Video and Audio
See other Video and Audio Articles
Title: Ukraine to become 'Big Israel'?
Source:
The Grayzone
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmICm4qO3i4
Published: Sep 20, 2023
Author: Max Blumenthal
Post Date: 2023-09-20 00:18:04 by Charles_Byrd
Keywords: None
Views: 3788
Comments: 87
The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal addresses the Ron Paul Institute's 2023 Washington DC conference on the disturbing plans in Kiev and Washington to convert Ukraine into a "Big Israel," and what this means for the region and the future of US politics.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-42) not displayed.
.
.
.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#41)
(Edited)
I am saying that the words of Jesus stand supreme, because he was the Son of God, and he said to follow him. He did not say to follow the Bible, and he did not leave a Bible. That didn’t come to be until the 300s. There were no Christian Scripture when Paul wrote, for example. There were none until decades after Jesus. What Jesus said and did is recorded in the Scriptures, yes. And what he said is supreme over everything else for, as the Scriptures tell you, HE was the begotten son of God, HE was the divine one, HE knew what was what. So therefore, I focus on him. The Scripture say to stone the woman found in adultery, but HE said “Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” The Scriptures say “eat no pork nor shellfish”, but HE said that nothing that goes into a man’s mouth makes him unclean, only that which come out of it. The Scripture says to kill the sabbath breaker who so much as gathers firewood, but HE said that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; and that it is right to heal on the sabbath, to do good.. The Scripture (James) says that if you break one law, you’ve broken them all, but Jesus always speaks of greater and lesser sins. The Bible had at least 95 authors, each with a different viewpoint in a different age. But Jesus was one man, recorded in five different texts, largely consistent between them. What Jesus says is very distinctive, and often different from what other people in the Bible said. And Jesus was very self-consciously the son of God, and said so. The Bible can take you myriad ways, but Jesus takes you in a very distintive direction. Example: Paul says to not let women teach, but Jesus had the woman at the well teach her whole people. Where other parts of the Bible go in different directions, you correct all of that to Jesus. So, within the Bible itself, Jesus is above the rest of it. And that means that no, you can’t burn witches, even though another part of the Bible orders you to.
I am at page 80 of 180, still moving through methodically and taking notes for you. It will be several days before I am done. Then I will send it to you.
Wow...I am impressed. Very enlightened response, V13...MUD "NOW...Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan!!"
Yeah. But obviously the conversation continued. I have decided that all I can do to state my faith is what I have promised to Stone: systematically go through Jesus, and lay end-to-end the things HE said, because HE is the son of God. Everything else ends up being "Jesus PLUS", and in my experience, everything that's "Jesus PLUS" ends up being Minus Jesus. And the only person in that whole Biblical milieu I'm willing to listen to is Jesus. The trouble with Moses, Ezra, etc., is that they're pronouncing death and exclusion. And the trouble with Paul, James and John is that what they say contradicts Jesus, and always, inevitably, in a way that I disagree with. I'm aligned with Jesus, and when somebody says something different from Jesus, that difference is invariably worse, in my experience. So I just stick with him. This makes sense, given that he's God. But many people have replaced Jesus with the Bible, making the Bible God. Jesus did not say to do that. He said "Follow ME", and he didn't leave a Bible. So, when I see Jesus excoriating the Jews time and again for their traditions that completely close off what Jesus was saying, I see Christians and their Bible doing exactly the same thing. And I am unimpressed with this. I am also unimpressed with how mean and carping they are about it. the Bible ain't God. God is God. Now, what God said is IN the Bible, in the mouth of Jesus. Follow THAT. But the Bible ALSO contains things out of other people's mouths, that contradict Jesus. Don't follow that. This makes some people accuse me of being a demon. I would say that they are tradition-mongering Pharisees, and the Bible is their tradition. Obviously we are never going to see eye to eye, just as most of the Jews never saw eye to eye with Jesus (and the ones who did, stopped being Jews in time and became Christians). But the Christians, in later ages, erected their OWN traditions that replace Jesus, and did various terrible things like murdering people. I have no patience for any of that. And I have only limited patience for the cheerleaders of that, which is precisely what Christian tradition-mongers are. Just shut up and follow Christ, and all will be well. Is that so hard? Why do people work so hard to follow everybody BUT Christ? The answer is that Christ demands things of people they don't want to do, while the others present a way of thinking and being that is easier, lets them feel holy, without actually DOING what Jesus said to do. It's "Christian", but it ain't following Jesus. I stick with Jesus, and I see the tempests of anger that raises. And I provoke them - just like he did. But I need to get through the Scriptures and present Jesus, Just Jesus. And let the storm wail away after that - I won't care!
no rush. take your time
blah, blah, blah
13 is the number of rebellion in the Bible.
