Group Claiming to be Former Muslims Disrupts Masses Around Nevada

Aletelia ^ | December 10, 2015 | Deacon Greg Kandra

[John Leland 1789]

You must have a variety or form of religion that connects everything with a man-made physical structure.

Paul may or may not have gone into a 'church-type facility' and interrupted a service. So what?

Paul, as a result of the "offense of the Cross" knew that his life was always at risk. Those who appeared to hate him most, and even conspired to kill him, were his own people, the Jews.

If Paul were around today, there are no religious movements, Roman or other Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Baptist, Jewish, Muslim, Eastern Mystical, or other, that would not want him G O N E !!

[Partisan Gunslinger]

“You say there is no difference between a muslim and a protestant.” No, again, here is what I said: “Are you assuming there’s a difference?”

The implication is there. You are being intellectually dishonest to deny it.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

And it is.

No there were definitely non-Jews in the Jewish temples of Jesus' time.

No. Apparently you’re confusing me with another person here. Look at post 93 or 100. I didn’t post either one of those posts.

In post #50, you said there were no non-Jews in the Jewish temple of Jesus' time. In post#81, you said post #50 was absolutely correct to answer another poster. No it wasn't.

That won’t help your claim. Here are the reasons why: 1) Since I never made a claim about no non-Jews in the Temple when Jesus chased out the money changers this makes no difference in any case. What I posted is still 100 % true.

No, in post #50, you said there were no non-Jews in the temple when Jesus took a whip to them.

2) Nothing in Revelation actually suggests that there were non-Jews in the Temple on the day Jesus chased out the money changers anyway - which would be immaterial in any case since I never brought up that as an example of anything.Irrelevant - for three reasons: 1) You have presented no evidence they were in the Temple during Jesus’ days on earth. The Book of Revelation was written decades later. 2) The idea that they were literally non-Jews rather than poor examples of Jews is simply erroneous.

You're Catholic and so you follow the traditions of man which make void the Word of God. You don't study the bible enough to know what happened to the temples from the time of the Judges to the time of Jesus. You need to do a study on the Nethanims. The Nethanims are descended from those God told the Israelites to absolutely wipe out but the Israelites didn't when they entered the promised land. They are not Israelites. They are not Jews, not Levites, not Benjamites, the three tribes that should have been in the temple. So you're wrong coming out the gate. Levites were supposed to be the temple priests, not Jews to begin with. Anyway, Nethanims started out doing menial jobs for the Levites at the temples, being scribes, woodcutters, etc. Over the centuries, they took over as priests. When some of the Israelites returned from the Babylonian captivity, there was not one Levite to be priests at the temple, they were all Nethanims, which are foreigners as I said. During the Captivity, Edomites took over Judaeah. Edomites are descended from Esau, who mixed his seed with Canaanites and Ishmaelites. When the Edomite priests told Jesus they were of Abraham, they were, descended from Esau, but they were not Israelite, and therefore of course not Jews. According to God's law, there should have been no Jew as a priest, just Levites, but they weren't even Levites they were Nethanims and Edomites. That's who Jesus took a whip to.

3) Even if there were non-Jews there it would be irrelevant because my point was about St. Paul INVADING the temples of pagans not non-Jews being in the Jewish Temple. In other words, your example from Revelation - which is absolutely not helpful to the case you’re trying to make - is actually about something that is the exact opposite of what I was talking about. And that is still irrelevant even if true since it was a JEWISH Temple and not a pagan one. First of all, that’s not what I said. I said nothing about “going against”. I said that St. Paul did not invade the temples of pagans. And he didn’t. And Jesus didn’t either. I never claimed to be Jesus. What I said is still 100% correct. Jesus did not invade a pagan temple. St. Paul did not invade a pagan temple.

In post #50, you told another poster his Jesus example did not involve non-Jews. That is absolutely incorrect.

[vladimir998]

“You must have a variety or form of religion that connects everything with a man-made physical structure.”

No, I just understand logic. Did you not see the original story? It’s about what happened when an anti-Catholic group invaded the private property of a Catholic parish. Thus, logically, if someone wants to use a proper analogy to discuss the event it must have a similar context (i.e. the private property of one religious group used for worship being invaded by another group which disrupts their worship).

