End the Scourge of White Supremacy

What is that you want me to "prove"? That the Book of Daniel was not written in Babylonian times but much later -- in fact, even after the "Persian period", i.e., after the conquest of Iran by Alexander? Others have 'proven' that and if you want to persist with your fantasies, nothing I can do to change that.

 

Obviously the NT cannon as we have it today developed over time. eg the gospel of Thomas was not included.

Meanwhile the very early Marcion NT cannon (eventually considered heretical) consisted of Luke plus 10 or so of the Pauline letters, without connection to the OT at all. And hence no need of the trinity nonsense.

 

You can indeed trace all the Abrahamic religions back to ancient Mesopotamia. But Europeans made Christianity more palatable and it took on a different form which was able to fit within the collective character and spirit of Western Man culminating in the Reformation. The same is to be said of Islam in the Arab world. They took the Abrahamic tradition and amended it to fit their charachter and spirit which is unfortunately violent and oppressive. I have read the Koran and it is nothing more than a cheap rip off of the old and new testament meant to glorify a desert dwelling pedophilic war lord.

 

You have a lot to learn and no inclination to do so. But its fine. Whatever works for you.

 

Nope.

 

What competition laws are you referring to?

 

What is to be learned? Can you refute any of those facts? No. They are concrete.

 

I am not going to try to 'refute' anything for you, as that would inevitably require that I become "verbose" again. As I said, if it works for you, that is fine with me.

 

As I have said before, Islamic civilization was actually ahead of the West for most of its history until the 18th century and fell behind noticeably only after the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. To understand that civilization, however, is not at all something you can understand by reading the "Koran" (much less polemical accounts about it).

But much more pertinent to the issue and topic in this thread is a point I made that no one has addressed. Specifically, why do you imagine that an elitist aristocrat like Gobineau, who looked down on the lower classes even in his own country, France, who became the 'father' of (pseudo) scientific theories of racism and "Aryan supremacy", who was posted to many different countries around the globe, including ones which were clearly from the "Nordic" background he wished to promote as his 'master race', nonetheless became such an "Irano-phile"? Became a person who didn't have even the same 'class conscious' prejudice that he harbored so much elsewhere? In fact, why did feel comfortable spending so much time with common classes in Iran, when elsewhere, including in Europe, he couldn't tolerate them at all?

I ask this question because it actually informs issues about 'racism' that go beyond 'race', 'skin color', and even socio-economic class. What made lower class European whites, in the 19th century, at the time of the Industrial Revolution, so unbearable, and what made their counterparts in Iran the object of so much interest and even some 'love' by Gobineau? If you can properly tackles this issue, you might begin to understand some of the lesser understood and discussed aspects of what feeds into racism.

 

If "systemic racism" were real, then the system wouldn't require racial integration in public venues. What do you find confusing about that?

 

Your comment makes zero sense. Care to elaborate and explain?

 

Ever read the "Infancy narrative of Thomas" ??
It will give you an idea of what some people were up to "back then"
When our NT compiled there was a broad agreement on what was
genuine, and what was forgery or mere imitation.
Jesus did not preach any "Trinity" nor was it a part of the Apostolic
Church. In any discussion on the early church one needs to separate
the Apostolic Church and the Gospels from anything which came from
churches after the disciples were gone. As they themselves put it,
after their decease ravenous wolves would enter and not spare the
flock - making "merchandize" of them, instituting holy days and laws,
and reverting back to Jewish style religion. This is what happened.

 

Interesting position. Since none of the writings were actually written during the teachings of the disciples, (or most of their lifetimes) it is not an easy task to distinguish between what they actually taught in the Jewish oral tradition of the day, and what was actually said, in Aramaic, and Hebrew, but written in Greek in the NT. The Gospel of Thomas et., al, the Gnostic Gospels, are interesting, as are later Sufi interpretations. John is written in a style of Greek most different and designed to win over Gnostics, but this was written between AD 70 and AD 100...

 

IMO
Acts was written by someone who accompanied Paul to Rome. He or she was a companion
of some of the figures in this book (these men and women changed partners every one or two
years and never stayed in one area.)
Author probably died ca AD 66
Acts follows Luke.
Why is Luke called Luke? Because this is what the broader community had called the Gospel
for generations - they know better than we do.
And Luke quotes Math and Mark.
And Paul in Corinthians quotes these Gospels as well - he wrote 20 years after Jesus.
So I hold that Matthew and Mark were written well before AD 50. And why not? The commission
of these men was to preach the Gospel in all the world. As David said of the Messiah, "It will be
told to generations yet born that he has done this."
You don't leave that to oral tradition.

