Was Jesus Jewish? - Debate Between OneMoreRep & Wiggs.

[Wiggs]

TL:DR:CUT/PASTE

 

"1"

You mean cut/paste as you just did?

Sounds like a personal problem. I posted the truth so you wouldn't confuse the masses. If they're interested, they'll read.

[OneMoreRep]

You mean cut/paste as you just did?

Sounds like a personal problem. I posted the truth so you wouldn't confuse the masses. If they're interested, they'll read.

No you didn't. You simply cut and pasted away as you usually do.

You may have the last word. 'Cause I'm done.

Sure you are..

Prove with verifiable facts that the Talmud badmouthed both Mary and Jesus and that Jesus was NOT a Jew.

Prove it or stop it already with your incessant cut and paste approach.

"1"

[OneMoreRep]

On a side note, do you belong to the "Black Israelites" group?

I see them around Times Square dressed up as knights of Jerusalem and was curious if this is the group you belong to.











"1"

[Wiggs]

No you didn't. You simply cut and pasted away as you usually do.

Sure you are..

Prove with verifiable facts that the Talmud badmouthed both Mary and Jesus and that Jesus was NOT a Jew.

Prove it or stop it already with your incessant cut and paste approach.

"1"

Are you going to address what I just provided for you from Benjamin Freedman himself a "Jew". There is no need to recreate the wheel if one is available. This isnt the first time this argument has come up. And for that I choose to quote people that are much more esteemed than myself. So I highly suggest you read what I just posted vs. ignoring it. because as was my first go around, these are facts.

And no, I'm not a member of Black Hebrew Israelites, I'm not a member nor do I associate with any religious group. Although they are correct in much of what they preach, they (BHI) preach hate. But, I'd love to see you verbally slaughtered by these guys cause you wouldn't have a chance in hell against them. 

[hardgainerj]

yes, YES!  See you know!  The word JEW is a made name and a made up race. From KHAZARS...The Khazarian Empire. Stealing another peoples race and passing it off as their own.  The jig is up.

[biff]

it seems like a dangerous game to have an argument with you, since you've become a mod.  fuck around and hit the wrong key, and a getbig member ends up in purgatory.

OMR has definitely gotten a lot mouthier since his mod status.l

[OneMoreRep]

Are you going to address what I just provided for you from Benwork jamin Freedman himself a "Jew". There is no need to recreate the wheel if one is available. This isnt the first time this argument has come up. And for that I choose to quote people that are much more esteemed than myself. So I highly suggest you read what I just posted vs. ignoring it. because as was my first go around, these are facts.

And no, I'm not a member of Black Hebrew Israelites, I'm not a member nor do I associate with any religious group. Although they are correct in much of what they preach, they (BHI) preach hate. But, I'd love to see you verbally slaughtered by these guys cause you wouldn't have a chance in hell against them. 

Oh I get it, you don't have any proof based on your own conclusions. Instead, you're going to cut and paste a tremendously large piece of work from someone else and have me go at it with a cut and paste article.

Cute, but that's not debating, that's you taking the easy way out, by asking me to debate someone else but you..

"1"

[Griffith]

Names of groups change to differentiate different era's:

Eastern Romans (Greeks)-------->Byzantines (modern name)
Boers------------------>Afrikaners
Romans----------------> Italians
Persians----------------> Iranians
Babylonians------------> Iraqi's
Ancient Egyptians------> Copts

etc.

To call modern Jews 'Israelite's' or 'Hebrews' does not make sense as it does not distinguish from the different era they are living in and represents a change in culture and history, as how a modern Jew lives today is obviously different to that of an Israelite or Judean under the Roman Empire etc.

And for the issue of not using a 'J', neither does Latin, the J then becomes an I such as 'Iohannes' instead of Johaness (John) or Iulius (instead of Julius).

This is just an issue of semantics.

Anyway, the Jews are the only one who still represent the Hebrews just as the Greeks still claimed to represent the Roman Empire after the West fell and called themeselves 'Roman' and therefore we call them 'Byzantine' today to differentiate from ancient Greek, modern Greek and Roman  

[Wiggs]

Oh I get it, you don't have any proof based on your own conclusions. Instead, you're going to cut and paste a tremendously large piece of work from someone else and have me go at it with a cut and paste article.

Cute, but that's not debating, that's you taking the easy way out, by asking me to debate someone else but you..

"1"

There's nothing cute about it. My conclusions are drawn from facts. Facts that I posted. Those facts came from someone else interested in what I was interested in. You won't address those facts. That's your problem. And still you won't debate them. No "Jew" will. But you all are certainly vocal about everything else regarding yourselves....Everything except the most incendiary topic regarding your people. How convenient.  Even Farrakhan openly called for a debate with ANY Jewish Rabbi or scholar regarding some of what I spoke about today. Guess how many took him up on his offer....ZERO. So you can remain willfully ignorant if you chose (if that is the case), that's your business.