“Paul may or may not have gone into a ‘church-type facility’ and interrupted a service. So what?”

No. Paul never did that. That’s why he lived as long as he did. He, as a Jew, could enter the synagogue but he most certainly could not enter a pagan temple and disrupt their worship and expect to live. If Paul had done any such thing, Luke would certainly have recorded the beat down that Paul would have received. . . before his trial and execution.

[vladimir998]

“The implication is there. You are being intellectually dishonest to deny it.”

No, I’m being precise. You misstated what I said. I have not misstated what you have said. Argue against what I said all you like. Do not argue against what I never said.

[vladimir998]

“No there were definitely non-Jews in the Jewish temples of Jesus’ time.”

As I stated before: That’s irrelevant since it was a JEWISH TEMPLE.

Jesus was not invading pagan temples. Your insistence that there were non-Jews in the Temple doesn’t mean anything since it wasn’t a pagan temple. IT WAS A JEWISH TEMPLE. Again, what part of that do you not understand?

“You’re Catholic and so you follow the traditions of man which make void the Word of God.”

Gee, no bias in that comment, huh?

“You don’t study the bible enough to know what happened to the temples from the time of the Judges to the time of Jesus.”

Actually, I probably no more about it than you ever will. Not only have I studied that era in detail in scripture but I have read other books about it as well. The history of the Temple has always fascinated me. Have you ever read G.K. Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission? I read it 6 years ago this week. (I only know that because when I go to Amazon to get the link to it it tells me when I purchased it): http://www.amazon.com/Temple-Churchs-Mission-Biblical-Theology/dp/0830826181/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 I have a very large library of Bibles, Study Bibles, Bible commentaries, monographs and so on related to scripture. It would not be smart for anyone to presume I have not studied the Bible in detail.

“You need to do a study on the Nethanims. The Nethanims are descended from those God told the Israelites to absolutely wipe out but the Israelites didn’t when they entered the promised land.”

Perhaps you mean the Nethinim. Please note the modern correct spelling. And, by the way, no “s” is required to make it a plural. That may have been in fashion in 1611, but it isn’t now. Also, if you’re using the Nethinim for some sort of point, it won’t work.

“So you’re wrong coming out the gate.”

No, actually what I said is still 100% correct. After all the situation would have to be reversed to apply to the situation at hand. And it isn’t. It’s just that simple. Remember, this was never about non-Jews in the Temple - of which there were effectively none at the time of Jesus in any of the Jewish worship areas. It was a Jewish Temple. It was NOT a pagan temple being invaded by Jesus or St. Paul. Thus, what I said is still 100% correct.

You then posted a long comment about the Nethinim, but, of course, none of that matters since it has no bearing whatsoever on the actions of Jesus or St. Paul since neither of them invaded a pagan temple.

“In post #50, you told another poster his Jesus example did not involve non-Jews. That is absolutely incorrect.”

False. In post #50 you’ll see the example given was about Jesus and the money changers. They were not pagans in a pagan temple. Thus, in any case what I said was absolutely correct. Your example MUST BE about Jesus or St. Paul INVADING a pagan temple to interrupt the worship of pagans. Do you have one? There is no such example recorded in history. And the Nethinim don’t qualify since they were not around at the time of Jesus or St. Paul and they were not in a pagan temple having their worship interrupted by Jesus or St. Paul.

Logic.

[John Leland 1789]

"If Paul had done any such thing, Luke would certainly have recorded the beat down that Paul would have received. . . before his trial and execution."

Huh? Whole cities were drawn into hatred for Paul and plotted to kill him.

I am of the view actually that it was wrong for any to interrupt the services going on in those Catholic congregations. I'm talking about the original story. But I look at it there as a private property issue, and a right of association issue. That property belongs to the Catholic Church, and the worshipers there have the right to worship in association with each other as members, without being "molested" by any who are not members there.

[vladimir998]

“Huh? Whole cities were drawn into hatred for Paul and plotted to kill him.”

