda doing its work.
I'm saying that proof of your implication is lacking.

I am willing to entertain all kinds of facts, and so far I think that something smells about the whole hitler thing. (off course the mainstream jew tv view about hitler is a farce too)

I understand you but please stay open minden and look into this material some more.I recommend highly the Deanna Spingola interviews with Veronica Clark (sorry don't have link, google it).And if you're from near me, I would urge you even more to look into this part of history because the Dutch population is heavily brain trained in this subject.Which is not our fault but it is if we willingly avoid certain information.

[blueocean]

Pas wrote:

Blueocean wrote:    Reagarding nazis, isn´t weird that Geert wilders PVV basically runs the same type of campaign as the NSDAP?

You're joking again, right?
Virtually nothing of any importance the two have in common.

Wilders runs on a so called right wing platform, that is supposed to be nationalistic, yet also having many socialist party points, and he is perceived as being fascist or a nazi. Thats also how the NSDAP is taught to be in school: a right wing nationalistic party with many socialist tendencies. Tuigdorpen = concentratiekampen  etc etc.  So if can be proven 100% that hitler was financed by the new york bankers than it would be a match.  We all know that jews like to put up gentile figure heads to forward their plans and to later put the blame on, just look at bush and obama etc.   Wilders is also such a guy and Hitler could also have been such a guy. How can a country that was completely in ruins, and bread costs 1 million mark in 5 years be the so called strongest nation in the world with the biggest army ready to conquer the world???


seems like a faire tale................... paid for by lots of jewish money.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

And just where do Charles Giuliani, ZionCrimeFactory, et al, get their half-baked Christian conspiracy theories?

From none other than Marxist Theosophists like Acharya S.



Acharya S, real name: Dorothy M. Murdock, is attractive enough to make her lies believable to dupes. She is an Illuminati front—the pretty face—to sell you bullshit.

However, it is abundantly clear why scholars have ignored and turned their noses up at her views. The reason for the lack any positive acknowledgment from scholars is:

a. Almost all of her sources are secondary and are themselves wrong on many occasions.b. A large number of her sources are not scholars.c. She makes wild claims without supporting them.
d. Her claim that astrology permeates the Bible such as that the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 disciples represent the 12 signs of the zodiac is so erroneous that a Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago who specializes in ancient practices in astronomy referred to her as "nutty."

e. Her claim that Krishna represents a dying and rising god prior to Christianity is so mistaken that the Professor of Hindu Studies at Rutgers said that this claim is "absolute and complete nonsense," that "she doesn't know what she's talking about," and that she should take a religion 101 course before making these kind of claims.

f. Her claim that many similarities exist between Buddha and Jesus elicited a similar response from the Chair of the Department of Religion at Rutgers who specializes in Buddhism: "[The woman you speak of] is totally ignorant of Buddhism. It is very dangerous to spread misinformation like this. . . . Please ask [her] to take a basic course in world religion or Buddhism before uttering another word about things she does not know."

g. Indeed, even an atheist scholar, Bob Price called her book "sophomoric." He also commented that her book is "a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney."

One thing you have to grant Ms. Murdock; she is consistent.(125) If you enjoy extreme and unsubstantiated views with an attitude, you will like The Christ Conspiracy. If you appreciate anything you can get your hands on that insults Christianity, irrespective of the quality of the arguments and the data, you will relishThe Christ Conspiracy. But in terms of this book being a responsible account of the origin of Christianity, it is unsalvageable.

http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answer ... -pt-1.html

Look at Acharya's references.  Many of them are old Theosophists from Blavatsky's circle. (I have confirmed that Acharya S quotes Blavatsky in her works, sometimes without credit.)  I have to credit her, she does manage to find obscure references and historical arguments that faded away.  However, she also tends to ignore a lot of new scholarship in the area.  A few thoughts of mine:

1.)  Her repeated citations from 100 year old books is a common tactic used by people who do not write well.  If a book is over so many years, no permission is necessary to use it, the book can be quoted word for word as long as the original author is credited.(peter joseph does the same thing, few of his sources are not available on the web for free, and with few exceptions quote sources of antiquity)

2.)  She does embrace many of the stranger theories that float about.  She does not agree with Zacharia Sitchin, but holds many opinions that float in the same arena as him.  She reminds me greatly of David Icke.

3.)  She is lacking on credentials.  Her only credential is an undergrad in mythology.  She doesn't say what level that undergrad is either, two year or four years?