I happen to be the 13th Vicomte of a place in France. If I were the 11th, I would have “Vicomte11” as my name. But I’m the 13th, so that is my name. Does genealogy render me a rebel? Doubt.
Superstitious about the number 13?
Well, I shouldn't be associating with someone of such low degree as yourself because your commonness always rubs off on those of us who are of true nobility. I am, after all, a child of the King, the Most High God. Unfortunately, in a matter of speaking, yes. Your rebellious nature was passed down to you from your father.
We're all children of God.
Worn out cliché. You can't merely claim to be a child of God any more than I can claim to be a child of a Vicomte. You were born an enemy of God...you must be reborn to become a child of God.
No jesus didnt say that about the warmongers who would supply foreigners with weapons to kill people that they politically hate. Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God". Youre not a peacemakers but someone who supports war to kill as many russians as possible so we will be dominant in the world.
A bit off topic but this thread is at the moment off topic. I cant find where jesus says to pray to dead sinners, you know Mary. So in truth you dont listen to Jesus but to sinful man. Just saying
Then as above why do you pray to a dead sinner. Mary never claimed to be someone to pray to. jesus never said to pray to Mary. so what you said is not the truth.
I don’t pray to Mary. However Mary, being a disciple of her son, is not dead. Neither are any of the others of his disciples, if you believe him anyway. I am at page 116 of 183. Steadily moving. Jesus says a lot.
Where did Jesus say that? I don't think he did. Only Elijah and that other dude never died.
Tell me, does your church allow divorce and remarriage? What do you think of that?
Take as much time as you want or need. I'm sure you will do a thorough job.
He said it over and over again. Since you don’t remember, I’ll be sure to cite it again and again, and again, in what I am writing to you.
What do you think of that? I don't believe there is such thing as divorce. You are still married and commit adultry if you have sex with anyone other than your wife who you originally married.
Ok :)
You sound like Jesus. But, what does your Church teach? See? You are responsible for what YOU believe, not for what your “leaders” tell you to believe. I’m not a fan of pedophilia, or coverups, or burning heretics and witches, or saints, or torturing political opponents, or enforced priestly celibacy. The sins of the Church over the centuries are that: sins - I don’t agree with any of it, and I don’t defend any of it. In truth, I use the fact of all of it to attack the absurd notion of general infallibility. Barrow, specific infallibility is essentially limited to Mary. And I pay attention to Jesus, not Mary. I don’t have a problem with Mary - I think that maternal devotion and placing a woman very high is not a bad thing, but Mary is not the focus of my faith, Jesus is. But as far as being a “rebel”, because I happen to be the 13th Vicomte de Voreiz, and some guy is superstitious about the number 13? I’m the opposite of a rebel. I feel no need to “take a stand” in any meaningful way other than stating my disagreement. I feel no need to rebel against the Church and leave it. Jesus did not rebel against Temple Judaism or tell his people to leave it. He told them, instead, to listen to the good, not follow the bad, but follow him, his teachings instead. He did not require that individuals force the institutions to align with their beliefs - an impossible task. He merely demanded that they follow him, and if you followed him, he did care if you were a Jew or not. So, even though the Jews as an institution taught and did things Jesus said were unnecessary and even negative traditions, he didn’t command abandonment of the religion. Rather, he said - effectively - that if you follow him, the cracked traditions of the institutions don’t matter. I’m no rebel. I remain in the Catholic Church because I was born and raised that way and like the people. But I am forthright in telling you - and the priest for that matter (I am in our men’s group and we talk about Jesus every Saturday, and the priest is with us) - what I think is cracked, wrong and irrelevant. So, to call me a rebel is really off the mark. But to ascribe to me beliefs I don’t have because I’m a Catholic? Jesus was a Jew - who obviously ignored all sorts of Jewish traditions, and criticized them, but made no grand political statement of “leaving Judaism” either. Rather, he simply ignored the things that were not true, demonstrating to me what to do. This was to the great consternation of many priests, scribes and faithful Pharisees of his time. He mocked them, he didn’t leave the faith. I don’t mock people who adore the Eucharist or devote oceans of time to Mary. I just don’t do either, staying focused on what Jesus said. This doesn’t annoy most Catholics (some in the men’s group really don’t like me, but the priest loves me because of my pure and faithful citation of Jesus.). Protestants go after me citing traditions of the Church I ignore. But what I actually believe - well - that I express by citing Jesus, 100%. If someone wants to get pissed at me for THAT…we’ll…go right ahead, Pharisee!
