Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 71943 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

jogee

Welkom, South Africa

#53591 May 28, 2013
A STIFF NECKED PEOPLE:
"For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I
am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against
the Lord; and how much more after my death? DEUTERONOMY
31:27

THE JEWS TO BE SUBSTITUTED:
"Therefore said I (Jesus) unto you (Jews), The kingdom of God
shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth
the fruits thereof." MATTHEW 21:43

JEWS : A rebellious people
"Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I
knew you." DEUTERONOMY 9:24

Jews
34O generation of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#53592 May 28, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
You must prove that he did not exists. Certainly, you have very good EVIDENCE to support your utterance for surely you would never rely on inspiration from an unclean orifice.
Wrong dummy.

One cannot normally prove a negative, the absence of something.

OTOH if you tell me there's a pink elephant in the living room, I can walk all of us in there and show that there isn't one.

But I do not say for sure that there is no god, only that I have no evidence of one. You call the universe evidence of a god but I don't.

I do not claim to know the answers, but you do.

Hence you have the burden of proof.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#53593 May 28, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
HughBe--- We are NOT like others who are LYING WARMONGERS.
Yawn. And I don't agree with most of the wars.

Maybe the War of 1812 and WWII.
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
HughBe--- I am not surprised that the wisdom went over your head.
Go consult. Let me give you some help in your research. Check out hurdlers and see if a person with a bad technique can be effective. Ok, genius.
Justifying mediocrity.
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
HughBe--- Clearly YOU have evidence of the makers I do not have any.
What I have is a car made by a company. I know about my car from my own experience and that of others but beyond that I know NOTHING about the company/maker. Now, anything that I would or could say about the maker would be based on the CAR itself.
Follow closely. I could say that the maker makes good cars, reliable cars, durable cars, affordable cars etc.
However, I DO NOT KNOW about the ADMINISTRATION of the maker's company, its FINANCIAL position, its HR policies, the MORALE in the company, its PAY packages in essence I KNOW NOTHING about the car maker but you do GENIUS.
Finally, I don't know anything about the staff who actually were involved in the production of the car but you do.
A disturbing view inside the mind of a follower.

One of the sheep, a member of the flock, the faithful.

Those too unsure and confused to think for themselves.

A man who will speak in homophobic rants only because of some ancient writings written by those unknown and long dead.

This passage clearly shows the mental twists and turns one must navigate in order to believe the truly incredible.

Thank you, Huggy. I begin to better understand what you're up against.

You are most certainly operating at a disadvantage.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#53594 May 28, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly as an atheists he does NOT go to the weddings of his fellow atheists or persons of a non-Christian faith.
Why would you say that?

As usual, you are wrong.

My own wedding was civil ceremony, performed by a Justice of the Peace. No church.

But I have been to all kinds of weddings, even Jewish.
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
His answer--"Yes, WE do all that and enjoy it very much." is pure CRAP. He was asked about HIMSELF. Note, my(HughBe) family does ALL of that but I don't.
In our country, when we say "we" that includes "me."

You are more stupid than usual today. Lack of sleep perhaps?

I personally participate in all the activities mentioned.
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Another deceptive and IDIOTIC answer by Former ""And WE have stocking hanging over the fireplace."
So what Former, DO YOU put up stockings in your home? You were being asked about yourself and NOT your family.
We are not home for Christmas. We are at the home of my wife's parents - who BTW, are not religious. But we love Christmas and all the traditions and trappings very much - tree, gifts, stockings (I have on with my name on it made by my wife!) and we go to church on Christmas eve.
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Former---And I even go to church from time to time.
HughBe--- No doubt to renew your ATHEISTS vows.
Not at all. for the time of contemplation, the sense of community, experiencing appreciation for what we have, to give to the poor, to sing, to light a candle, all good stuff
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear Former answer the question now. Make another attempt.
1.How do YOU celebrate Christmas?
2. Do YOU give presents?
3. Do YOU have a Christmas tree?
See above and stop trying to see the world in black and white.

It's a very simple-minded way of looking at things.

Perhaps the rest of us are just too complicated for you.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#53595 May 28, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
....I have NEVER given my children Christmas gifts....
Baxtard.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#53596 May 28, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Does Former call himself a SECULAR CHRISTIAN?
Recall that is what is being discussed.
I told you that I have dinner with my extended family at Christmas but I don't celebrate it. I have NEVER given my children Christmas gifts and they know why we attend the dinners.
As I previously mentioned that is a side point. The question was whether 2 Billion Christians (of which I would put FR as one of them regardless of his level of religiosity which is obviously minimal) are able to DERIVE meaning from their traditions without believing in the literal history.