4.)  She uses some very spurious sources.  Particularly, her repeated use of Barbara Walker in her online rants.  Walker is a femi-nazi pagan that believes everything wrong in the world can be traced to a white man.  Her scholarship is completely lacking.  Even people doing Amazon reviews that look up her work find she deliberately falsifies information from her sources.  Outside from Walker, most of her sources are going to be old theosophists.

5.)  Her tactics resemble Freke & Gandy.  They push against Christianity as we know it to substitute it for their gnostic blend of Christianity.  She pushes it for a pre-Christian mother-worshipping religion.  Skeptics will say, "Why should we overthrow the Pope and then institute the Dhali Lama?"  Just note that there is an ideological agenda.

6.)  Check Richard Carrier's arguments along these lines:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... raves.html

He's a historian who has written and researched extensively on this time period.  Follow the links at the bottom and you'll get into some more meaty discussions about these types of arguments and the flaws inherent to them.

7.)  Having said all that, she isn't that bad for information on Christianity.  Just be skeptical about what she says, look for where she gets information from, and compare her work with Dr. Robert Price, Earl Doherty, or G.A. Wells.  I mention these three because they do not have any known ideological bias, (except that Price is a H.P. Lovecraft fan).

8.)  Which reminds me of one other thing.  She seems very uncritical of her sources.  In a debate with a Christian on her references, she keeps saying, "Well, so and so said that, so it's not me."  For example, that there are 150,000 textual variations on the New Testament.  When challenged on it by modern standards there isn't nearly that many, she just repeats it.  "So and so said it, it's not me."

Okay.  The whole point of being an author and supposedly an expert on a field is to present the wheat from the chaff.  If you're just lumping sources together without discrimination, then you're back to the problem that Richard Carrier talked about, the work becomes useless as a reference, since you have to repeat all the research of the person's book in order to find out what is right and what is wrong.

Source: http://zeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com ... acharya-s/

[phishna]

my thread:  Charlie Giuliani is one the few who has it nailed was moved to:

    Board index ‹ Info Underground Sanctum ‹ Personal Thoughts

viewtopic.php?f=34&t=15966&start=45

it was started to counter the christian bs of this thread

[phishna]

And just where do Charles Giuliani, ZionCrimeFactory, et al, get their half-baked Christian conspiracy theories?

From none other than Marxist Theosophists like Acharya S.



Acharya S, real name: Dorothy M. Murdock, is attractive enough to make her lies believable to dupes. She is an Illuminati front—the pretty face—to sell you bullshit.

Thousands of scholars have carefully pieced together the origins of the Bible in peer reviewed journals.  The mythological origins of your faith are taught to theologians at thousands of universities around the world.  Acharya S or D. M. Murdoch is one of these scholars, she is not a Marxist, or Theosophist, or an illuminati front person.  She has a forum and discusses your myth, check it out.  Comparative mythology is not a "half baked" collection of theories, but your Christian indoctrinated brain is "fully baked", meaning that you are possessed by the memes, you are fully indoctrinated, a tool of those who invented your religion.   You blindly attack and attack because that is what you are trained to do.  Are you even conscious of what you are doing?  Giuliani is one of the few who's mind has transcended the spell, his singular purpose is to help you overcome the spell, yet you attack him because, well, you've been taught to do this.

Your faith is in reality a religious memeplex, a collection of related yet unproven memes.  You and no other person has one iota of proof that there is a god, or if Jesus was real, or if there is an afterlife, or that afterlife is as described by the Bible.  Do you have proof of hell?  How about the existence of Jehovah?  How about the question of the origin of the Universe?  Do you have anything outside of the Bible to validate your faith?  What theists do is use their book to authenticate their book, this is the error of circular reasoning:



You have no proof, none whatsoever, yet you defend your faith as if it is fact.  Christianity is not fact, it is myth, it is myth because there is no rational or factual basis for the memes that make up the body of the faith.  It is called faith because there is no basis for it in reality, the physical world around us.  That is why you have to believe, faith is a state of mind based on belief without proof.

You viciously attack Giuliani because you feel threatened.  If you had an open mind then you might see that he is acting in great love and trying to help you free from your bondage to the Jew.   I've listened to dozens of his radio shows on Oracle Broadcasting and he is doing a superior job pointing out the contradictions and errors of the so called holy book.  

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

phishna, your overly large font in your last post indicates to me that you are either a) suffering from an inferiority complex, b) you know your bullshit isn't believable, or c) both.