Which you know because Luke told you in writing. And Luke also told about the times Paul went to the synagogues to preach. Luke never once said anything about Paul interrupting a pagan religious service INSIDE a pagan temple or anywhere else for that matter. You’re proving my point.

“I am of the view actually that it was wrong for any to interrupt the services going on in those Catholic congregations. I’m talking about the original story. But I look at it there as a private property issue, and a right of association issue. That property belongs to the Catholic Church, and the worshipers there have the right to worship in association with each other as members, without being “molested” by any who are not members there.”

I agree. But for some reason since then you and one other poster have insisted on making a case that Paul or Jesus interrupted pagan worship inside pagan temples when they never in fact did any such thing. So far neither one of you has been able to offer even a single case as an example either.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

No, I’m being precise. You misstated what I said. I have not misstated what you have said. Argue against what I said all you like. Do not argue against what I never said.

Let the fruits of Catholicism be seen, you can't stand by your implications. How about we spend the next 100 posts arguing the meaning of "is".

[Partisan Gunslinger]

As I stated before: That’s irrelevant since it was a JEWISH TEMPLE. Jesus was not invading pagan temples. Your insistence that there were non-Jews in the Temple doesn’t mean anything since it wasn’t a pagan temple. IT WAS A JEWISH TEMPLE. Again, what part of that do you not understand?

It means everything because of your claim of perfection. In post #50, you told another poster that his example of Jesus whipping the moneychangers did not involve non-Jews. Anybody that studies the bible more than Catholics knows the temples were taken over by foreigners by Jesus' time, so you're dead wrong.

Gee, no bias in that comment, huh?

I'm as biased as you are.

Actually, I probably no more about it than you ever will. Not only have I studied that era in detail in scripture but I have read other books about it as well. The history of the Temple has always fascinated me. Have you ever read G.K. Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission? I read it 6 years ago this week. (I only know that because when I go to Amazon to get the link to it it tells me when I purchased it): http://www.amazon.com/Temple-Churchs-Mission-Biblical-Theology/dp/0830826181/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 I have a very large library of Bibles, Study Bibles, Bible commentaries, monographs and so on related to scripture. It would not be smart for anyone to presume I have not studied the Bible in detail.

But yet you did not know there were Levites, Benjamites, Nethanims, and Edomites in the temples in Jesus' time. You have a problem with retention, apparently.

Perhaps you mean the Nethinim. Please note the modern correct spelling. And, by the way, no “s” is required to make it a plural. That may have been in fashion in 1611, but it isn’t now. Also, if you’re using the Nethinim for some sort of point, it won’t work.

I say it the way the bible says it. If you really want to argue semantics, the correct spelling of "know" is k-n-o-w, not n-o as you posted above in your first sentence. You must be pretty desperate to ignore the point and attack semantics instead.

No, actually what I said is still 100% correct. After all the situation would have to be reversed to apply to the situation at hand. And it isn’t. It’s just that simple. Remember, this was never about non-Jews in the Temple - of which there were effectively none at the time of Jesus in any of the Jewish worship areas.

Oh really? Jesus uncle was a Levite, he never went to the temple? The bible clearly states Zechariah was of the course of Abia, and was made mute in the temple. Do you not know anything?

It was a Jewish Temple. It was NOT a pagan temple being invaded by Jesus or St. Paul. Thus, what I said is still 100% correct.

Nope 100% wrong. Levites, Benjamites, Nethanims, and Edomites are not Jews.

You then posted a long comment about the Nethinim, but, of course, none of that matters since it has no bearing whatsoever on the actions of Jesus or St. Paul since neither of them invaded a pagan temple.

Your post #50 says Jesus did not encounter non-Jews in the temple. 100% wrong.

False. In post #50 you’ll see the example given was about Jesus and the money changers. They were not pagans in a pagan temple. Thus, in any case what I said was absolutely correct. Your example MUST BE about Jesus or St. Paul INVADING a pagan temple to interrupt the worship of pagans.

Your post #50 is clear, you aid there were no non-Jews in the temple. You're dead wrong.