That's not taking the easy way out. That's called not re-researching fact already researched and published. If you review this thread, you'll see that for me, it's business as usual but for you, you've gone into what would be considered a meltdown for yourself and now you've been reduced to repeating a failed mantra and arguing semantics. It's quite laughable coming from "Onemorerep" especially considering we never really got started. So you can throw your tantrums and get butt hurt because I won't talk about what you want to talk about in the order you want to talk about it or you can admit that I'm indeed correct, or try to argue against my points, then once I feel they've been argued thoroughly even if we agree to disagree, we move on to the next topic. Because the longer this thread goes, the worse you look.

 

[OneMoreRep]

There's nothing cute about it. My conclusions are drawn from facts. Facts that I posted. Those facts came from someone else interested in what I was interested in. You won't address those facts. That's your problem. And still you won't debate them. No "Jew" will. But you all are certainly vocal about everything else regarding yourselves....Everything except the most incendiary topic regarding your people. How convenient.  Even Farrakhan openly called for a debate with ANY Jewish Rabbi or scholar regarding some of what I spoke about today. Guess how many took him up on his offer....ZERO. So you can remain willfully ignorant if you chose (if that is the case), that's your business.

That's not taking the easy way out. That's called not re-researching fact already researched and published. If you review this thread, you'll see that for me, it's business as usual but for you, you've gone into what would be considered a meltdown for yourself and now you've been reduced to repeating a failed mantra and arguing semantics. It's quite laughable coming from "Onemorerep" especially considering we never really got started. So you can throw your tantrums and get butt hurt because I won't talk about what you want to talk about in the order you want to talk about it or you can admit that I'm indeed correct, or try to argue against my points, then once I feel they've been argued thoroughly even if we agree to disagree, we move on to the next topic. Because the longer this thread goes, the worse you look.

 

I will go ahead and copy and paste a few articles to refute your copy and paste article and then we can give credit to the writers and take credit for our copy and paste skills.

I am a Jew.  I studied the Torah and Talmud, not the new testament. You show me how the Talmud badmouthed Mary and Jesus and I will gladly disprove it based on my own interpretation.

You posting a ten page article and ask me to refute it is not debating.  It's called being a Google scholar.

I will allow others to judge your material, because this is not a debate.

"1"

[OneMoreRep]

Just as you post one article claiming that Jesus wasn't Jewish, I can post 10 articles starting otherwise.

That's not debating...

"1"

[HockeyFightFan]

On a side note, do you belong to the "Black Israelites" group?

I see them around Times Square dressed up as knights of Jerusalem and was curious if this is the group you belong to.











"1"

Reminds me of the band Parliament...

[Wiggs]

Just as you post one article claiming that Jesus wasn't Jewish, I can post 10 articles starting otherwise.

That's not debating...

"1"

I'm not claiming, I'm stating a fact. And in any article you post if it is false regarding this topic, I can tell why it's false on each point. My long article happens to be a retort to what your article was saying. My article provides the etymology of the term, how it has changed, where it is used and how, how it has been used to confuse the masses. There's no doubting it. It is factual. Written BY THE WAY, BY A JEW! And not any JEW but an ESTEEMED JEW.

If I were you, I wouldn't want any part of it either. Don't worry, you can slither out of the back door.

[Kwon_2]

Jesus was Jewish

[Griffith]

There's nothing cute about it. My conclusions are drawn from facts. Facts that I posted. Those facts came from someone else interested in what I was interested in. You won't address those facts. That's your problem. And still you won't debate them. No "Jew" will. But you all are certainly vocal about everything else regarding yourselves....Everything except the most incendiary topic regarding your people. How convenient.  Even Farrakhan openly called for a debate with ANY Jewish Rabbi or scholar regarding some of what I spoke about today. Guess how many took him up on his offer....ZERO. So you can remain willfully ignorant if you chose (if that is the case), that's your business.

That's not taking the easy way out. That's called not re-researching fact already researched and published. If you review this thread, you'll see that for me, it's business as usual but for you, you've gone into what would be considered a meltdown for yourself and now you've been reduced to repeating a failed mantra and arguing semantics. It's quite laughable coming from "Onemorerep" especially considering we never really got started. So you can throw your tantrums and get butt hurt because I won't talk about what you want to talk about in the order you want to talk about it or you can admit that I'm indeed correct, or try to argue against my points, then once I feel they've been argued thoroughly even if we agree to disagree, we move on to the next topic. Because the longer this thread goes, the worse you look.

 

 

[OneMoreRep]

I'm not claiming, I'm stating a fact. And in any article you post if it is false regarding this topic, I can tell why it's false on each point. My long article happens to be a retort to what your article was saying. My article provides the etymology of the term, how it has changed, where it is used and how, how it has been used to confuse the masses. There's no doubting it. It is factual. Written BY THE WAY, BY A JEW! And not any JEW but an ESTEEMED JEW.

