Such ridiculous accusations do not help your argument or whatever credibility you might still have on this forum. — Fooloso4

Well, this forum is obviously a joke. So, I wouldn’t flatter myself too much if I were you.

But anyway, if you’re talking about history and sources, let’s see what history and the sources actually say, not how anti-Christians interpret them. We can start with your favourite one, the OT, the story how the Hebrews got their king:

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations […] we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles” 1 Samuel 8: 4-5, 19-20

Please note the sentence “that we may be like all the nations”. The Hebrews wanted a king like all the surrounding nations, Egyptians, Assyrians, Mesopotamians, etc.

What kind of king did the neighbouring nations have? A king that was the representative of God on earth and the “Son of God”.

It’s a well-known fact that the institution of kingship in which the king was the son and representative of God, was part and parcel of the culture in the region, especially Egyptian culture which was dominant at the time and to which the Hebrews had particularly close links.

“And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” – Acts 7:22

Pre-biblical Egyptian inscriptions show that when a king or pharaoh ascended to the throne he was said to be appointed by the God Re, his father. So, he was “Son of God” and “Divine King”.

Similarly, among the Assyrians, the king was regarded as the representative of the God Ashur, in Mesopotamia the king represented the God Shamash (which, incidentally, is cognate with Hebrew shemesh and Arabic shams), etc.

And the OT tells us exactly what kind of kings the Hebrews or Jews got:

“You [King David] are My Son! Today I have begotten you”.
“He [King Solomon] shall be My Son, and I will be his father, and I will establish throne of his kingdom over Israel forever”.

So, who took what from whom? We know that Jesus himself visited Egypt:

“And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt […] When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt” – Matthew 2:13-14

Did Jesus believe he was the Son of God? Well, you weren’t there at the time so you can’t tell for certain, can you? What is certain, however, is that Alexander the Great was called “the Son of God” (after Egyptian fashion) and the practice of regarding kings and emperors as divine was well-established in Greece and Rome by the 1st century CE.

The eastern part of the Roman Empire, including Palestine, was a Greek-dominated cosmopolitan society in which different religious and cultural currents blended together. That was precisely why the Gospels were written in Greek and according to many scholars Jesus himself spoke Greek in addition to other languages.

I think it is baseless to claim that Christianity "robbed” the Jews of their "Divine King/Messiah” and "Son of God” concepts in view of the fact that this was part of the common cultural and religious heritage in the region. And what matters at the end of the day is that Christians felt to have good reason to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and they have every right to do so. I don’t think it is for neo-Marxists to tell Christians what to do. I'm not telling you what to believe and I don't care to be honest.

When I did sleep I dreamt that someone was creating endless threads, almost taking over the site, and the moderators were trying to delete them and the whole site crashed. — Jack Cummins

lol Sounds like a right nightmare then. Maybe there is some truth in dreams after all. Let's hope your dream or nightmare doesn't turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy ...

And seeing that it's your thread, what did I say that was "offensive" to anyone?

Drop the persistence of the self, and reincarnation becomes a fact — Banno

I don't think that answers the question. People who believe in the self or soul aren't mad. In fact, most inhabitants of this planet do. The non-believers are a minority. Even atheists and neo-Marxists say "myself".

So why should I care about some "next life" which my actions (karma) in this life will have fated if that "next life" isn't mine? — 180 Proof

Nobody says you should care. It's your choice. Plus, different traditions explain reincarnation and karma in different ways. Which they're entitled to do.

↪baker It was your answer, so I'm asking you to share the definition you chose - the one that answers the question "what is it that is reincarnated?" — Banno

How about answering that question yourself, seeing that you know better than anyone else?

Sometimes when I look at this site it seems like an organic being with a consciousness, threads fizzling and fading, and others being born. — Jack Cummins

Yeah, but don't forget the moles, the termites and the tapeworms. And the Stalinist Taliban.

you may have all the fake Rolexes but we've got the time — 180 Proof

Look who's talking! Fake Democracy, Fake Freedom of Speech, Fake Forum.

No wonder you're being taken over by Mexico and China. lol

But, at least the thread has not lost consciousness just yet. — Jack Cummins

That remains to be seen. It looks like some may have lost it after all.

I said "presume". But I forgot the Taliban don't speak English.

I was just having a peaceful and polite conversation with @Athena.

What exactly did I say to offend you for you to start attacking me???