Do you have one? There is no such example recorded in history. And the Nethinim don’t qualify since they were not around at the time of Jesus or St. Paul and they were not in a pagan temple having their worship interrupted by Jesus or St. Paul. Logic.

Now that's laughable. They were around circa 1400BC when the Israelites entered the promised land. They were around circa 500BC when the Israelites re-entered the promised land, but somehow disappeared between 500BC and Jesus' time. You're something else. The fruits of Catholicism, make up things out of mid-air with no factual or scriptural basis whatsoever.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

That’s why he lived as long as he did.

Paul did die before his execution, and was brought back.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

I agree. But for some reason since then you and one other poster have insisted on making a case that Paul or Jesus interrupted pagan worship inside pagan temples when they never in fact did any such thing. So far neither one of you has been able to offer even a single case as an example either.

I don't give a rats behind about pagans. I'm pointing out that you're dead wrong in saying there were no non-Jews in the temple when Jesus used His whip.

[vladimir998]

“I don’t give a rats behind about pagans. I’m pointing out that you’re dead wrong in saying there were no non-Jews in the temple when Jesus used His whip.”

And you’re still wrong. Remember you have yet to present a single shred of evidence that a single non-Jew was present in the Temple when Jesus chased out the money changers. You have yet to present a single shred of evidence that any of the money changers were non-Jews. Insisting that non-Jews were in the Temple centuries before Jesus proves nothing about the time of Jesus or the incident with the money changers.

“Paul did die before his execution, and was brought back.”

In any case, what I said about Paul was true. 100% true.

“It means everything because of your claim of perfection.”

I made no claim of being perfect. What I said was perfectly true. It still is. You have yet to show a shred of evidence to the contrary.

“In post #50, you told another poster that his example of Jesus whipping the moneychangers did not involve non-Jews.”

And what I said was correct. You have yet to show any evidence to the contrary.

“Anybody that studies the bible more than Catholics knows the temples were taken over by foreigners by Jesus’ time, so you’re dead wrong.”

Again, no. I HAVE STUDIED THE BIBLE and perhaps more than you ever will. And the Temple’s own concerns were largely left to the Jews. That’s why they had their own Jewish Temple guards, for instance.

“I’m as biased as you are.”

My bias is toward the truth.

“But yet you did not know there were Levites, Benjamites, Nethanims, and Edomites in the temples in Jesus’ time. You have a problem with retention, apparently.”

You have yet to prove any of the above were NON-JEWS at the time of Jesus and were in the Temple when Jesus chased out the money changers and were in fact among those whom Jesus chased out. And even if you did, none of it would change what I originally said: Jesus never invaded the temples of pagans interrupting their worship. Now, I can only conclude that the response post to this post I am writing now will also have no evidence of what you keep claiming. Will that be the case?

“I say it the way the bible says it.”

No, you don’t. If you did it, it would be posted in Hebrew letters because that is how the Bible says it. You’re just posting it as the KJV says it. That’s merely a translation.

“If you really want to argue semantics, the correct spelling of “know” is k-n-o-w, not n-o as you posted above in your first sentence. You must be pretty desperate to ignore the point and attack semantics instead.”

That wouldn’t be semantics. It would be spelling. Are you sure you know (or “no”) what semantics means? Semantics is a field of study in linguistics about meaning, not spelling.

“Oh really?”

Yes, really.

“Jesus uncle was a Levite, he never went to the temple?”

You still have yet to show a single scrap of evidence that the money changers were non-Jews. Also, none of that would show that Jesus ever interrupted the worship of pagans in their own temples anyway.

“The bible clearly states Zechariah was of the course of Abia, and was made mute in the temple. Do you not know anything?”

I sure do. I know your example doesn’t work for your claim.

“Nope 100% wrong. Levites, Benjamites, Nethanims, and Edomites are not Jews.”

Your claim doesn’t hold up – not even remotely. No matter what you claimed there, it still doesn’t prove that the money changers were non-Jews. Also, none of that would show that Jesus ever interrupted the worship of pagans in their own temples anyway.

“Your post #50 says Jesus did not encounter non-Jews in the temple. 100% wrong.”