Do recall, though, that Jews were polygamous. Jesus did not prohibit the Jewish tradition of multiple wives. He prohibited divorce. The tradition of monogamy isn’t Jewish (or Muslim, which follows the Jewish/middle eastern tradition). There are polygamous Jews today. The Jewish rabbinical rule is that whatever the tradition of the country is, that’s the local Jewish practice. Yemenite Jews in Israel have multiple wives. Jesus never said anything about THAT. Divorce was his no no. Monogamous marriage is a Roman tradition, deriving from their jealous goddess Hera, goddess of marriage. As the Church Romanized, the custom of the Romans was adopted in the Church, without much thought, but it comes from Juno, not Jesus. Greeks and Gauls practiced polygamy. Romans and Germans did not. They DID have girlfriends, mistresses and prostitutes, but not multiple wives. It’s a Western thing, not a Jesus thing.
But you'll kill the hell out of the Slavs who are sitting on some real estate you want.
The Russians are invading the Ukraine. We aren’t. We are helping the Ukrainians kill the people invading their country.
Did god help or destroy sodom and gomorrah? They are a pro fag country just like us
Here are some Ukranian sickos. Just like the democrats here.
So, Stone, do you think we should let Ukraine be destroyed by the invading Russians? Really?
So, I have completed my review of everything that Jesus said, and I am prepared to begin to remind you of it. It is always good to spend time with Jesus, to be reminded of his word, and to remind others of what he said. This started merely as an effort to demonstrate a point - the Jesus looks to acts, deeds, works, and that he judges us based on what we do. It is not simply a matter of believing he is the Son of God. Obviously he is the Son of God. The miracle of the resurrection, which we can ourselves see (if we will), and be reminded of that, that tells us to look to him and follow his word. For that is what he asks, that we understand, and hear his word, and do it. But when you read him, there is so much more to see in it, and be reminded to be glad. Some say that there is a certain way that one must come to Jesus, and none else. Jesus did not say that. He DID say that if you hear his words and don’t do them, it is unavailing. So, let’s hear him then, and do what he said, and it be availing. Tomorrow I shall begin to write it down, to quote him. I will start with what he said in the Revelation and move backwards from that. Tomorrow.
Ok Vic.
It is tomorrow, and I begin. First question: do I engage in a bunch of preparatory work, explaining the "proper approach" to Jesus, lining up what I write to prove some point? I could. It is tempting. Everybody else seems to do it. But no. The Son of God's words have moved people for two thousand years. Nothing that I can say or do is going to make any difference. So I'm just going to let him speak. All I will say is that my intention is to quote him extensively. I know that those who don't like what they are reading will start to shout "Context! Context!" as they come to those things they do not like. I'm not going to argue with them myself. I'm just going to give them more and more and MORE Jesus - let HIM give the context, and let the ones opposed to him start playing the game of picking and choosing a line here, a line there. I like Jesus exactly as he was, and have shaped my own thinking to fit his, what HE taught. So from my perspective, the antidote to any argument against what Jesus said is MORE JESUS. It is not I who has a narrow and crabbed vision of Jesus. I take in the totality. Of course that ends up being very long and time consuming. I don't really apologize for that, because he's just great, and the more Jesus you read, the better. If you don't believe he was the Son of God, perhaps you will be moved by the excellence of what he has to say. If you do believe he was, then you should revel in every word. And indeed if you do believe he is the Son of God, and you don't like what he is saying, you need to reconsider your own positions and align them with his. Enough of me. Let's begin with Him. Revelation 22: 12-19 "Lo! I am coming swiftly, and my wage is with me, to pay each according to his works. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Happy are those who are rinsing their robes, that it will be their license to the tree of life, and they may enter the gates of the city. Outside are curs, and drug dealers*, and the sexually immoral, and murderers, and idolators, and everyone making and fondling lies. I, Jesus, send my messenger** to testify these things to you in the assembly***. I am the root and the race of David, the resplendent morning star.