 

Acts was written a little later, but we largely agree. Still, Paul was not around when Jesus was, so it was all second-hand. Matthew-John were all based upon oral tradition first. Not to say there is no value in these books, and this is an interesting conversation.

 

Sure, Luke and Paul never met Jesus.
I wonder though if Paul SAW Jesus - both were in Jerusalem and maybe
at the same time?
Not sure why people say Matt and Mark are "oral traditions." I am fine with
the argument that you can "see" Matthew the tax collector in the Gospel of
that name.
And historically, we know John wrote his Gospel much later. But sure, he was
an eye witness, just as Peter was.

 

I have no argument against Matthew or Mark; just that they were written years later and are based upon many oral iterations of the narratives.

John was written so much later it could not have been the John who followed Jesus. This does not mean the NT is fiction or wrong in its central message; just that little details were second hand based upon what others said.

 

PLEASE ​

Name One "White FREE" including culture, Nation You Would Rather . . . .


Yup!


Moi

Does Count as White?
Given Sun, of course.​

 

It's history - THE John of the Gospels is the one who wrote the Gospel according to John.
The same writer clearly penned the three John letters.

“Afterward, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself
publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies

 

Whether one accepts the Trinity or not, the trinity is mentioned overtly all over the NT cannon. In the removed books the message is more one being God within, but even there, allusions to a trinity of sorts. Connecting the OT to NT Jesus prophecy is a little more nuanced and complex, from Elijah, Isaiah, and Jerimiah, but it can be done convincingly.

 

That is a debatable point, but I must say, John is my favorite of the 4 Gospels, for his prose, his Greek, and his response to the Gnostics are outstanding, regardless of who the author actually was--fascinating read.

 

We are not meant to read this with prose, Greek and Gnostics in mind.
It's meant for the heart.
Why is the authorship of John "debatable" ?

 

Black Americans were far better off one hundred years after the end of slavery than they are today, sixty years later on. When the Democrat party decided to help blacks(gain their political support)black statistics were on par with whites on practically everything, and in some instances better. Their high school graduation rates, employment and unemployment rates, marriage and divorce rates, out of wedlock birth rates, and crime and incarceration rates were all on par with whites. Then the Democrat party decided to make blacks their pet project. And after sixty years of white Democrat leadership, black stats aren't better. And they aren't merely worse. They are wrecked. So knock off the slavery schtick. Blacks broke away from that demon. It's the Democrat party that did them in. Well, that and black community organizers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to act as confidence men and ramrods working for the white liberal politicians. And blacks bear the responsibility as well for signing on, selling their votes, their souls, their Fathers, marriage, family, neighborhood and schools, their dignity, and essentially their freedom, all for money. It is the breakdown of the family don't you know.

 

Actually John's prose was designed as a reply to Gnostic claims; this is established in the wording and the style of the Greek. Yes, it is meant for the heart, but it is also a rebuttal to Gnostic claims that we can all be God/god(s)...

As far as why his authorship is debatable start here: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...-the-gospel-of-john-and-how-historical-is-it/

Here: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmjohn.html

Here: https://www.edx.org/es/course/early-christian-outlook-and-its-jewish-matrix-narr

And here: https://www.grin.com/document/503108

 

Democrats at the time of Reconstruction to about 100 years after the Civil War and some Republicans/Democratic Republicans formed the KKK, and various hate groups focused on destroying freed black slaves, and maintaining white rule over them. 1921 we saw the killing of Black Wall Street by whites, many Democrats, in Tulsa, and Tuskegee in 1941. Of course over this time period into the 1960's - early 1970's there was a accelerated movement of Republicans becoming more like the Democrats used to be, and vice versa. As Democrats reshaped into civil rights fighters and turning against racism, some areas did improve while others did not--the KKK of yesteryear became conservative driven (far-right in the upper ranks) and their power peaked from the 1920's to the late 1970's.

https://www.history.com/topics/reconstruction/ku-klux-klan

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-ku-klux-klan-history-721444

https://durangoherald.com/articles/237319

https://finding-aids.lib.unc.edu/04921/