Yeah, talking about yourself, I presume.

Here's how the word "cabal" is used in normal everyday English language:

“Cabal of climate sceptics to descend on UK parliament” - Guardian

“In us we trust: the powerful cabal pulling political strings over NSW stadiums” – Guardian

”Cabal buys rest of Del Monte” – Independent

“Londoner's Diary: Corbyn’s cabal has no need for libraries” – Evening Standard

“The cabal of the commandos” - Jerusalem Post

I do realize that uneducated Taliban Fascists and Boko Haram Nazis (and Stalinists) think differently from normal people but that isn't my fault.

The big question is, where has the "American Democracy and Freedom Of Speech" gone? Could it be that it's just a myth?

Nation of Islam or Boko Haram, huh?

Or, maybe Taliban?

Though I, myself, am of the far-Left, what I do understand of it is that populated by kind of a lot of fanatics. When it comes to fanatics and their talking points, other people often refuse to listen to a single word that they say, and understandably so. — thewonder

Well, I think it was quite obvious that you're of the far-Left and usually the far-Left is associated with extremists and fanatics.

But I wasn't refusing to listen to you at all. A (normal) forum is for people to communicate and exchange views. I was just trying to understand what you're actually saying since your statements seem self-contradictory and your facts are wrong too: twentieth century is "nineteenth century", rule by a small totalitarian minority is "not totalitarianism", etc. ...

More like smoking yourself out from what I see ....

In the federal elections of 1871 the Social Democratic Workers’ Party led by Karl Liebknecht (Marx’s ally and collaborator in the International) received only 3.2% of the vote.

The Communists were a small fraction of that and Marx and Engels' group a small fraction of that small fraction. Maybe a few hundred people in total.

Less than twenty years into the 1900s. The Communist Manifesto was first published in 1848. I don't think that it's a stretch to suggest that it did take enough of a hold for such sentiments to still exist in 1919. — thewonder

What do you mean??? Engels in the Introduction openly admits that the Manifesto had no influence. Most copies were seized by the police and very few were actually read by anyone. Nobody cared about Marx and Engels' Communist revolution except a very small radical faction that as admitted by Engels was not enough for a revolution or even uprising. Maybe a small riot at the most.

The "sentiments" you're talking about were 10% of the population at the time of Luxemburg. So, on one hand you're allegedly against totalitarianism, and on the other hand you're for rule by a small minority with which the vast majority disagrees.

So basically, I can't speak because I'm "anti-Semitic" and I can't answer accusations of "anti-Semitism" either, because I'm "defensive"! Sounds a bit self-contradictory to me, to be honest. In other words, I shouldn't be on this forum ...

Here's the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definition for you:

cabal a. A secret or private intrigue of a sinister character formed by a small body of persons; ‘something less than conspiracy’ (Johnson).
1663 J. Heath Flagellum He was no sooner rid of the danger of this but he was puzzled with Lambert's cabal.
1702 Clarendon's Hist. Rebellion I. v. 439 The King..asked him, whether he were engaged in any Cabal concerning the Army?
1707 J. Freind Acct. Earl of Peterborow's Conduct in Spain 171 The contrivances and cabals of others have too often prevail'd.
1824 W. Irving Tales of Traveller II. 30 There were cabals breaking out in the company.
1874 G. Bancroft Hist. U.S. X. xvii. 349 The cabal against Washington found supporters exclusively in the north ....

So, it's not even a conspiracy! But according to you it is one all the same ...

And the Wikipedia Article - Cabal

It goes back hundreds of years with no connotation of "anti-semitism" whatsoever. So, maybe it's you who is "defensive" for no reason, not me?

This is not calling you an anti-Semite. It is clarifying your position — Tom Storm

Why do you feel the need of "clarifying my position" then? My position is that financial and industrial interests have too much influence on government and the people too little. You seem to agree with me but at the same time disagree, so which is it?

You're doing quite a bit of projecting there aren't you? Since when are the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Clintons, Obama and Biden "Jews"???

And it isn't a "defense" at all. I'm just answering the points you're making or trying to make.

Given that Socialists felt like their common existence was at stake and had good reason to suspect that reform was going to take longer than they were going to live for, the revolutionary stance of the KPD, regardless as to whether it was either strategic or ethical, does make sense. — thewonder

By the same logic, the SPD's opposition to the Communists does make sense and it can't be called "betrayal". Unless you're advocating Communism, i.e., in this case, the rule of a Communist minority over a non-Communist majority?

