Sections of Bible now illegal and considered hate speech under new law

[Stravinsk]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1785867914832200105

Smells like a new resurgence of Bolshevik Russia right in the USA. And you know what happened to very large amounts of Christians in Bolshevik Russia, don't you?

 

[Lees]

Smells like a new resurgence of Bolshevik Russia right in the USA. And you know what happened to very large amounts of Christians in Bolshevik Russia, don't you?

I looked at the bill, HR6090, and did not see where it used examples within the Bible as anti-semitic. What portion in that bill describes anti-christian belief, by those who are against it?

Seems it goes by the definition of 'antisemitism' given by the IHRA in May of 2016.

I have no doubt that some can and probably will use it to that end. Thus I am not for it. But I have heard others already say the same under our existing 'hate crimes' legislation, which I am against also. I believe the Roman church several years ago actually said the Jews were not to be seen as guilty of crucifying Christ.

I agree that liberal democrat America can be compared to the atheist Bolsheviks, as they continue to remove God and Christianity from the government and schools.

And I believe it can be compared to the 'French Revolution' also, which wanted change in the government, but did not have the Protestant Reformation base as America. And as our Protestant base is being eroded away, we can expect the same reign of terror when all collapses.

Lees

 

[Hadassah]

Sounds like Jews hating on Jews if you ask me. The bible was written by Jews after all. What part is hate speech, the parts where Jews reprimand other Jews behaving badly? Like really, Christ was a Jew, all the prophets are Jews, the apostles are Jews. What parts are hate speech? The parts Jews that hated the truth killed their own Jewish prophets for telling the truth? It would seem then, certain Jews hate the Book given to them.

Isn't it their hate for the covenant given to them that they were always defeated by their enemies and handed over to bondage? I mean that's according to their own book! I mean isn't it their God revealed to the gentile by them, who allowed them to be conquered and enslaved, not because of obedience but because of disobedience?

If they want to go on a killing spree it's because they're angry and hate everyone not like them. Their gripe is with God and His with them, everything in between is just collateral damage! There's a time to live and a time to die for all including them. Everyone will find out if what they do serves God or not. It is funny though, their own prophets write how they broke the first covenant and God promised to make a new and better covenant with them. Something about taking away the stony tablets and putting His commands upon their hearts. I wonder what their messiah will do? Seems they don't believe they broke any 1st covenant and need a new one. I guess their Jewish prophets lied! Who knew! Oy vey!

 

[Stravinsk]

I looked at the bill, HR6090, and did not see where it used examples within the Bible as anti-semitic. What portion in that bill describes anti-christian belief, by those who are against it?

Seems it goes by the definition of 'antisemitism' given by the IHRA in May of 2016.

It doesn't use biblical examples. It doesn't need to. The bible is clear in multiple places that the Jews were responsible for Christ's death. Jews will say it's the Romans, but this is just sidestepping the issue. Jews used the state to achieve their ends, just as they do now. Christ's own words condemn the Jews (those who follow their Talmudic Judaism as taught by the Pharisees) as "children of the Devil". The language used in several places of the bible is language that this bill defines as "anti-semetic".

I have no doubt that some can and probably will use it to that end. Thus I am not for it. But I have heard others already say the same under our existing 'hate crimes' legislation, which I am against also. I believe the Roman church several years ago actually said the Jews were not to be seen as guilty of crucifying Christ.

I agree that liberal democrat America can be compared to the atheist Bolsheviks, as they continue to remove God and Christianity from the government and schools.

And I believe it can be compared to the 'French Revolution' also, which wanted change in the government, but did not have the Protestant Reformation base as America. And as our Protestant base is being eroded away, we can expect the same reign of terror when all collapses.

Lees

 

[Lees]

It doesn't use biblical examples. It doesn't need to. The bible is clear in multiple places that the Jews were responsible for Christ's death. Jews will say it's the Romans, but this is just sidestepping the issue. Jews used the state to achieve their ends, just as they do now. Christ's own words condemn the Jews (those who follow their Talmudic Judaism as taught by the Pharisees) as "children of the Devil". The language used in several places of the bible is language that this bill defines as "anti-semetic".

Christ does not condemn all Jews as 'children of the devil'. He did name some as 'children of the devil'. (John 8:41-44) But He didn't name Nicodemus as a child of the devil though he were Jew and a Pharisee. (John 3:1-5) Nor Paul, a Pharisee of the Pharisees. (Acts 9:15-16) (Gal. 1:14) (Philippians 3:5-6) Nor the many Pharisees who believed. (Acts 15:5)

But, as I have said, I agree that the Jews bear the responsibility for crucifying Christ. And they suffer under it to this day. (Matt. 27:25)

The introduction in the HR 6090 bill does have a worrisome statement to me. It says, "...for the enforcement of Federal discrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes."