If I were you, I wouldn't want any part of it either. Don't worry, you can slither out of the back door.

Ok, so let's review...

YOU claim that the Talmud badmouthed both Mary and Jesus, when I asked you to refute it (you know, form a logical retort with YOUR own words) you come short and can't produce anything.

I asked YOU to prove your statement that Jesus was NOT a Jew (you know, form a logical retort with YOUR own words) and instead you post up a 10-page article written by some historian on the matter.

Again, the only thing proved here is that YOU don't know what you're talking about and instead are resorting to copying and pasting articles from Google.

If you don't know what you are talking about, why are you pretending to even argue. You have done no debating here. You have proven nothing more than the fact that you are capable of googling a random phrase and pasting the results you found.

Come on Wiggs, that is what's truly laughable.  You spout all these claims that you say are facts, but can't prove them by way of using your own logic, reasoning and understanding of the information. No, instead, you want me to argue against a historian that writes about this for a living.

I got news for you buddy, I'm not a Rabbi sitting inside of synagogue waiting for a Google scholar to fling articles at me.

Either have a debate or don't..

"1"

[Kwon_2]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57585501-504083/andrea-rebello-update-family-of-accidentally-slain-hofstra-univ-student-criticizes-police/

[Wiggs]

Ok, so let's review...

YOU claim that the Talmud badmouthed both Mary and Jesus, when I asked you to refute it (you know, form a logical retort with YOUR own words) you come short and can't produce anything.

I asked YOU to prove your statement that Jesus was NOT a Jew (you know, form a logical retort with YOUR own words) and instead you post up a 10-page article written by some historian on the matter.

Again, the only thing proved here is that YOU don't know what you're talking about and instead are resorting to copying and pasting articles from Google.

If you don't know what you are talking about, why are you pretending to even argue. You have done no debating here. You have proven nothing more than the fact that you are capable of googling a random phrase and pasting the results you found.

Come on Wiggs, that is what's truly laughable.  You spout all these claims that you say are facts, but can't prove them by way of using your own logic, reasoning and understanding of the information. No, instead, you want me to argue against a historian that writes about this for a living.

I got news for you buddy, I'm not a Rabbi sitting inside of synagogue waiting for a Google scholar to fling articles at me.

Either have a debate or don't..

"1"

As I stated earlier in this thread. I addressed the "Jesus" is a "Jew" topic first because like my other previous statements, as in "The original Hebrews were black", it's something I've independently researched at great lengths and enjoy speaking about it. Your Talmud issue would have been addressed, had I received the courtesy of having the facts I provided disputed. In four pages of this thread, you haven't addressed a single word of what I posted. Now, you're changing the story. When anyone can go back and look and see you asked me to address those issues, I chose to start with the latter for reasons I gave above, I provided facts. NOT 10 PAGES or even 1 FULL PAGE. You decided not to address or even recognize the facts or the authors from which they came...ALL ESTEEMED JEWS BTW.

THEN, you post some article AFTER the argument was clearly over to try to rev things up again and tried to "   " me when I responded to it and quoted that I stated you may have the last word. You had your last word, then started up up again...That is what's known as a "bitch move".  Remember that.

I then provided at "10 page" retort to your "bitch move".  So now, you just posted, that I want you to argue with historians? Well yes. You've asked for facts. I retrieved my information from LEGIT HISTORIANS (ones that tell the truth) and you're butt hurt because I went to the most legit source.  This is much more than a cut/paste as I previously stated, we didn't even get started. I was trying to establish facts from historians which can't be logically argued and you can't even agree on that. So to that I ask, what is you're problem with them? Why are they wrong? What is the truth? You won't do that. We never got past stage 1 and you quit. I full well know you're certainly not a "Rabbi" and you don't do this for a living.

[Griffith]

As I stated earlier in this thread. I addressed the "Jesus" is a "Jew" topic first because like my other previous statements, as in "The original Hebrews were black", it's something I've independently researched at great lengths and enjoy speaking about it. Your Talmud issue would have been addressed, had I received the courtesy of having the facts I provided disputed. In four pages of this thread, you haven't addressed a single word of what I posted. Now, you're changing the story. When anyone can go back and look and see you asked me to address those issues, I chose to start with the latter for reasons I gave above, I provided facts. NOT 10 PAGES or even 1 FULL PAGE. You decided not to address or even recognize the facts or the authors from which they came...ALL ESTEEMED JEWS BTW.

THEN, you post some article AFTER the argument was clearly over to try to rev things up again and tried to "   " me when I responded to it and quoted that I stated you may have the last word. You had your last word, then started up up again...That is what's known as a "bitch move".  Remember that.

