He'd Be Rejected by Democrats and Republicans

GaryD

Haven't you heard, Jesus has already returned? His new name is Al Gore. Jesus won the election but wasn't allowed to take office by the supreme court because He's a Democrat. Now that's supreme conservatism.

Actually, Jesus wouldn't be president because president is an elected office. Jesus was a king. Kings are born princes, heirs to the throne. In an effort to disguise the fact that there was a first king, kings are credited with, "always was and always will be" and of course are all, "sons of God." ("Daughters of God" are not "sons of God" automatically. Make a note of that.)

Then of course the earth, even the very limited flat one is too large to be ruled by a single king so Jesus was, "the king on kings" exactly what Pharaoh was. Pharaoh's kingdom stretched from the cataract of the Nile to Baghdad. It included Ca nan and all the rest of the promised land. Technically, Pharaoh had the power to deed the promised land to anyone "He" saw fit. You don't suppose that Hoax Buster gang has found the deed?

Of course, for a woman to claim she was the son of God, Pharaoh would be blasphemy and punishable by death on the cross -takes 3 hours to die that way which is also a condemnation to hell. That would be hell of the first type, the forever wound. Interesting how the authors of the Gospels detail that version of hell, the forever wound through the words of Jesus and the church insists that after His death on the Cross Jesus descended into hell -Bible says so elsewhere.

Does that help you any with the identification of the real historical Jesus?

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul should give you a good reason to think about it at least.

Thank you for commenting.

Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

Return to the original entry

'JO'-ZE-'VZ'-Not Allowed Anymore:

'SH'-IL-OH'-Not Allowed Anymore: means PEACE!

WHY EdiTor Of WAPO , et al WHY?

The reality of it all is that the "pew sitters" and "bowers" are coming to grips with the flaws in their religions and in ten years the religions of today will be unrecognizable or extinct as the "pretty and ugly wingie flying thingies" are finally buried in the piles of utter stupidity.

Newslflash: Jesus ain't never comin', even if you waited for like 2,000 years. Oh, wait...

When Jesus returns it will not be to run for public office but to announce the end of such along with most all else as we know it.

John L. Esposito, professor of religion:

He'd Be Rejected by Democrats and Republicans and He was rejected, the person on who's life the fictional Jesus of Nazareth is based. Took a measly 3 hours for Him to die on the Egyptian cross. Did She rise again from the dead as She claimed She would? Got faith?

http://www.hoax-buster.org -- the material used by Mr Hunt to write page 2 at his web site could have been used by you as the basis for your essay as well as the basis for the Gospels, Exodus, Samuel, Joshua etc.

The Epistles are a different question but not totally. Is there a record of St Paul mentioned in places other than the Bible? Interesting question that no one has ever asked before not even Hoax Buster isn't it?

After all is said and done comparing real people to fictional ones doesn't have merit beyond comparing them to the authors of the fiction and not the characters. When we realize that fiction always has some basis in fact the picture clears a bit but in reality we're comparing Republicans and Democrats to the authors of the Gospels, what they thought Amenophis IV said, stood for etc and not Jesus at all.

That leaves us with the demoralizing realization that all are being fooled by something. The authors of the Gospels couldn't read the "writing on the wall" which is exactly what the different candidates for president, (not limited to them) say about each other. That writing never goes unread forever. Woe be it to those who have misread it? That's what they warn us about their opponents.

Wouldn't we all be better served if the truth about Jesus was made public? Wouldn't the Roman Catholic church stand to gain by announcing that the Bible is a proved hoax? By so doing wouldn't that open the door for a rebirth of faith rather than simply destroying faith? Is truth a destroying or a building force? How long can we embrace the lie before it destroys us? Aren't we testing that right now? Isn't the church obligated?

Given that Jesus understood the role of women in apostolic times, why didn't he ordinate any woman for the apostolic evangelical ministry at that time? Why should we suppose that he would change his original design?

Yes, you're right.

Jesus' return is not seriously considered possible now by most people I've spoken to about it...certainly by Christians, interestingly enough.