[skye_solo]

Hello phishna,

I realize I'm coming in here out of nowhere but the reason Christianity seems to have problems is because it was coopted early on by people who didn't believe as the early followers of Christ. Much of what's in the Bible now is not part of what was originally revealed to the Abrahamic prophets. That is the fault of men who had no right to change things, but did anyway. The Torah strictly forbids astrology and magic. So what Acharya S. is talking about is false beliefs pinned onto Christianity that have no place in the religion. There is no solar Christ. There is only one God, one Creator who made everything.

[phishna]

Hello phishna,
 There is no solar Christ. There is only one God, one Creator who made everything.

Prove that there is only one god, most cultures believed in many.  Prove that one entity created the Universe, Darwin showed us that creation is ongoing and by natural process.  Prove the existence that any god at anytime in history was supernatural and not fiction or a tribal leader or king.  The evidence that "christ" is the anthropomorphized solar deity is overwhelming, any truthful mind that studies this will conclude this in short order, and it doesn't mean that christ and jesus are the same thing, only that NT writers assigned christ characteristics to jesus as they defied him.

At the end of Christian prayers the mantra "amen, amen" is used.  Ever wonder why?  Is Amen the shortened version of Amenhotep?  Wasn't Amenhotep the first ruler to accept monotheism?  Were not the Egyptians heavy into the solar deity? What does "jesus the christ" mean?

Solarfied Jesus, Jesus is the "sun" of god.

[blueocean]

Phishna's defense of Dorothy (yellow brick road) M. Murdock    MAKE THAT MORDECHAI    , is ridiculous.  What a shill!  

[Shiksa Rage]

blueocean, I agree. I'm having an exchange with a Black Poper who sites santos batucci (or whatever, he's just some ozzie new age guru), who hates Christ, but he is such a dumbass, that although he calls himself a Christian, he will ally himself with anyone who is anti-Catholic.

[Shiksa Rage]

santucci (or whatever) is the one who hates Christ, the Black Poper is the one who will listen to him because he is anti-Catholic, even though he is also anti-Christian in general. (if you get what I mean).

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Solarfied Jesus, Jesus is the "sun" of god.

Nice try, Shlomo, but that name game only works in English.

[phishna]

jesus the christ is a solar deity, if you deny that then what's the point?

make sure you end your "christian" prayers with amen, amen, lol (short for amenhotep the monotheistic pharoah)

for those of with open minds:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

A Refutation of Acharya S' defence of Zeitgeist

Introduction

Most probably, if you are familiar with the "Christ-Myth" hypothesis then you probably have heard of anti-Christian author Acharya S (whose real name is Dorthy M. Murdock.) She was one of the main sources for the first part of Zeitgeist, the Movie as can be seen by the sources in the film's transcript. She is the author of many books entitles The Christ Conspiracy and Sons of God. Much of her arguments can be accessed on her website Truth Be Known.

In a YouTube Video she takes it upon herself to "respond" to the debunking of Zeitgeist.  She then says that despite claims that Zeitgeist, Part one has been debunked "the facts continue to to demonstrate otherwise." She then complains that many of the refutations of the film have been directed largely at her. I cannot speak for all the other debunkers of Zeitgeist, but my fourteen part refutation of Zeitgeist doesn't mention her even once. Also, my personal investigation of the facts has lead me to the conclusion that Zeitgeist is rooted in false claims.

Next Ms. Murdock makes the claim that the "detractors" whether theist or atheist didn't study her work. — This claim is false. — R. G. Price, an Atheist who read her book Suns of God is very critical of her works calling it "bogus." (See "Critical Reviewof Acharya S' The Suns of God"). Also, Christian Apologist Mike Licona, who read her other book entitled The Christ Conspiracy effectively shows many flaws in her works. (Click here and here)

Ms. Murdock then makes the claim that her claims presented in Zeitgeist are not available to us because of the dangers in the past of losing their lives. She also claims that there is "deliberate censorship" of the facts by many encyclopedias. This is a quite an excuse she uses to inoculate herself against any independent research that refutes her. She is basically saying "Any investigation you do will not matter because I know more than you. So uncrittically take my word for it." — If what she says were true, then at the very least there shouldn't be any information in the sources that contradict her. But my investigation of Zeitgeist shows there are tons of contradictory evidences so her point is completely false.

To help make her point, she shows pictures of the inquisition while claiming that is why a lot of evidence has been silenced. The problem is that even if the inquisition silenced information about Pagan European gods, in her books she includes Oriental gods such as Krishna and Buddha on her list of Christ-like gods. — The truth is the inquisition didn't reach all the way to India, China and Japan so according to her logic there should be an abundant amount of information which backs her up in this case, but there isn't any.