No, what I said was 100% correct, but you keep misstating what I said. You still have yet to show a single scrap of evidence that the money changers were non-Jews. Also, none of that would show that Jesus ever interrupted the worship of pagans in their own temples anyway.

“Your post #50 is clear, you aid there were no non-Jews in the temple. You’re dead wrong.”

No, what I said was 100% correct, but you keep misstating what I said.

“Now that’s laughable. They were around circa 1400BC when the Israelites entered the promised land. They were around circa 500BC when the Israelites re-entered the promised land, but somehow disappeared between 500BC and Jesus’ time. You’re something else. The fruits of Catholicism, make up things out of mid-air with no factual or scriptural basis whatsoever.”

So you’re now claiming that the situation in A.D. 30 was EXACTLY THE SAME AS in 1400 BC and 500 BC? And yet you’re claiming Catholics make up things out of “mid-air”? Matthew 7:3.

“Let the fruits of Catholicism be seen, you can’t stand by your implications. How about we spend the next 100 posts arguing the meaning of “is”.”

I stand by everything I wrote – and you keep proving I am correct. You still have yet to show a single scrap of evidence that the money changers were non-Jews. Also, none of that would show that Jesus ever interrupted the worship of pagans in their own temples anyway. Everything I posted was 100% correct.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

Your posts are completely illogical. The Pharisees Jesus encountered told Jesus they were of Abraham but their ancestry were never slaves. Jesus agreed with them. That means they were Edomites. Edomites were never slaves, all the Israelites were. In your scenerio, whole tribes of people would have to disappear for no reason, and of course they didn't because we know Jesus encountered non-Jew Pharisees, and we know Levites and Benjamites had a right to be there in God's plan.

The temple incident was the only recorded time Jesus used violence. That should get your attention but it flies right over your head. It's an example of what will happen at the second coming. Judgment starts at the pulpit. Are you going to be in a church that is good in Jesus' eyes, or in a church that receives violence?

The descendants of Caiaphas and his Edomite ilk fled from Jerusalem from the Romans in 70AD, lived in four cities near the Sea of Galilee for a time, moved over to the two Jewish universities in Babylon and became exilarchs. The ancestors of Charlemagne brought one of these exilarchs, a direct descendant of Caiaphas, to Narbonne to give the Jews there encouragement to fend the Muslims back from France. More exilarch families moved from Babylon to Narbonne. The exilarchs expanded their influence into Lyon. Charlemagne was crowned emperor by the pope and there was very close cooperation between Charlemagne and his exilarch allies, and the Catholic Church. Could it be the Catholic Church hierarchy is now composed of descendants of Caiaphas and his fellow Edomite liars and murderers of Jesus? With the communist turn the Catholic Church has taken, something is definitely not right.

But go ahead and ignore truth and logic, twist yourself into a pretzel trying to weasel yourself out of the unlearned errors you post in about every paragraph and keep supporting the commie pope, his commie hierarchy in Rome, and his tool, the Catholic laity that hasn't caught on yet.

[vladimir998]

“Your posts are completely illogical.”

No, actually they are completely logical.

“The Pharisees Jesus encountered told Jesus they were of Abraham but their ancestry were never slaves. Jesus agreed with them. That means they were Edomites. Edomites were never slaves, all the Israelites were. In your scenerio, whole tribes of people would have to disappear for no reason, and of course they didn’t because we know Jesus encountered non-Jew Pharisees, and we know Levites and Benjamites had a right to be there in God’s plan.”

If they were Pharisees, they were Jews. Period. Your fanciful interpretation has no grounding in reality.

“The temple incident was the only recorded time Jesus used violence. That should get your attention but it flies right over your head.”

No. It has nothing to do with what gets my attention or not. Logically, the example you keep erroneously pushing doesn’t have anything to do with the topic at hand. The money changers were not pagans. Jesus was not in a pagan temple, but in the one and only JEWISH Temple.

“Are you going to be in a church that is good in Jesus’ eyes, or in a church that receives violence?”

I’ll be in the only Church He ever established - the Catholic Church.