Just like us Jews do.

yes, not all of us here on planet earth are staunch fundamentalist literalists like you

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#53597 May 28, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not home for Christmas. We are at the home of my wife's parents - who BTW, are not religious. But we love Christmas and all the traditions and trappings very much - tree, gifts, stockings (I have on with my name on it made by my wife!) and we go to church on Christmas eve.
<quoted text>
And I would add that if the mark of a TRUE Christian was one who did all of that AND still believed 100% in the storyline, you would be excluding a lot of people who still see themselves as Christian (even if you in particular dont see yourself as Christian).

Hughbes attempt to define TRUE Christian is just as flawed as his attempt to define the TRUE Jew

I believe it is a logical fallacy as well. The No True Scottsman fallacy.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php...

"....Similarly, apologists argue that Christians are good people by categorically denying that anyone who does a bad deed is a "true Christian". The lack of a generally accepted definition of "Christian" allows apologists to redefine the word to fit their arguments. For this reason, many self-professed Christians who commit bad deeds are excluded from the group by apologists..."

Hughbe = dumb thinking

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#53598 May 28, 2013
See CoR,- I did learn something from you!
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#53599 May 28, 2013
jogee wrote:
A STIFF NECKED PEOPLE:
"For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I
am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against
the Lord; and how much more after my death? DEUTERONOMY
31:27
THE JEWS TO BE SUBSTITUTED:
"Therefore said I (Jesus) unto you (Jews), The kingdom of God
shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth
the fruits thereof." MATTHEW 21:43
JEWS : A rebellious people
"Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I
knew you." DEUTERONOMY 9:24
Jews
34O generation of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
You are right brother. The jews were warned a number of times, by almost every Jewish prophet, that unless they turn back to God and mend their ways, their very status as Chosen people and chosen race is in jeopardy.

There are many verses in the books of OT, mostly prophets like Jeremiah, Isaiah and others.

Jesus spoke in no uncertain terms that the time is running out and unless Jews mend their ways, their status as chosen people shall be taken away.

Now jesus did not mean him or his disciples to take the place of Jews. Jesus was talking of some other nation and it could not be Romans, because they were present in the time of jesus and he did not preach his message to them.

What St. Paul did was his own innovation and we cannot blame Jesus for that.

The jews were to be stripped off of their "Chosen people and Chosen Race" status and that was to be given to another nation, that shall bear the fruit.

Who was that nation?
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#53600 May 28, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong dummy.
One cannot normally prove a negative, the absence of something.
OTOH if you tell me there's a pink elephant in the living room, I can walk all of us in there and show that there isn't one.
But I do not say for sure that there is no god, only that I have no evidence of one. You call the universe evidence of a god but I don't.
I do not claim to know the answers, but you do.
Hence you have the burden of proof.
Time wasting exercise but here goes. History records the existence of Jesus. History accepts the personality called Jesus of Nazareth.

So, continue to select and accept the history that makes you GAY.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#53601 May 28, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn. And I don't agree with most of the wars.
Maybe the War of 1812 and WWII.
<quoted text>
Justifying mediocrity.
<quoted text>
A disturbing view inside the mind of a follower.
One of the sheep, a member of the flock, the faithful.
Those too unsure and confused to think for themselves.
A man who will speak in homophobic rants only because of some ancient writings written by those unknown and long dead.
This passage clearly shows the mental twists and turns one must navigate in order to believe the truly incredible.
Thank you, Huggy. I begin to better understand what you're up against.
You are most certainly operating at a disadvantage.
HughBe--- We are NOT like others who are LYING WARMONGERS.

Former---Yawn. And I don't agree with most of the wars.

HughBe--- My previous point stands.

Former---Maybe the War of 1812 and WWII.

HughBe--- I believe that you embraced WW11 as it was all planned, based on a document that was once in a British Museum.

HughBe--- I am not surprised that the wisdom went over your head.
Go consult. Let me give you some help in your research. Check out hurdlers and see if a person with a bad technique can be effective.

Ok, genius.

Former---Justifying mediocrity.

HughBe--- Full IDIOT, we were talking about bad techniques and being an IDIOT your position is that bad techniques are all bad.

On the other hand I am telling you via ONE example alone that bad techniques don't have to be ineffective and I used the case of hurdling. Your problem is your inability to think and to compound matters when things are explained to you the capacity to understand TRUTHFUL and simple things is absent.

HughBe--- Clearly YOU have evidence of the makers I do not have any.

What I have is a car made by a company. I know about my car from my own experience and that of others but beyond that I know NOTHING about the company/maker. Now, anything that I would or could say about the maker would be based on the CAR itself.

Follow closely. I could say that the maker makes good cars, reliable cars, durable cars, affordable cars etc.

However, I DO NOT KNOW about the ADMINISTRATION of the maker's company, its FINANCIAL position, its HR policies, the MORALE in the company, its PAY packages in essence I KNOW NOTHING about the car maker but you do GENIUS.