Benjamin Creme has been telling the world for 30 years that Jesus is back. Share International magazine publishes letters from around the world every month from people who have met, or been helped, healed by Jesus. So why aren't the Christians rejoicing? I have a self portrait he has put on a wall in my home. My Christian neighbor says my house is haunted. Christians seem unwilling to recognize Jesus, just like the Pharasees of old.

See: Q&A section of Share International magazine

How is it that Mr Esposito provided a better answer than the others? Is there a flaw in the way that Christianity and Christian behavior is taught in the Christian churches?

Gee, based on your description, it sounds to me like Jesus would be a liberal Democrat.

The historic Jesus would have a very hard time running for any political office since any opponent would simply note the following about about him:

"My opponent, Jesus of the maybe spirit state of heaven is illiterate with only a basic background in peasantry and carpentry. He apparently suffers from "visions" and hallucinations of devils aka the demons of the demented. Some have characterized him as the "holy roller" from Nazareth, PA to a mythical character from Nazareth, Wherever, to a mamzer from Nazareth, PA. Analyses of Jesus’ background by many contemporary political scholars have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' commentaries are authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles made-up by his political speech writers to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% that is "authentic Jesus" was plagiarized and/or borrowed from speeches of other politicians.

His supporters like followers of Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al also suffer from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

The fact that President Bush has freed Iraq from a brutal dictator, has freed Afghanistan from the brutal dictatorship of the Taliban, has destroyed the homebase of al Queda, assisted in the liberation of Lebanon from the 17 year Syrian occupation, "encouraged" Lybia to stop supporting terroism, etc., etc., has "annoyed" many liberal types and supporters of the status quo concerning the Islamic fundamentalists. Well, they will have to remained annoyed until they can come up with some actions (as opposed to words, hopes and promises) that will match their rhetoric and self-rightous pronouncments and posturings. Actions that can do better than what President Bush has done for millions of people.
The European process of appeasement and tolerance for dictators which have led in the past to millions of death is foreign to President Bush and not acceptable to US conservatives. If there are to be wars for freedom we like to keep them small before they grow into the large-scale affairs that Euros and "peace-lovers" seem to like.

As for wmds, G__ has used plagues such as swarms of locusts that destroyed crops, hail mixed with fire, disease of livestock, death of the first born, etc. to free an enslaved people.

No, I don't think that Jesus is naive nor unrealistic.

The fact that President Bush has freed Iraq from a brutal dictator, has freed Afghanistan from the brutal dictatorship of the Taliban, has destroyed the homebase of al Queda, assisted in the liberation of Lebanon from the 17 year Syrian occupation, "encouraged" Lybia to stop supporting terroism, etc., etc., has "annoyed" many liberal types and supporters of the status quo concerning the Islamic fundamentalists. Well, they will have to remained annoyed until they can come up with some actions (as opposed to words, hopes and promises) that will match their rhetoric and self-rightous pronouncments and posturings. Actions that can do better than what President Bush has done for millions of people.
The European process of appeasement and tolerance for dictators which have led in the past to millions of death is foreign to President Bush and not acceptable to US conservatives. If there are to be wars for freedom we like to keep them small before they grow into the large-scale affairs that Euros and "peace-lovers" seem to like.

As for wmds, G__ has used plagues such as swarms of locusts that destroyed crops, hail mixed with fire, disease of livestock, death of the first born, etc. to free an enslaved people.

No, I don't think that Jesus is naive nor unrealistic.

Jesus was never interested in worldly political power. Why settle for a country when the Universe is your own creation?

We anxiously await for the historical Jesus experts like Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen to give their input.