“But go ahead and ignore truth and logic, twist yourself into a pretzel trying to weasel yourself out of the unlearned errors you post in about every paragraph and keep supporting the commie pope, his commie hierarchy in Rome, and his tool, the Catholic laity that hasn’t caught on yet.”

You just got done talking about “The ancestors of Charlemagne…exilarchs, a direct descendant of Caiaphas… Babylon to Narbonne… and the Catholic Church…. fellow Edomite liars and murderers of Jesus…” and you’re telling me my posts are illogical?

None of what you posted, NONE OF IT, in any way shows Jesus or St. Paul interrupted pagan worshipers in their own pagan temples.

[Partisan Gunslinger]

If they were Pharisees, they were Jews. Period. Your fanciful interpretation has no grounding in reality.

Ha Ha, now that's funny. Have you forgotten the revelation of Jesus already, that there is a people that call themselves Jews but do lie. These are those people. You just conclude that Jesus took a whip to bad Jews. No they weren't Jews, they were trying to ruin and steal from the Jew's temple.

No. It has nothing to do with what gets my attention or not. Logically, the example you keep erroneously pushing doesn’t have anything to do with the topic at hand. The money changers were not pagans. Jesus was not in a pagan temple, but in the one and only JEWISH Temple.

None of my posts addresses any pagans. My post addresses your erroneous statement in post #50 that there were no non-Jews in the temple. There were Levites, Benjamites, Nethinims, and Edomites in the temple.

I’ll be in the only Church He ever established - the Catholic Church.

Simon Magus established that church. Peter was never in Rome, his Ossuary is in Jerusalem, confirmed by renowned Catholic archaeologist Milik. Peter called Magus "the gall of bitterness" while in Samaria. You definitely are the gall of bitterness with your namecalling, you follow your founding father and your church to a tee.

You just got done talking about “The ancestors of Charlemagne…exilarchs, a direct descendant of Caiaphas… Babylon to Narbonne… and the Catholic Church…. fellow Edomite liars and murderers of Jesus…” and you’re telling me my posts are illogical?

Look it up, it's all in history. I know you only listen to your commie pope, so you'll never hear truth from him. lol

None of what you posted, NONE OF IT, in any way shows Jesus or St. Paul interrupted pagan worshipers in their own pagan temples.

My posts have nothing to do with anything you said about pagans.

[John Leland 1789]

No, my only point was that a physical building, being inside, being outside has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

[vladimir998]

“No, my only point was that a physical building, being inside, being outside has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.”

But since the article is about a group going INSIDE a building it has EVERYTHING to with with everything the article is about.

[John Leland 1789]

But since the article is about a group going INSIDE a building it has EVERYTHING to with with everything the article is about..

Okay, but know that in many parts of the world (like in the Philippines, for example), Catholics have roving open-air public mass, where they take up a street, completely choke off traffic, bring society to a stop, perishable goods in vehicles actually perish, and even other Catholics by the thousands get mad as hornets at the priests for bringing the city to a fault for Mary, horns are honking, Catholics who want by are yelling and cursing as the host is raised, and on and on.

Catholics often take over public parks---no permits issued, and while they do, Evangelical, Protestant, or cult groups often surround them with signs and huge posters against the pope and the vatican and against Catholicism in general.

[vladimir998]

“Okay, but know that in many parts of the world (like in the Philippines, for example), Catholics have roving open-air public mass, where they take up a street, completely choke off traffic, bring society to a stop, perishable goods in vehicles actually perish, and even other Catholics by the thousands get mad as hornets at the priests for bringing the city to a fault for Mary, horns are honking, Catholics who want by are yelling and cursing as the host is raised, and on and on.”

What has that got to do with anything? Seriously, that has NOTHING to do with the article. This wasn’t in the Philippines. This wasn’t an open-air Mass. These were NOT Catholics who were causing the problem.

“Catholics often take over public parks-—no permits issued, and while they do, Evangelical, Protestant, or cult groups often surround them with signs and huge posters against the pope and the vatican and against Catholicism in general.”

Again, what has that got to do with anything? Seriously, that has NOTHING to do with the article. This wasn’t in the Philippines. This wasn’t an open-air Mass.