Attis and Jesus

She then goes into certain paralels between Pagan gods and Jesus. As an example she mentions the god Attis. — To prove her point of a parallel she cites Professor A.T. Fear who contributed a chapter to the book entitled Attis and Related Cults. She claims that in the chapter entitled "Cybele and Christ" Professor Fear claims that Attis was killed and resurrected after three days during a celebration that depicts his resurrection out of a tomb.

As far as her claim claim goes, it is true (page 39) however the problem here is that Professor A.T. Fear, in the long run, does not support what Ms. Murdock is claiming. The ceremony that Dr. Fear describes is from a major festival of the metroac cult. But later he points out that this very cult had gone through changes which could have been "a deliberate attempt to rival Christianity" to ensure the cult's survival in the market. (Page 44)

As a matter of fact, about the resurrection of Attis he says,

Attis too with his strong emphasis on resurrection seems to be a late-comer to the cult, the stress on the Halaria as celebrating the resurrection of Attis also appears to increase at the beginning of the Fourth century AD. : the same time as in the taurobolium towards the rite of personal redemption.

While these changes could simply be a mutation of religion over time, and it is important to remember that here we are discussing a period of centuries not merely years, they do seem to have been provoked by a need to respond to the challenge of Christianity. (Attis and Related Cults, pages 41, 42)

Dr. Fear does question whether the process of changing the Attis cult was conscious, but he never even implies that Jesus was influenced by Attis. He says that the Attis cult either mutated or that it responded to Christianity. — This completely contradicts what Ms. Murdock claims that he wrote. She misrepresented his views. Dr. Fear is implying that Christianity may have influenced Attis, not the other way around, if indeed one influenced the other. — Why didn't she mention this? Obviously because it would have demolished her point.

The Day of Halaria, the Day of Joy of the festival (on March 25th) mentioned by Ms. Murdock in relationship to Attis' "resurrection" was actually a post-Christian addition which was added to the festival either during the reign of Emperor Antoninus Pius or even later. This means the earliest the  "resurrection" day was added is the year 138 AD.  Also, the "three days of mourning" of Attis' death were added by the Emperor Claudius between who reigned between 41 and 54 AD. (Text link) All of these days of the festival being post-Christian, this fact refutes Ms. Murdock's insinuation that the festival of Attis' "resurrection" influenced Christianity.

Krishna born of a virgin?

Next, she mentions Krishna and repeats the claim that his mother, Devaki, was a virgin. She defends the claim saying that it is only not widely known and on that ground alone is considered to therefore be wrong. She then quotes Philo of Alexandria (a Jewish historian) to prove her point.  Assuming that the reference attributed does exist (I cannot find it) I still do not buy into the idea that we should depend on him so heavily on a subject that, chances are, he would not have known so mush about.

Unlike Ms. Murdock's claims, the idea of Devaki's virginity at Krishna's birth is not assumed false because it is mostly unknown. I call the claim false because it contradicts basic Hindu tradition! Krishna was the youngest of a total of eight children that his mother had. (click here) So the fact is that there is no chance his mother was a virgin.

Is December 25th relevant?

Ms. Murdock goes on to mention that Christian apologists (like me) dismiss December 25th as being irrelevant to Christianity. But then she argues,

However, since the fourth century when this winter solstice celebration was designated as Christ's birthday hundreds of millions of people have been taught that December 25th is the date of Christ's birth. And hundreds of millions continue to celebrate that date every year. Indeed, Christian preachers today still insist that Jesus Christ is "the reason for the season."  Furthermore, in 2007, the United States House of Representatives passed house resolution 847 officially declaring December 25thto be the Birthday of Jesus Christ. Raising up this issue about the birthday of the Sun (S-U-N) is therefore entirely legitimate.

This argument is one that no intellectually honest person would ever give. Ms. Murdock apparently thinks that because Christians started to celebrate Christmas on December 25th in the 4th century AD and because the U.S. Congress officially declared it in 2007 that this makes the date relevant to the origins of Christianity. — The problem with her logic is obvious: If the practices indeed date so long after Christ, then they are irrelevant to Christ and Christianity, period!

The date of December 25thas Christ's birthday is also completely contradictory of the Biblical account of Jesus' birth. Luke 2: 8 says that during the night of Jesus' birth shepherds were out in the fields. This would not be so if Jesus were born in the winter. This is proof beyond the shaddow of a doubt that the date hase no relevancy and later practices  which Ms. Murdock appeals to cannot change this fact.