And to Mr. Esposito, if indeed someone like Jesus ever ran for political office, he or she would first cover the flaws in all religions. In case you forgot the first four flaws in Islam, here they are one more time:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies,

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

ISLAMIC RAP
Soldiers of Allah
The Soldiers of Allah track
"STARING INTO KAFIRS EYES"
Surat Al-Kafirun (The Disbelievers) 109

In the Name of Allah, The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful
1.Say, O Al-Kafirun
2.I worship not that which you worship
3.Nor will you worship that which I worship
4.And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping
5.Nor will you worship that which I worship
6.To you be your Deen and to me my Deen(Islam)

Who do you fear?
Allah or the Kafir?
Why do you want to be like the kafir when you have the haq (truth) in your hand?
Didn't the SAHABAS look into the kafir's eyes and say:
La - Ilaha - Ilallah Mohammedun Rasul-lu-llah
How many more
of our sister do they have to rape!
How many more
of our brothers must they slaughter by hate!
Don't you know we have suffered too long without an Islamic State!
How much more can you take?
NO MORE WAIT!!!...

Tell us to give up Islam and wait for Jesus
Celebrate Christmas when it's in season
Giving us fake leaders and fake reasons
Divided our people by flags when they meet us
They want us to pledge to their allegiance
Pushing us towards treason
They've broke our Ummah into shattered pieces
Chasing our oil like cheetah
Raping our resources
And then they leave us
Muslims hibernating
Concentrating on not shaving
While kafirs have been invading
Killing and raping
We have no time to be waiting
Reestablish Islam and stop faking
Listen to my Ummah's cries
I'm tired of kafir's lies
No I won't compromise
Staring into the enemies eyes

We will never fear you Kafir!
Allah is on our side
I am tired of Kafirs ruling us
Taking over our land,
Taking our resources,
Killing our brothers
& Raping our sisters
OH MUSLIM UMMAH!!!
Let us unite
Implement Islam
We won't compromise this Deen
We are the best nation ever risen for mankind!!

Trying to destroy Islam
Because they hate us
Muslim racist
But they can't fade us
Throwing us in cages
But they can't cage us
Qu'ranic revelations on pages
Spreading of the haqq
Even though these prison cages
Standing together like a pack
Struggling through life's tough test stages
They can't destroy Islam
Islam is contagious
Muslims...
From Indonesia to melesia
Too many Muslims to contain us
Instead they take away our Islamic laws
So they can in-slave us!...in-chain us!

Break our bones!
Our bones will heal!
Cut our skin!
Our wounds will seal!

Put a gun against our head!
Threaten us to death
No fear !!
No Pain do we feel
Prophet (saaw) is the seal
Only to Allah do we kneel
Our Iman hard like steel
Cuz we know Islam is for real!!

We fear Allah and only Allah
Let us be the generation who puts Islam back on the map
We will never compromise Islam
Islam will rule the world
And even if all the Kafirs would fight against it
They will never succeed
Allah is on the believer's side
Victory comes from Allah

You see...
You love life
The way we love death
You better put us in our graves
While you still got time left
Cuz when we rebuild our state
We are going to legislate and regulate
Kick out these false leaders cuz they're fake
Laughing & grinning while they watch our sisters being raped
From Turkey to Afghanistan
From Palestine to Iran
Implement Islamic laws
Take a stand!!
Its Allah's demand
Implement global Jihad!!
Take back our Muslim lands!!!
Run Islam like it's suppose to be ran!!
Don't think we are going to forget about your lies
When you raped our sisters
Slaughtering our brothers as we watched them die
And this time when we're on the battlefield
We are going to be on opposite sides
We're not going to think twice
Before we take your life!!!!
Kafir!!!
You're a loser!
In this life.......and in the hereafter..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCDYDwGMLg8

WORSHIPPERS OF DEATH

Zahra Maladan is an educated woman who edits a women's magazine in Lebanon. She is also a mother, who undoubtedly loves her son. She has ambitions for him, but they are different from those of most mothers in the West. She wants her son to become a suicide bomber.

At the recent funeral for the assassinated Hezbollah terrorist Imad Moughnaya -- the mass murderer responsible for killing 241 marines in 1983 and more than 100 women, children and men in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 -- Ms. Maladan was quoted in the New York Times giving the following warning to her son: "if you're not going to follow the steps of the Islamic resistance martyrs, then I don't want you."