Finally, I don't know anything about the staff who actually were involved in the production of the car but you do.

Former--A disturbing view inside the mind of a follower.

HughBe--- Ejaculation noted as well as the complete lack of understanding among other things.

Former--A man who will speak in homophobic rants only because of some ancient writings written by those UNKNOWN and long dead.

HughBe--- Is Shakespeare alive and KNOWN to YOU? Do people speak and act and learn about him and his works?

You are old enough to leave the kindergarten grade in your THINKING so do so NOW.

Former---Thank you, Huggy. I begin to better understand what you're up against.

HughBe--- Gratitude but do you truly know yourself?

Former---You are most certainly operating at a disadvantage.

HughBe--- Tell me about any car company in the way that I have outlined below and do so WITHOUT researching the information.

1.the ADMINISTRATION
2. FINANCIAL position,
3. HR policies
4. MORALE in the company
5. PAY packages

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#53602 May 28, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Time wasting exercise but here goes. History records the existence of Jesus. History accepts the personality called Jesus of Nazareth.
So, continue to select and accept the history that makes you GAY.
Actually the jury is still out on even that one.

And even if he existed, that doesnt prove he is supranatural as many Christians believe.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the Bible is only found in three places: the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the various early churches (c. 100CE) to the long dead leader of those churches. There are no contemporaneous sources outside of the early Christian community.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the...
Historians focusing on this era generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government for some such reason, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. Beyond this, however, there is doubt over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers. A handful of authors, past[1] and present[2] believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#53603 May 28, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
See CoR,- I did learn something from you!
It's not you I'm concerned about ;-)
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#53604 May 28, 2013
HughBe---Clearly as an atheists he(Former) does NOT go to the weddings of his fellow atheists or persons of a non-Christian faith.

Former-- why would you say that?

HughBe--- YOU were asked about celebrating Christmas and other CHRISTMAS related questions. In answering such questions you inserted BS that suggested that you attended Christian functions to the exclusion of other functions.

Former--My own wedding was civil ceremony, performed by a Justice of the Peace. No church.

HughBe--- So, in a CONTEXT that YOU are being called a SECULAR Christian why did you give your typical UNBALANCED and MISLEADING comments about Christian weddings etc?

Was your wedding a Christian wedding, secular Christian?

Former--But I have been to all kinds of weddings, even Jewish.

HughBe--- So why the SILENCE? why the FOCUS on Christians?

HughBe---His answer--"Yes, WE do all that and enjoy it very much." is pure CRAP. He was asked about HIMSELF. Note, my(HughBe) family does ALL of that but I don't.

Former---In our country, when we say "we" that includes "me."

HughBe--- It must be a Spanish speaking country because English people understood from my words that the WE was inclusive of you. What is still missing in your understanding is that nobody was asking YOU about others, YOU were being asked about YOURSELF, legions.

Former--I personally participate in all the activities mentioned.

HughBe--- Stop deceiving your stupid self.

Former---We are not home for Christmas. We are at the home of my wife's parents

HughBe--- How does that prevent you from erecting a tree at home and decorating your home? The trappings are not there for a DAY.

Former-- But we love Christmas and all the traditions and trappings very much - tree, gifts, stockings (I have on with my name on it made by my wife!) and we go to church on Christmas eve.

HughBe--- So do you buy gifts and wish everybody a merry Christmas although you do not believe in it?

Are YOU a SECULAR Christian?

Former---And I even go to church from time to time.

HughBe--- No doubt to renew your ATHEISTS vows.

Former---Not at all. for the time of contemplation, the sense of community, experiencing appreciation for what we have, to give to the poor, to sing, to light a candle, all good stuff

HughBe--- Do you have any organization that is not RELIGIOUS that you could "give to the poor" ?

Why do you an ATHEISTS choose a Church to do these good? Recall you did not even get married in a Church.

Former---Perhaps the rest of us are just too complicated for you.

HughBe--- Perhaps but more likely too STUPID in your deception attempts and reasoning skills.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#53605 May 28, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Baxtard.
No Son, since I do NOT celebrate Christmas I do NOT give gifts not even to my children.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#53606 May 28, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
As I previously mentioned that is a side point. The question was whether 2 Billion Christians (of which I would put FR as one of them regardless of his level of religiosity which is obviously minimal) are able to DERIVE meaning from their traditions without believing in the literal history.
Just like us Jews do.
yes, not all of us here on planet earth are staunch fundamentalist literalists like you
Listen well, DECEIVER. In the SANE world those who REJECT the idea of God or gods are NOT religious.

In the RELIGION called JUDAISM there are SECULAR Judahites but this is a "SPECIAL" case as nowhere else in the world you shall find such MADNESS of a SECULAR subset of a RELIGIOUS group.