After this she says that when Christians say that this date is not Christ's birthday that we prove her point that Jesus is not the reason for the season. — This shows that Murdock has no understanding of why Christians celebrate Christmas at all. It's not the date that's important, but the event.

The Three Kings

Ms. Murdock brings up the subject of the "three kings" in the Gospel of Matthew. In arguing against claims that they are not numbered as three she points out the gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. She argues that since there are three kinds of gifts that therefore there must be "three kings."

Just because there were three kinds of gifts, that doesn't necessarily mean that there were only three gifts and therefore only three magi. — There could have been five magi which gave the same three gifts. Or there could have been six. There are many ways that this can work out. Three so therefore three is just an irrelevant oversimplification.

She then tries to connect the three  stars in the belt of Orion with the "three" wise men. She says that "Christian tradition" calls the three stars "the magi." — Notice she says that it is "Christian tradition." In other words, later tradition which has no bearing on the origins of Christianity.

The truth is they are not called "kings" in Matthew, but rather "wise men" or "magi." However, she misleadingly uses all three terms interchangeably to insinuate her point even though they cannot be used as such. (For a good discussion, click here)

Conclusion

Basically, her defence of Zeitgeist is just a rehashing of refuted claims and, in many ways, is a defence of herself (which I do not see the point in answering.) Even though she claims that the facts have not refuted Zeitgeist, there is no reason to accept her claim. The fact is that most of the claimed parallels between Jesus and other gods are superficial or false.

Her claims that many of her critics have not studies her writtings are also wrong, as earlier I have linked crituiques of skeptics of her books, both a theist and and atheist.

Her further claims that the information that backs her up is hidden and censured seems like an attempt to neutralize any research by both real experts and laymen which falsifies her far-fetched claims. When I hear her say that, what I really hear is "Don't ask questions or worry about the facts. Just believe me." And unfortunately, that's what her gullible disciples do.

http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/20 ... zeitgeist/

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

duplicate post

[Michael K.]

It appears to me that this Murdoch (Rupert Murdock is a Jew, btw) woman is essentially saying that all religion in the world is syncretic.  While I would argue that Holy revelatory religion is at variance with astro-theology and the two cannot be reconciled.  However, I am led to speculate that Maitreya's message of world religious unity is probably just as syncretic as her's, and I wonder if the emergence of the "World Teacher" would be heralded by Archaya as the coming of some great blessing.



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14383c.htm

Syncretism

From sygkretizein (not from sygkerannynai.)

An explanation is given by Plutarch in a small work on brotherly love ("Opera Moralia", ed. Reiske, VII, 910). He there tells how the Cretans were often engaged in quarrels among themselves, but became immediately reconciled when an external enemy approached. "And that is their so-called Syncretism." In the sixteenth century the term became known through the "Adagia" of Erasmus, and came into use to designate the coherence of dissenters in spite of their difference of opinions, especially with reference to theological divisions. Later, when the term came to be referred to sygkerannynai, it was inaccurately employed to designate the mixture of dissimilar or incompatible things or ideas. This inexact use continues to some extent even today.

(1) Syncretism is sometimes used to designate the fusion of pagan religions. In the East the intermixture of the civilizations of different nations began at a very early period. When the East was hellenized under Alexander the Great and the Diadochi in the fourth century B.C., the Grecian and Oriental civilizations were brought into contact, and a compromise to a large extent effected. The foreign deities were identified with the native (e.g. Serapis = Zeus, Dionysus) and a fusion of the cults succeeded. After the Romans had conquered the Greeks, the victors, as is known, succumbed to the culture of the vanquished, and the ancient Roman religion became completely hellenized. Later the Romans gradually received all the religions of the peoples whom they subdued, so that Rome became the "temple of the whole world". Syncretism reached its culmination in the third century A.D. under the emperors Caracalla, Heliogabalus, and Alexander Severus (211-35). The countless cults of the Roman Empire were regarded as unessential forms of the same thing—a view which doubtless strengthened the tendency towards Monotheism. Heliogabalus even sought to combine Christianity and Judaism with his religion, the cult of the sun-god. Julia Mamæa, the mother of Alexander Severus, attended in Alexandria the lectures of Origen, and Alexander placed in his lararium the images of Abraham and Christ.