Zahra Maladan represents a dramatic shift in the way we must fight to protect our citizens against enemies who are sworn to kill them by killing themselves. The traditional paradigm was that mothers who love their children want them to live in peace, marry and produce grandchildren. Women in general, and mothers in particular, were seen as a counterweight to male belligerence. The picture of the mother weeping as her son is led off to battle -- even a just battle -- has been a constant and powerful image.

Now there is a new image of mothers urging their children to die, and then celebrating the martyrdom of their suicidal sons and daughters by distributing sweets and singing wedding songs. More and more young women -- some married with infant children -- are strapping bombs to their (sometimes pregnant) bellies, because they have been taught to love death rather than life. Look at what is being preached by some influential Islamic leaders:

"We are going to win, because they love life and we love death," said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. He has also said: "[E]ach of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah." Shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden told a reporter: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."

"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death," explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah. Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: "It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion."

How should Western democracies fight against an enemy whose leaders preach a preference for death?

The two basic premises of conventional warfare have long been that soldiers and civilians prefer living to dying and can thus be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed; and that combatants (soldiers) can easily be distinguished from noncombatants (women, children, the elderly, the infirm and other ordinary citizens). These premises are being challenged by women like Zahra Maladan. Neither she nor her son -- if he listens to his mother -- can be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed. They must be prevented from succeeding in their ghoulish quest for martyrdom. Prevention, however, carries a high risk of error. The woman walking toward the group of soldiers or civilians might well be an innocent civilian. A moment's hesitation may cost innocent lives. But a failure to hesitate may also have a price.

Late last month, a young female bomber was shot as she approached some shops in central Baghdad. The Iraqi soldier who drew his gun hesitated as the bomber, hands raised, insisted that she wasn't armed. The soldier and a shop owner finally opened fire as she dashed for the stores; she was knocked to the ground but still managed to detonate the bomb, killing three and wounding eight. Had the soldier and other bystanders not called out a warning to others -- and had they not shot her before she could enter the shops -- the death toll certainly would have been higher. Had he not hesitated, it might have been lower.

As more women and children are recruited by their mothers and their religious leaders to become suicide bombers, more women and children will be shot at -- some mistakenly. That too is part of the grand plan of our enemies. They want us to kill their civilians, who they also consider martyrs, because when we accidentally kill a civilian, they win in the court of public opinion. One Western diplomat called this the "harsh arithmetic of pain," whereby civilian casualties on both sides "play in their favor." Democracies lose, both politically and emotionally, when they kill civilians, even inadvertently. As Golda Meir once put it: "We can perhaps someday forgive you for killing our children, but we cannot forgive you for making us kill your children."

Civilian casualties also increase when terrorists operate from within civilian enclaves and hide behind human shields. This relatively new phenomenon undercuts the second basic premise of conventional warfare: Combatants can easily be distinguished from noncombatants. Has Zahra Maladan become a combatant by urging her son to blow himself up? Have the religious leaders who preach a culture of death lost their status as noncombatants? What about "civilians" who willingly allow themselves to be used as human shields? Or their homes as launching pads for terrorist rockets?

The traditional sharp distinction between soldiers in uniform and civilians in nonmilitary garb has given way to a continuum. At the more civilian end are babies and true noncombatants; at the more military end are the religious leaders who incite mass murder; in the middle are ordinary citizens who facilitate, finance or encourage terrorism. There are no hard and fast lines of demarcation, and mistakes are inevitable -- as the terrorists well understand.

We need new rules, strategies and tactics to deal effectively and fairly with these dangerous new realities. We cannot simply wait until the son of Zahra Maladan -- and the sons and daughters of hundreds of others like her -- decide to follow his mother's demand. We must stop them before they export their sick and dangerous culture of death to our shores.

Mr. Dershowitz teaches law at Harvard University and is the author of "Finding Jefferson" (Wiley, 2007).

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120450617910806563.html

Excessive secularization? What does that mean? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.