****" *The word is "pharmakeia". A "pharmakon" sold drugs to people to produce the highs and hallucinations that drugs produce. The ancients, and the medievals, ascribed these effects to "magic", so old translations in English will say "sorcerers" or "enchanters" here, but that gives rise to the idea of what we would call a wizard. Jesus was talking about the people who sold drugs to people to blow their minds. The ancients considered that "magic". We don't. The word he used referred specifically to drug peddlers: pharmakeia. It wasn't illegal in the ancient world to be a drug dealer. There were regular shops that sold this stuff. We could, if we translated it literally, say "pharmacists". But that would give the wrong idea too. Todays "pharmakeia" - pharmacists - are not selling potions to blow people's minds with magic. They are a regulated industry selling medicines to heal people. Ancient pharmacists were selling mind-altering drugs - legally at the time. The proper modern equivalent of "pharmakeia", to understand what Jesus was talking about, is "drug dealer". He was NOT talking about old women in the woods who think they are witches. They are simply deluded and have no power. He was talking about people who sell drugs to other people who blow their minds. And he is saying explicitly that they have no place in the city of God. **"Messenger" is the meaning of the world "angelos". "Angel" means "messenger" in English. We have preferred to not translate the word and leave it as "angel", which gives rise to a specific thought of a winged being. But an "angel" in Greek CAN BE a winged supernatural being. But it is also the word used for human messengers, from the army, for example, carrying a dispatch. Jesus does not specify here, so I have chosen to use the word in its generic meeting. Whether the "messenger" here comes from on high, or refers to the disciples carrying the messages to the various churches, doesn't really matter. And in any case you cannot tell from what Jesus said: he sent his messengers - winged angels or sandal-clad men. It's the message that mattered to Jesus, not the particular physical description of the messenger. ***"Assembly" is what the word "ecclesia" means. It literally means "those called out" - of a regular meeting to a special assembly. What Jesus is referring to here can be called "the churches", which is the usual translation of "ecclesia". That's not wrong, in the sense that he is talking about assemblies of those who follow him, "the faithful", but "church" is a Medieval English word that carries very specific connotations - of specifically the Catholic or Anglican rites, of buldings, which we call "churches". And Jesus is not talking about buildings or political organizations, he is talking about assemblies of people, who follow him. Yes, that is the "church" of the period. But given that the word "church" would not exist for another 1100 years, until the invention of English, and given that when the word "church" developed, it was completely synonymous with the Catholic Church, to use the word "church" here is a loaded anachronism that Catholics use to say "See! See! The Church ALWAYS was." No, it wasn't. Yes, there were always followers of Jesus. No, they were not following the rites of the Catholic Church in the first century. "Assemblies of people devoted to Jesus" is what the "ecclesia" is. A "church", yes, but only in the sense of people gathered for Jesus. In the stronger sense of the Orthodox Church, or the Catholic Church, or the Anglican or Baptist Church - capital "C"? Absolutely not! Therefore, I use the word "assembly" here, because that is precisely what it was. Were the assemblies "churches"? Yes. Were they THE Church, capital C? Not really, no. "Assembly" is the exact word. "Church" is a 1000 year later invention of English referring to the Catholic Church (the only game in England for the next 550 years. ****In Latin, the morning star is "Lucifer", and "Lucifer" is the morning star. In Latin, there is no connotation of evil, at all, in Lucifer. In fact, Jesus' reference to himself AS the bright morning star, in Latin, is him calling himself "Lucifer". Men such as Saint Lucifer of Cagliari were holy men whose parents named them to honor God, not the Devil. "Lucifer" didn't get the connotation of being a name of Satan until the Middle Ages. In the Latin Vulgate, in St. Peter's first letter, there is a line in English that concludes "if we pray fervently, the morning star will rise in our hearts". In the Latin Bible, this flatly says "if we pray fervently, Lucifer will rise in our hearts." At the time of Christ, "Lucifer" had a GOOD connotation. It does not today, obviously. So, while I insist on translating "pharmakeia" as the much more accurate "drug dealer", I'm not going to insist on translating "morning star" as "Lucifer". Thanks to medieval superstition, that name carries WAY too much baggage, and superstitious men, such as those afraid of the number 13, will see the Devil. And anyway, "Lucifer" to the Romans WAS the morning star, same thing, so "morning star" is an accurate translation for meaning.