(2) A modern tendency in the history of religions sees in the Biblical revealed religion a product of syncretism, the fusion of various religious forms and views. As regards the Old Testament, the Chanaanite myth, the Egyptian, Old Babylonian, and Persian religions are regarded as the sources of Israelitic religion, the latter itself having developed from Fetichism and Animism into Henotheism and Monotheism. It is sought to explain the origin of Christianity from the continuation and development of Jewish ideas and the influx of Brahmanistic, Buddhist, Græco-Roman, and Egyptian religious notions, and from the Stoic and Philonic philosophy; it is held to have received its development and explanation especially. from the neo-Platonic philosophy. That Judaism and Christianity agree with other religions in many of their external forms and ideas, is true ; many religious ideas are common to all mankind. The points of agreement between the Babylonian religions and the Jewish. faith, which provoked a lively discussion some years ago after the appearance of Friedrich Delitzsch's "Babel und Bibel", maybe explained in so far as they exist (e.g.) as due to an original revelation, of which traces, albeit tainted with Polytheism, appear among the Babylonians. In many cases the agreement can be shown to be merely in form, not in content; in others it is doubtful which religion contained the original and which borrowed. As to the special doctrines of the Bible search has been vainly made for sources from which they might have been derived. Catholic theology holds firmly to revelation and to the foundation of Christianity by Jesus of Nazareth...



(4) Concerning Syncretism in the doctrine of grace, see CONTROVERSIES ON GRACE.

[LordLindsey]

God, I am SO SICK of this.  14 fucking pages of nothing but people who are "SUPPOSED" to be wise to the tricks and the traps of these creatues falling-for their divide-and-conquer strategies.

Get with the program people and set-aside your fucking petty differences and WORK TOGETHER on projects that BENEFIT us and the REAL truth "movement" because, frankly, I do not see a God damned thing moving for us, regardless of how much effort a few of us DO make in-trying to make some kind of movement with the information at-hand.

I am just SICK of it.

LINDSEY

NB:  If we do not pull-together NOW and make a REAL effort at out-reach, we should just fucking throw-in-the-towel now and save ourselves the trouble of the FEW--SO VERY FEW--doing all that we can to reach others with the truth as it is.  If you are not doing that, or if you are just PASSIVELY informing yourself, then you are nothing but part of the problem and doing NOTHING toward a solution for the catastrophe that has become of our world.  ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Zeitgeist Challenge responds to Acharya S

[googlevid:22frun11]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8296054934404709290[/googlevid:22frun11]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4404709290

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Our pal ZCF is now using Soviet language. The correct tense wasn't even used.

[Whaler]

Our pal ZCF is now using Soviet language. The correct tense wasn't even used.



 :lol:

Sorta nit picky eh Tim?

[Christopher Marlowe]

God, I am SO SICK of this.  14 fucking pages of nothing but people who are "SUPPOSED" to be wise to the tricks and the traps of these creatues falling-for their divide-and-conquer strategies.[/quote]
Do you mean, for example, blaming Christians for the actions of the Jews?  Like Giuliani?

Get with the program people and set-aside your fucking petty differences and WORK TOGETHER on projects that BENEFIT us and the REAL truth "movement" because, frankly, I do not see a [damned] thing moving for us, regardless of how much effort a few of us DO make in-trying to make some kind of movement with the information at-hand.

I wonder how you would feel if Giuliani was talking about your mother or spreading lies about your brother.  Would you think that was petty?  And if Giuliani was accusing someone in your family of lies, wouldn't you wonder why he was making up lies instead of talking about the REAL truth movement?

I am just SICK of it.

LINDSEY

NB:  If we do not pull-together NOW and make a REAL effort at out-reach, we should just fucking throw-in-the-towel now and save ourselves the trouble of the FEW--SO VERY FEW--doing all that we can to reach others with the truth as it is.  If you are not doing that, or if you are just PASSIVELY informing yourself, then you are nothing but part of the problem and doing NOTHING toward a solution for the catastrophe that has become of our world.  ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

It is my sincere belief that the very person that Giuliani is lying about: Jesus Christ, is the only answer to the world's problems. Our problems will not be solved by youtube videos, or voting for Ron Paul, or buying guns and ammo, or moving to the desert and smoking weed.  (Although if it wasn't for Jesus, I would probably be opting for that last option.   ) Jesus is THE answer.  So it makes me wonder why Giuliani is blaspheming the Lord Jesus instead of just talking about the Jewish problem.

[Michael K.]

http://whatdoyoubelieve.blog.fc2.com/bl ... y-404.html

THE ASHKENAZIM FROM NAZARETH

I heard some German idiot, who calls himself Kairos, say that Jesus "was" German, because he is from NAZareth, and that the "naz" in Nazareth has same meaning as the "naz" in AshkeNAZi, which means "German".