Does Former call himself a SECULAR Christian?

If NOT, who do YOU think you are to label him so?

Why do you allow the LEGIONS within you to dominate you to the point of TOTAL STUPIDITY?

You are just being plain IDIOTIC and self-deceiving. I am guaranteeing you this that your argument makes sense ONLY to your fellow DECEIVED BLIND DUMB BRAINLESS sheep.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#53607 May 28, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
And I would add that if the mark of a TRUE Christian was one who did all of that AND still believed 100% in the storyline, you would be excluding a lot of people who still see themselves as Christian (even if you in particular dont see yourself as Christian).
Hughbes attempt to define TRUE Christian is just as flawed as his attempt to define the TRUE Jew
I believe it is a logical fallacy as well. The No True Scottsman fallacy.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php...
"....Similarly, apologists argue that Christians are good people by categorically denying that anyone who does a bad deed is a "true Christian". The lack of a generally accepted definition of "Christian" allows apologists to redefine the word to fit their arguments. For this reason, many self-professed Christians who commit bad deeds are excluded from the group by apologists..."
Hughbe = dumb thinking
Never heard The No True Scottsman fallacy - interesting.

Live and learn.

I also believe most of what JC taught.

Other than believing he was the son of god, he might
think I was a good Christian??

Certainly a better one than the hateful Jamaican who rails against a whole segment of our population for no good reason at all.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#53608 May 28, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Time wasting exercise but here goes. History records the existence of Jesus. History accepts the personality called Jesus of Nazareth.
So, continue to select and accept the history that makes you GAY.
What a short memory you have.

No doubt owing to your microcephalic issue.

I only recently acknowledged that a man named Jesus likely lived.(Did you forget that already?)

By all accounts, he was an interesting man, perhaps a mystic of some sort. I've even known Jews who believe he existed.

Not the same thing as him being the son of god. Or there being a god.

OK? Next.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#53609 May 28, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
And I would add that if the mark of a TRUE Christian was one who did all of that AND still believed 100% in the storyline, you would be excluding a lot of people who still see themselves as Christian (even if you in particular dont see yourself as Christian).
Hughbes attempt to define TRUE Christian is just as flawed as his attempt to define the TRUE Jew
I believe it is a logical fallacy as well. The No True Scottsman fallacy.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php...
"....Similarly, apologists argue that Christians are good people by categorically denying that anyone who does a bad deed is a "true Christian". The lack of a generally accepted definition of "Christian" allows apologists to redefine the word to fit their arguments. For this reason, many self-professed Christians who commit bad deeds are excluded from the group by apologists..."
Hughbe = dumb thinking
Frijoles---Hughbes attempt to define TRUE Christian is just as flawed as his attempt to define the TRUE Jew

HughBe--- Listen well, anus. JEWS are a RACE of people. Recall the linearity that you spoke of perhaps less that 24 hours ago? Linearity has to do with BIOLOGY.

So linearity is NOT applicable to Christianity given that Christianity is a RELIGION and is not based on RACE or genes.

So with or without any RELIGION a person is a JEW. A JEW is a JEW without JUDAISM. The GENES of the JEWS do NOT change even if their FAITH changes for the better.

The JEWS existed long before JUDAISM and shall exist long AFTER Judaism.

Without a belief in Jesus a person is NEVER a Christian and this is NOT a private interpretation. Note boy, a belief in Jesus is NOT sufficient to make you a Christian and that is a FACT.

Do NOT define Christians as you don't even know who is a Jew and YOU claim to be one.

Are you interested in becoming a Christian?
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#53610 May 28, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the jury is still out on even that one.
And even if he existed, that doesnt prove he is supranatural as many Christians believe.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.
Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the Bible is only found in three places: the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the various early churches (c. 100CE) to the long dead leader of those churches. There are no contemporaneous sources outside of the early Christian community.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the...
Historians focusing on this era generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government for some such reason, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. Beyond this, however, there is doubt over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers. A handful of authors, past[1] and present[2] believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories.
Frijoles---Actually the jury is still out on even that one

HughBe--- The Sanhedrin being out does not change the fact that history makes mention of Jesus. Start with Flavius Josephus. Have you heard of him?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cliff Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Grant Co.---rotten corner of NM (Sep '11) 22 hr Thumper 47
News Yankie Street whitewater Jul 13 Msgtdon 1
News Luna County enters Joint Powers Agreement for C... Jul 8 American Citizen 4
Federal law enforcement agencies conduct meth s... Jun '15 A view from me 3
News Luna County Commissioners plan to vote today on... Jun '15 Wizard_Not 1
News Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument may rais... (Jan '15) Jan '15 msgtdon 1
News Community education classes continue in April (Apr '14) Apr '14 Jackie 3
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Cliff Mortgages