Vic perhaps this deserves its own thread. Your call.
Everybody get ready for Vic to lead us into his very own clown world order...
Sure. Can you take my first message and make it the first message of a new thread. Maybe call it "Jesus in his own words."
If you want to call the words of Jesus a "Clown World order", then you may do so. For my part, I am very respectful of him.
As you should be. What did Jesus say about Zelensky's "Big Israel"?
"pharmakon" "ecclesia". Just look at the Greek words you are using. Very impressive! It's almost as if a Strong's Concordance fell off the shelf and hit you in the head!
Jesus didn't say anything about Zelensky, or Ukraine, or Russia, or "Big Israel", because none of these things existed in 33 AD, and he was focused on the people in front of him, Jews and Romans and Greeks in ancient Judaea, Samaria and Galilee. I don't like being insulted any more than you do, and I don't see why one Christian should be insulting another.
And Latin, where "Lucifer" = "Morning Star".
It does deserve its own thread, but I don't know how to do that. Could you? And maybe call it "Jesus in his own words", or "The words of Jesus" or "Just Jesus", or simply "Jesus' words". And could you put my first message today, the one that contains the first quote from Revelation, as the first message? I would do it, but as I said, I looked through the site, and I don't see how. In fact, you don't even need my preferatory remarks, just start with the reference to Revelation. There's a typo in what I wrote I'd ask you to fix also. Let me find it. I see it now. It has halfway through my discussion of "pharmakeia" (a discussion I would like to shorten). I wrote "magic" in quotes before, but there, I just wrote magic, without quotes. That needs quotes too. Actually, if you just tell me how to start a message, I will do so, and use the copy-paste as the opportunity to edit myself so you don't have to. Thanks.
Comments (84 - 87) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#44. To: A K A Stone (#42)
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
"There's just no point. We come from different poles of existence. Anything I could say might be insulting, and I don't want to do that. So, go in peace."
#46. To: Mudboy Slim (#45)
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#46)
#49. To: Mudboy Slim (#45)
V13
"Biblically, the number 13 is also believed to be associated with lawlessness and rebellion. This symbolism associated with this number dates as far back as the Book of Genesis, where it’s implied in Genesis 10:9 that Nimrod, a mighty hunter, was before God. This is interpreted as Nimrod trying to take up the place of God, even though he belonged to the 13th generation in the line of Ham".
"...Judas Iscariot, the 13th guest to make an appearance during Jesus Christ’s Last Supper. Judas is also the one who betrayed Jesus Christ..."
https://christianfaithguide.com/biblical-spiritual-meaning-of-number- 13/
#50. To: watchman (#49)
(Edited)
#51. To: watchman (#49)
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
I happen to be the 13th Vicomte of a place in France.
Does genealogy render me a rebel?
#53. To: watchman (#52)
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
We're all children of God.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
We're all children of God.
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#39)
(Edited)
I toss out the parts that contradict Jesus
#58. To: A K A Stone (#57)
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
However Mary, being a disciple of her son, is not dead. Neither are any of the others of his disciples,
#60. To: A K A Stone (#55)
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
Steadily moving. Jesus says a lot.
#62. To: A K A Stone (#59)
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#60)
Tell me, does your church allow divorce and remarriage?
#64. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
I’ll be sure to cite it again and again, and again, in what I am writing to you.
#65. To: A K A Stone (#63)
#66. To: A K A Stone (#63)
#67. To: Vicomte13 (#65)
I’m not a fan of pedophilia, or coverups, or burning heretics and witches, or saints, or torturing political opponents, or enforced priestly celibacy.
#68. To: watchman (#67)
#69. To: Vicomte13 (#68)
#70. To: All (#69)
(Edited)
#71. To: A K A Stone (#70)
#72. To: A K A Stone (#69)
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#72)
#74. To: A K A Stone (#73)
#75. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
#76. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
(Edited)
It is tomorrow, and I begin.
#77. To: A K A Stone (#75)
#78. To: watchman (#76)
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#78)
I am very respectful of him.
#80. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
"pharmakeia"
#81. To: watchman (#79)
(Edited)
#82. To: watchman (#80)
#83. To: A K A Stone (#75)
(Edited)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]