I also think that you fail to understand that Communism was extraordinarily appealing to many people in the Nineteenth Century. — thewonder

Nineteenth Century? We're talking about the 1900s here, i.e. Twentieth Century, when Communists in Germany only mustered 10% of the vote.

And yet that is exactly what they did. They took Jewish concepts and over time the meaning was altered. — Fooloso4

So what? That isn't a crime. Jewish religion also changed over time. Jews took concepts from others like Egyptians and Babylonians, and Christians took them from the Jews. But concepts like "Son of God" and "Divine King" were quite common, they weren't the exclusive property of the Jews as you're claiming.

Plus, it isn't about history, it's about religion and faith. What you're implying is that Christians aren't allowed to have their own religion and should be punished for borrowing from the Jews. Christians also borrowed quite a bit from the Greeks, Romans and others. Should they be punished for that as well? Would you like to start burning Christian bibles and churches???

Your defensiveness is interesting. — Tom Storm

What "defensiveness"? You call people "anti-semites" for no reason and then accuse them of being "defensive"?

You agree with me that a cabal or "Property Party" has taken over and that power has been taken away from the people. So why are you trying to prevent people from speaking up by calling them "anti-semites"? How does that serve the interests of democracy and freedom? Just wondering.

If, however, you go to any left-wing forum, be it Anarchist, Socialist, or Communist, and ask, "I, myself am sympathetic to Social Democracy, but, in passing conversation, I was told that the SPD betrayed the KPD during the Spartacist Uprising and set in motion the course of events that would lead to the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Is this true?", — thewonder

I think I understand what you're trying to say. However, the Communists (KPD) had just above 10% of the vote, so they were a minority and the Spartacists were a faction within the Communist minority.

But it’s interesting to read what Luxemburg had to say:

“Only the nationalization of the large landed estates, as the technically most advanced and most concentrated means and methods of agrarian production, can serve as the point of departure for the socialist mode of production on the land. Of course, it is not necessary to take away from the small peasant his parcel of land, and we can with confidence leave him to be won over voluntarily by the superior advantages first of union in cooperation and then finally of inclusion in the general socialized economy as a whole […] the property right must first of all be turned over to the nation, or to the state, which, with a socialist government, amounts to the same thing” – R Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution

So, what Luxemburg is saying is that land must to be taken over by the “nation” which is actually the state which is the government which is the Socialist Party which is (ideally) run by people like Luxemburg herself ....

Obviously, most Germans - and most people in their right mind - would object to that.

Personally, I may have even supported the Spartacists. — thewonder

I thought you might. But why support a radical minority against the will of the majority?

I am not objecting, I am clarifying. Sometimes people like to spray around the Protocols to the Elders of Zion type stuff — Tom Storm

Clarifying what exactly? You come up with that stuff yourself and then blame it on me? What next?

They took the Jewish terms 'Messiah' and 'son of God' and made them into something else. Something that was foreign to Jesus and Paul. To point to how the terms are used differently only supports what I have said. — Fooloso4

You're only imagining that. You need to familiarize yourself with Christianity before you make unexamined assumptions like that. In Christianity Jesus is the Son of God.

Plus, the Jews could have taken those concepts from others. People use words, beliefs and concepts that already exist. Why would they start inventing something new? Would you invent your own language instead of using the one that is already spoken? Isn't that why the Gospels were written in Greek which was the main language spoken at the time?

There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party — Tom Storm

Well, I'm not American. I called them "cabal" because that's the normal word for them in English. And if the Rockefellers and the Morgans are "Semites" then I apologize profusely. But they're still a cabal or "Property Party" if you prefer. Main thing is they don't represent the people unless you object to that as well.

Interesting you don't include Reagan, Bush and Bush. — Tom Storm

I only mentioned those that are regarded by the left as "heroes" and "saviors" which of course they aren't. If you think otherwise, that's fine by me.

It was a spontaneous revolt that was crushed by the German military at the bequest of the SPD — thewonder

So, what you are saying is that the SPD should have allied itself with the Communists (who wanted to overthrow the government) against the military? Is that what you would have done?