That is Kike propaganda. Ashkenazi does not mean "German". And the etymology of Nazareth is unknown; but it is perhaps a corruption of Gennesaret, meaning "Sea of Galilee." Ashkenaz was Noah's grandson, and was also used by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 51:27) as the name of a people -- possibly the Scythians (Greek "Skythoi"; Akkadian "Ishkuzai").

The German idiot also said that "goyim" means "cattle". More nonsense. Goyim means "nations".

The idiot said he respects Christianity, but that it's evil and all Jew, and just Jew lies about Jesus. He says that Jesus was not Messiah, because "messiah" (Christ) means Anti-Christ.

He cites Varg Vikernes as his moral authority and guru. Vikernes is a Norwegian murderer, who was also convicted of burning down four ancient churches. Vikernes goes by the name Burzum, which means "darkness" (from the inscription written on the eponymous ring of The Lord of the Ring).

Vikernes:

 

"Christianity was created by some decadent and degenerated Romans as a tool of oppression, in the late Roman era, and it should be treated accordingly. It is like handcuffs to the mind and spirit and is nothing but destructive to mankind. In fact, I don't really see Christianity as a religion. It is more like a spiritual plague, a mass psychosis, and it should first and foremost be treated as a problem to be solved by the medical science. Christianity is a diagnosis. It's like Islam and the other Asian religions, a HIV/AIDS of the spirit and mind."

He also said that German is full of crypto-Jews, so who knows who is what...?

He says that "mixing races" is the worst sin possible, and that the highest good is to keep the races from mixing, especially mixing with Jews, who are evil and "like fleas". He says that all Jews should be forced to go and live in Palestine.

He's a great friend if Tanstaafl, a guy who mated with a Jew and has Jew children. Tanstaafl says his goal is to create a White, Jew-free homeland. Presumably, his wife and children would have to just stand at the border and wave at him. Tanstaafl's friend is Greg Johnson, who says that people like Tanstaafl's wife and children should have put to death in the womb.

What a queer crowd...

[youtube:26lgn5op]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB-H59OjA0U[/youtube]26lgn5op]

Kairos' blog: http://kairostheos.blogspot.ca

He also writes at this kabbalisticly-themed blog:http://schwertasblog.wordpress.com

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

"Goyim" is a pejorative. That part is true. It can and does mean cattle.

[phishna]

This thread proves that Christians will attack a truth teller in order to protect their faith.  Truth is a secondary consideration to a religious memeplex that is really a power structure.  And as I say often, no matter how you slice or dice it a Christianity is a derivative memeplex of Judaism and there is no separating the two.   Take Judaism out of Christianity and what is left?  If you take away the angry vengeful father god of the Old Testament then why would anyone need salvation of the son in the New Testament?  

Just imagine that there is no angry Jew god, and no hell afterlife, and no sin and no punishment.  Imagine a world without Jew wars, imagine a world where Judaism is banned, imagine a world where no human is abused with Bible violence.  If you actually want a peaceful world then Christianity has to go, Christianity is Judaism for gentiles.

If you want some shill suspects, how about the Christians that attack Charles Giuliani?

[Christopher Marlowe]

This thread proves that Christians will attack a truth teller in order to protect their faith.  Truth is a secondary consideration to a religious memeplex that is really a power structure.  And as I say often, no matter how you slice or dice it a Christianity is a derivative memeplex of Judaism and there is no separating the two.

I'm still waiting for your comments concerning the homily by St. John Chrysostom. If you bothered to read any of that, you would see that your comments are nonsense.

Take Judaism out of Christianity and what is left?  If you take away the angry vengeful father god of the Old Testament then why would anyone need salvation of the son in the New Testament?

You don't understand what you are talking about. Everyone wants Justice in the world, and yet some would object when they are presented with a God that is Holy and Just. Some people do not understand that it is their own sin that separates them from God.  

Judaism has nothing to do with Christianity.  It is a made up religion that came after Jesus. The religion of the Old Testament is no longer in existence.  It is a fallacy to suggest that one can "take Judaism out of Christianity" when it doesn't exist there.

Just imagine that there is no angry Jew god, and no hell afterlife, and no sin and no punishment.  Imagine a world without Jew wars, imagine a world where Judaism is banned, imagine a world where no human is abused with Bible violence.  If you actually want a peaceful world then Christianity has to go, Christianity is Judaism for gentiles.

If you want some shill suspects, how about the Christians that attack Charles Giuliani?

Phishna is reduced to repeating his own nonsense because he cannot deal with the factual input of others.  He has to IMAGINE things because he cannot deal with REALITY.  