That is an open ended statement. Who determines 'other purposes'? The Federal govt. no doubt. Politicians are known for pushing bills through during a time of crisis because they are more likely to pass due to the urgency. And, 'for other purposes' can be used in the future for something else entirely. The future, and maybe the real reason for this bill, is what worries me.

Will some Jews and atheistic liberal democrats try and use it against the Bible. Probably. But I think they would have a difficult time doing that, especially with their statement at the end in Sec. 6. (b). It says, "Constitutional protection.... Nothing in this act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

I am against the Bill HR 6090. It is not necessary. If it is passed, and persecution of Christians results for believing the Bible, then the country is gone already. It has left it's Protestant Reformation base and it's Reign of Terror begins. And the result of the Reign of Terror was a Dictatorship. Napoleon. We never learn anything from history.

My opinion

Lees

 

[Lamb]

All our sins went to the cross with Jesus, so all of us were the ones who crucified Him.

 

[Lees]

All our sins went to the cross with Jesus, so all of us were the ones who crucified Him.

Of course no one will argue against that, as paying for our sins is why Christ died.

But do you not recognize that that is different as to who the parties were that actually crucified Christ. In other words, do you think Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the foot of the cross, would not have stopped it if she could? I do. Do you think John, there also, would have helped nail Jesus to the Cross if asked to? I don't.

I believe Scripture is clear that Israel, the Jews, are who God holds accountable.

(Acts 2:22-23) "Ye men of Israel....Jesus of Nazareth....ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain"

(Acts 2:36) "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

The Jews bear the responsibility for their rejection and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

Christ does not condemn all Jews as 'children of the devil'. He did name some as 'children of the devil'. (John 8:41-44) But He didn't name Nicodemus as a child of the devil though he were Jew and a Pharisee. (John 3:1-5) Nor Paul, a Pharisee of the Pharisees. (Acts 9:15-16) (Gal. 1:14) (Philippians 3:5-6) Nor the many Pharisees who believed. (Acts 15:5)

He condemned Pharisaic Judaism which was then how they interpreted the OT through their "oral traditions" - later written down in their Talmud. The same Talmud that calls Mary a whore and says Christ is burning in excrement, calls Jews superior to all other races, condones child sex, promotes multiple genders and calls all non-jews beasts or cattle. The same Talmud that says non-Jews who read it deserve death, that Jews should have goyim slaves and a whole lot of other filth.

There is no other "Judaism". Judaism, by definition, rejects Christ and adheres to their "rabbis" (the Pharisees, and the Pharisees Teaching contained in the Talmud).

Religious Jews conceal this by holding up high the Torah, fooling a lot of Christians into thinking they adhere to it. They don't. Their Talmud even teaches them to lie if it "protects a life" - which gives the Jew a bunch of reasons to lie to Christians about what their Talmud actually teaches, for if many knew, some, no doubt many would seek to end the life of the Jew.

By the way, Paul was not of the Tribe of Judah. He was of the tribe of Benjamin. That makes him a Benjamite, not a Jew.

But, as I have said, I agree that the Jews bear the responsibility for crucifying Christ. And they suffer under it to this day. (Matt. 27:25)

The introduction in the HR 6090 bill does have a worrisome statement to me. It says, "...for the enforcement of Federal discrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes."

That is an open ended statement. Who determines 'other purposes'? The Federal govt. no doubt. Politicians are known for pushing bills through during a time of crisis because they are more likely to pass due to the urgency. And, 'for other purposes' can be used in the future for something else entirely. The future, and maybe the real reason for this bill, is what worries me.

Will some Jews and atheistic liberal democrats try and use it against the Bible. Probably. But I think they would have a difficult time doing that, especially with their statement at the end in Sec. 6. (b). It says, "Constitutional protection.... Nothing in this act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

I am against the Bill HR 6090. It is not necessary. If it is passed, and persecution of Christians results for believing the Bible, then the country is gone already. It has left it's Protestant Reformation base and it's Reign of Terror begins. And the result of the Reign of Terror was a Dictatorship. Napoleon. We never learn anything from history.

My opinion

Lees

 

[Lees]

He condemned Pharisaic Judaism which was then how they interpreted the OT through their "oral traditions" - later written down in their Talmud. The same Talmud that calls Mary a whore and says Christ is burning in excrement, calls Jews superior to all other races, condones child sex, promotes multiple genders and calls all non-jews beasts or cattle. The same Talmud that says non-Jews who read it deserve death, that Jews should have goyim slaves and a whole lot of other filth.

There is no other "Judaism". Judaism, by definition, rejects Christ and adheres to their "rabbis" (the Pharisees, and the Pharisees Teaching contained in the Talmud).