I then provided at "10 page" retort to your "bitch move".  So now, you just posted, that I want you to argue with historians? Well yes. You've asked for facts. I retrieved my information from LEGIT HISTORIANS (ones that tell the truth) and you're butt hurt because I went to the most legit source.  This is much more than a cut/paste as I previously stated, we didn't even get started. I was trying to establish facts from historians which can't be logically argued and you can't even agree on that. So to that I ask, what is you're problem with them? Why are they wrong? What is the truth? You won't do that. We never got past stage 1 and you quit. I full well know you're certainly not a "Rabbi" and you don't do this for a living.

The Ancient Egyptians still disagree with you from the stone carvings on their walls which are still here with us from over 4000 years ago.

Middle-Easterners were not black according to them.

[OneMoreRep]

Ok Wiggs, here is a retort to your copy and paste material that you posted, notice how I clearly wrote every single word here for you and others to read. No need to copy and paste, just a straight debate:

First off Benjamin Freedman was NOT an esteemed Jew. He wasn't esteemed by the Jewish Community. In fact, he denounced Judaism and became Roman Catholic and was both an antisemitic and anti-zionist. So please, get your facts straight and stop copying and pasting the first article you find off Google that tries to prove that Jesus wasn't a Jew.

For any members that are actually buying into Wiggs' nonsense, feel free to put in "Jesus was not a Jew" in Google search and notice that the very first result is what Wiggs posted up for an argument supposedly based on facts.

I read that argument (here is the website for it: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm) and NOTHING that Freedman states is backed by FACTS.

So before you simply cut and paste bullshit off the internet, at the very least find factual information backed by references that are peer-reviewed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that your ability to argue anything has been debunked by your own doing, I'll try to refute your notion that Jesus wasn't Jewish by using my own argument (notice it isn't a copy and paste argument, as you so clearly are only capable of doing).

I believe Jesus was Jewish, because the Bible is the only accurate historical reference we have regarding Jesus and it clearly shows us that he was Jewish.

Lets consider a few simple things. First, what is the definition of the term Jew?

Here is what I found (and you can too) in Merriam Webster's dictionary:

A member of the tribe of Judah (site: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jew)

Ok, so for someone to be consider a Jew, they should be a member or descendant of the tribe of Judah. I think that point is clearly established. We also know Judah was the fourth son of both Jacob and Leah, making him a member of the twelve tribes of Israel by lineage alone.

So back to Jesus. In order for someone to be consider a Jew, he needs to be born of a Jewish mother.

So was Mary Jewish and in any way related to Judah?

Let's look at the lineage.

From Judah comes David...and from David comes both Mary and Joseph and from Mary comes Jesus. (For proof of this line of reasoning take a look at Luke 3:23-38)

Here is what Luke 3:23 looks like for those that are interested:

3:23 So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli...

If you keep reading down the long lineage, it gets to this:

3:30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah <~~~ There is the direct lineage to Judah.

In order to reinforce the fact that Mary was Jewish and from the line of David and furthermore Judah, this is what Luke 1:32 states:

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.

If Jesus is related to David directly, as the father of his lineage, and David comes from Judah, as shown in the lineage found in Luke 3, then CLEARLY Jesus was JEWISH!

If you go to Luke chapter 3 and read through the lineage, you will clearly see how Mary is directly related by blood to Judah.

So, simply put, if Jesus was born of Mary (who was Jewish), then Jesus by default is also Jewish.

That's as simple as a non-Christian can put it for anyone else to read. No big, fancy and tiresome articles copied and pasted from the internet, just some simple dots that everyone can connect.

"1"

[King Shizzo]

My head hurts from this thread. Give it up Wiggs. You have no chance against One.

[cephissus]

If you accept the Bible, you need look no further than Matthew 1, verse 1, (ie the very first verse of the New Testament):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/matthew-kjv.html

Matt.1
[1] The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
[2] Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[3] And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
[4] And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
[5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
[6] And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
[7] And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
[8] And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
[9] And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
[10] And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
[11] And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
[12] And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
[13] And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
[14] And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
[15] And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
[16] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

[slaveboy1980]

Real Jews have no anus.

[OneMoreRep]

If you accept the Bible, you need look no further than Matthew 1, verse 1, (ie the very first verse of the New Testament):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/matthew-kjv.html

Matt.1
[1] The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
[2] Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[3] And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
[4] And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
[5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
[6] And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
[7] And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
[8] And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
[9] And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
[10] And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
[11] And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
[12] And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
[13] And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
[14] And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
[15] And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
[16] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Thank you for clearly showing once again that Jesus was a descendant of Judah, which in fact makes him Jewish.

"1"

[King Shizzo]

Thank you for clearly showing once again that Jesus was a descendant of Judah, which in fact makes him Jewish.

"1"

Wiggs loses again. Has he ever won?