The shills deflect attention away from the Jewish problem and point their finger at Christians.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

This thread proves that Christians will attack a truth teller in order to protect their faith.  Truth is a secondary consideration to a religious memeplex that is really a power structure.  And as I say often, no matter how you slice or dice it a Christianity is a derivative memeplex of Judaism and there is no separating the two.   Take Judaism out of Christianity and what is left?  If you take away the angry vengeful father god of the Old Testament then why would anyone need salvation of the son in the New Testament?  

Just imagine that there is no angry Jew god, and no hell afterlife, and no sin and no punishment.  Imagine a world without Jew wars, imagine a world where Judaism is banned, imagine a world where no human is abused with Bible violence.  If you actually want a peaceful world then Christianity has to go, Christianity is Judaism for gentiles.

If you want some shill suspects, how about the Christians that attack Charles Giuliani?

Alex Jones tells some truth, too. Does that mean we should defend him or automatically assume 100 per cent of what he says is true? The truth is, Giuliani is a bigger shill than Jones. Jones doesn't attack religion. He just lies through omission and about the identity of the Illuminati. In contrast, Giuliani outright lies about religion, be it Islam or Christianity. Jones often leads people to the Jewish question, whether intended or not. A lot of us here started our journey through Jones. In contrast, Giuliani deconstructs all reason for being and Western norms and replaces it with hopelessness and nothingness. And now it appears that Giuliani is grooming people for theosophy (Satanism), despite him having you believe Satan doesn't exist. Giuliani comes from the same cookie cutter as Peter Joseph and Jordan Maxwell, just a different spin.

The shills deflect attention away from the Jewish problem and point their finger at Christians.

Indeed! It's what the Bolsheviks did—and today's liberal freaks.

[Michael K.]

1gd6vhl7]

1gd6vhl7]

[phishna]

If you have a burning desire to be free then it would behove you to ditch Christianity because it is a slave religion that tells you to obey, pay taxes, follow the law, etc.  

I do not pay taxes because taxes are LEVIed by Jews for Jews and their treachery and their endless wars.  I try not to use Jew fake money because I know it is a scam who's intention is inflation and fraud.

I do not follow very many laws because the Jew writes the law, benefits from the law, uses law for oppression of freedom.

I do not read the NYT or WSJ or any other Jew rag, I don't watch the jewtube, I don't listen to clearly Jew radio like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Alex Jonestein, Micheal Weiner (Savage) or any other Jew/whore radio host like ADL agent Bob Tuskin.  I listen to Charles Giuliani because he tells the truth about the Jew religion called Christianity, a slave religion that gets the non Jew to  beLIEve Jew text and slavishly worship the Jew fake god.

I am not a Christian because Jesus was a Jew, a savior for Jews, and validated the Jewish books.  He was fiction and not god, and why would anyone want to worship an angry Jew psychopathic god anyways?  I've heard Giuliani say this again and again, since I agree I listen to him and I don't listen to Jew and their goyim whores.  I am typing this because this blasphemous post is titled "Charles Giuliani: A Nihilist Saboteur of the Truth Movement?".  Are you ADL?

I do what I want because I am free, I think what I want because I have a free mind.  I think Abe Foxman's head should be on a pike.

So I ask you why are you on TIU arguing in favor of the Jew books?  WTF is wrong with you that you come on a pro freedom website and argue in favor of the Jew and Jew books?  Can you not understand the Jew and his books are pure evil, can you not understand that if you are a Christian or Catholic you are a slave of the Jew?  Can you not comprehend that America has been destroyed by Jews and that this was only possible because the Achilles Heel of America was Christianity?

You say Christianity has nothing to do with Judaism, are you completely mad and insane?  Are you brainwashed or under a spell?  

[Anonymous]

I am slightly surprised these 'jew wise' Christians have not outed timmy by now, I thought atleast one might beable to put truth before christ.

Charles atm is the best truth teller out there exposing the lies, yet the christians here want to burn him at the stake like a run of the mill heretic in the 'ye old' days. So much for the claim they make that christians have always been the #1 group fighting the jews all throughout history. [Giuliani]aawww........give me a freaking break[/Giuliani]

[sullivan]

It appears to me that this Murdoch (Rupert Murdock is a Jew, btw) woman is ...

Right at the off you discredit everything you say by prefacing it with this trash.  Rupert Murdoch is Jewish through his mother, whose surname was Greene. Murdoch is a Scottish surname, so if you are attempting to link one to the other to support your argument, you've failed miserably.