The Military-Industrial complex is not just about war. It is about our government's relationship with industry and a transfer of power from citizens to the government. — Athena

Correct. The big bankers and industrialists already had strong influence on the government and its economic and foreign policies for which purpose they established organizations like the Federal Reserve, Bankers Trust, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and many others. Then they used WW2 and the military-industrial complex to literally take over a government that was completely dependent on them. The Rockefellers and their associates who were replacing the Morgans were particularly good at that.

So, basically, power was transferred from the people to government and from government to the military-industrial complex and the cabal of bankers and industrialists behind it. Democracy in America, as in most of the world, is just a show to fool the masses. And people like Bill Clinton, Obama, Biden, all know it too well. No career politician can possibly not know that which means that they are complicit in it. So, you can think for yourself what kind of world we live in and what sort of future awaits us unless we wake up and smell the coffee. Unfortunately, the epidemic, environmentalism, BLM and other such movements only serve to deflect attention, energy, intelligence, and time from what's going on. And you can't say anything because you get shouted down before you even open your mouth. We might as well be in China or North Korea.

the German Social Democratic party betrayed the Communist Party of Germany during the Spartacist Uprising — thewonder

How did the SPD "betray" the Communists? Most German Socialists were Social Democrats not Communists and the Communists wanted to impose Marxism of the Russian Bolshevik type. The Socialists didn't want Germany to become a Soviet colony as planned by Lenin and Trotsky. Don't forget Lenin and Trotsky wanted to establish a Soviet-controlled United States of Europe for which purpose they set up the Communist International (COMINTERN).

There are online versions of the Bible that allow you to search. Do a search in the Old Testament for the terms 'son of God' and 'sons of God'. — Fooloso4

Well, if you really imagine that I didn't know you might come up with that, you are quite wrong.

To begin with, it is generally acknowledged that the OT texts are corrupted so, they aren’t a hundred percent reliable.

Second, it is true that the OT, Psalm 2 and Chronicles, mentions King David and King Solomon as the “Son of God”.

However, what is actually meant here is not that they were begotten in the sense of brought into being but in the sense of appointed, i.e. invested with the rank of King: they were each appointed King of Israel.

“You [King David] are My Son! Today I have begotten you”.

“He [King Solomon] shall be My Son, and I will be his father, and I will establish throne of his kingdom over Israel forever”.

Obviously, someone who is already a grown man, can't possibly be brought into being. He can, however, be "created" i.e. made or appointed.

The case of Jesus is totally different. We are told very clearly that he was brought into the world by the Holy Spirit, i.e. by God’s own Spiritual Power:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit ...” - Matthew 1:18

So these are two totally different stories. David and Solomon were appointed by God, Jesus was created, i.e. incarnated into the world by God as well as appointed to carry out a unique mission on Earth.

As for Jesus teaching the “Jewish law” it is obvious that this couldn’t have been the case. How can the Son of God or Prophet or even “Jewish rabbi” (as you choose to call him) teach the Jewish law to the Jews if the Jews ignored him? Obviously, he didn’t teach the Jewish law, he taught the Eternal Law of God, the Law of Righteousness, that had existed from all eternity and that some Jews chose to ignore:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth … Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever ..." - John 1:1,14; Hebrews 13:8

Clear as sunlight to those who can see, IMO.

And, of course, the verses from the Hebrew Bible you're referring to, just don't exist. That's why you can't quote them.

This is based on a misunderstanding of the term 'son of God' or 'sons of God'. No, I am not making it up. It is used several times in the Hebrew Bible. This time you can look it up yourself. It did not mean what it came to mean for most Christians. — Fooloso4

Sorry, but the misunderstanding is entirely yours. You're wrong again as on all your other points.

The Bible says very clearly that Jesus was the only Son of God.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life - John 3:16

You obviously don't understand the Bible and you can find no evidence to support your unfounded and erroneous claims.

And no, Jesus was not teaching the "Jewish Law", he was teaching the LAW OF GOD. That was the whole point of his mission on earth, to reestablish the Law of God which the Jews or at least some of them had departed from by focusing too much on sacrifices, rituals and other observances.

Hence his statements like this one: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath", etc.

I think a better description of these words is gibberish. — Hanover

You're far too generous there. I'd would use a slightly different description. In any case, they're words that people tend to resort to when they've lost an argument.

Pure logic is actually not a rational approach to an ontological issue. Is it? — frank

Logic can serve as a basis or start for philosophical inquiry even into ontological issues. But if others introduce arguments like "woo" and "shit" or whatever, then there can be no inquiry of any kind and no discussion.