Religious Jews conceal this by holding up high the Torah, fooling a lot of Christians into thinking they adhere to it. They don't. Their Talmud even teaches them to lie if it "protects a life" - which gives the Jew a bunch of reasons to lie to Christians about what their Talmud actually teaches, for if many knew, some, no doubt many would seek to end the life of the Jew.

By the way, Paul was not of the Tribe of Judah. He was of the tribe of Benjamin. That makes him a Benjamite, not a Jew.

No, as I already showed you. Christ did not condemn all Jews. He recognized many who contended with Him were of their father, the devil.

Yes, on the whole, Israel has rejected Jesus Christ. But then out of them come some who believed. Point being, not all Jews are children of the devil.

It doesn't matter if Paul wasn't of the tribe of Judah. All Israelites at that time were known as Jews. (Acts 21:39) "But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus...."

Lees

 

[Stravinsk]

No, as I already showed you. Christ did not condemn all Jews. He recognized many who contended with Him were of their father, the devil.

Yes, on the whole, Israel has rejected Jesus Christ. But then out of them come some who believed. Point being, not all Jews are children of the devil.

Jews universally reject Christ as Messiah. Some are "ethnic" only, often Atheist, and as so being also reject Christ as Messiah, others are religious and reject Christ as Messiah.

Christ was very specific on *why* they reject Him and His words. They do not accept or understand His words because of who their Father is. He didn't leave it up to you or me to guess. He said it plainly.

It doesn't matter if Paul wasn't of the tribe of Judah. All Israelites at that time were known as Jews. (Acts 21:39) "But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus...."

Lees

Actually "Israel" is the 12 tribes, only 1 of which is Judah. So the descendants of Judah are Israelites, but there are 11 more. Just because they are part of the dispersal and aren't seen as Israelites doesn't mean they aren't.

You ever why modern "Jews" steal the name of the northern brothers they were at odds with? Israel (northern kingdom in modern Palestine), JUDEA (southern kingdom in modern Palestine). Israel, their northern brothers, were dispersed over the earth. That doesn't make them less Israelites. In fact, those who accept Christ/His teachings are arguably the true Israelites.

 

[Lees]

Jews universally reject Christ as Messiah. Some are "ethnic" only, often Atheist, and as so being also reject Christ as Messiah, others are religious and reject Christ as Messiah.

Christ was very specific on *why* they reject Him and His words. They do not accept or understand His words because of who their Father is. He didn't leave it up to you or me to guess. He said it plainly.


Actually "Israel" is the 12 tribes, only 1 of which is Judah. So the descendants of Judah are Israelites, but there are 11 more. Just because they are part of the dispersal and aren't seen as Israelites doesn't mean they aren't.

You ever why modern "Jews" steal the name of the northern brothers they were at odds with? Israel (northern kingdom in modern Palestine), JUDEA (southern kingdom in modern Palestine). Israel, their northern brothers, were dispersed over the earth. That doesn't make them less Israelites. In fact, those who accept Christ/His teachings are arguably the true Israelites.

I want to say before going further, that this is my understanding of Scripture, and others also, but it is not universally accepted in the Church.

That is correct, Jesus didn't leave it up to us to guess, as He said plainly that those who He was speaking to were children of the devil. But Jesus was the God/Man, who knew all men. (John 2:24) "But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men." This is knowledge that only God has. Just like with Judas, Christ always knew who he was. (John 17:12) (John 6:64). Which must have been galling to Christ during His ministry on earth.

Christ's use of the phrase 'of the devil' speaks to origin. The persons origin. And only He would know that. It's not the persons acts that determine their origin. In other words, it is often believed and said of Christians that we were once 'children of the devil' but are now 'children of God'. In this I disagree. The believer, whether in Israel or the Church, or even those believers between Adam and Moses, were never 'children of the devil'. We were all, as believers, children of wrath, (Eph. 2:1-3), and walked in step with the devil, but were not 'of the devil'.

My point being: Jesus was talking to those who He knew were of the devil. But that doesn't mean all of Israel or Jews are of the devil, as I showed earlier that Nicodemus and Paul were Pharisees yet later believed and were saved. See post #(5).

John goes on to say, and it's interesting that John really centers on this subject of 'origin', that the same is true with the believer. He believes because he is 'of God'. John's term in (Jn. 3:3) is not 'born again'. It is 'born from above'. So unless ones origin is correct, of God, he cannot even see the kingdom of God. Because he is 'of God' he believes and is then born again, and enters the kingdom. (Jn. 3:5) Also, (Jn. 8:47).

I agree that Israel is made up of all 12 tribes. But today, and even in Paul's day, they were known as Jews, or Israelites. Yes, those Jews, Israelites, who accept Christ make up the true Israel of God. (Gal. 6:16) But today they are located in the Church, as the Remnant. (Rom. 9:27) (Rom. 11:4-5) They are not part of national Israel. Much more can be said but I think you get my point here.

My opinion.

Lees