[TheRifleman]

The (D)emocratic party hero!!!

[CarpeDime]

Don't listen to the dumbacrats claims that the "parties switched".....they have no basis for their claims and they think that his anti-slavery stance, which was what the Republican Party was founded and still operates on, was "liberal Democratic." Not only is this demonstrably false (because given Abraham Lincoln's political positions and actions, he would be more disgusted with liberal/progressive Democrats than he was with southern Democrats), it's outrageous and, to an extent, very dangerous.

Abraham Lincoln was not and would not be by any means a "liberal Democrat." One can make a case with classical liberalism, but modern liberalism is a definite "no." Why do liberals and progressives use Abraham Lincoln as ammunition to attack conservatives and to feed their "the parties switched sides in the 60's" falsehood? Don't they know that he was faithful to Republicanism and would never be a Democrat?

If you think that the parties switched sides, you are stupider than SamDummond and Andy113 combined..LOL...

BTW here's a quote by Lincoln to all of you dumbacrats, especially your illegal immigrant, communist, homosexual, muslim leader:

Lincoln quotes:

“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”

does he sound like a liberal to you?? LOL, oh, you can't make these things UP!!

oh my God, TheRifleman just PWNED himself, what a LOOOOOOOSERRRRRRR

thats a famous bunch of quotations falsely attributed to Lincoln that MORONblicans like TheRifleman spread around

They were written by a minister in the early 1900s named William Boetcker, NOT Lincoln

So, TheRifleman, since we can't trust you at all to give us accurate historical quotations, what CAN we trust you on?

Please answer, thanks!

[CarpeDime]

Don't listen to the dumbacrats claims that the "parties switched".....they have no basis for their claims and they think that Lincoln's anti-slavery stance, which was what the Republican Party was founded and still operates on, was "liberal Democratic." Not only is this demonstrably false (because given Abraham Lincoln's political positions and actions, he would be more disgusted with liberal/progressive Democrats than he was with southern Democrats), it's outrageous and, to an extent, very dangerous.

Abraham Lincoln was not and would not be by any means a "liberal Democrat." One can make a case with classical liberalism, but modern liberalism is a definite "no." Why do liberals and progressives use Abraham Lincoln as ammunition to attack conservatives and to feed their "the parties switched sides in the 60's" falsehood? Don't they know that he was faithful to Republicanism and would never be a Democrat?

If you think that the parties switched sides, you are stupider than SamDummond and Andy113 combined..LOL...

BTW here's a quote by Lincoln to all of you dumbacrats, especially your illegal immigrant, communist, homosexual, muslim leader:

Lincoln quotes:

“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”

does he sound like a liberal to you?? LOL, oh, you can't make these things UP!!

what a brain-dead dumbass

it doesnt even sound remotely like Lincoln

[billysink]

what a brain-dead dumbass

it doesnt even sound remotely like Lincoln

Ain't a fukk here give a half a rat's ass what the fukkin clown posts anyway.

Might as well have quoted Rack E. Willie.

Blah Blah mutherjumpin Blah blah blah.


In a chitty room.


Fukk cares.

[Andy117]

no they weren't....don't twist the "liberal" word around to your liking, you dirtbag....

If you really think Lincoln was a conservative you know even less about history than you do about current events, which is really quite amazing.

[billysink]

If you really think Lincoln was a conservative you know even less about history than you do about current events, which is really quite amazing.

Nuthin from nuthin leaves nuthin.

Mostly sayin hooray for our side.

Blood is thiker than the mud

Carry on.

[CarpeDime]

If you really think Lincoln was a conservative you know even less about history than you do about current events, which is really quite amazing.

TheRifleman wrote "does he sound like a liberal to you?? LOL, oh, you can't make these things UP!!" - referring to a made-up Lincoln quote!

pure 100% self-pwnage at its finest

unreal



unreal, I'm sure SOMEONE could make up a character as brain-dead and buffoonish as TheRifleman, but I know I couldn't

I could never make up someone posting fake Lincoln quotes, using them as evidence for something, then typing right after it "you can't make this stuff up", and using the quotes as evidence of other people being dumb, while he himself is too dumb to know they are fake quotes

maybe the guy who made up that Lincoln said those quotes could make up someone as idiotic as TheRifleman

awesome

[billysink]

Preston, Springfield and Stewart.

Sage LLC.

[billysink]

TheRifleman wrote "does he sound like a liberal to you?? LOL, oh, you can't make these things UP!!" - referring to a made-up Lincoln quote!

pure 100% self-pwnage at its finest

unreal



unreal, I'm sure SOMEONE could make up a character as brain-dead and buffoonish as TheRifleman, but I know I couldn't

I could never make up someone posting fake Lincoln quotes, using them as evidence for something, then typing right after it "you can't make this stuff up", and using the quotes as evidence of other people being dumb, while he himself is too dumb to know they are fake quotes

maybe the guy who made up that Lincoln said those quotes could make up someone as idiotic as TheRifleman

awesome

That's a lot of keying for a fart in a windstorm Losher.

[CarpeDime]

That's a lot of keying for a fart in a windstorm Losher.

i know pal, i know

[Jimmy Proffett]

you guys really need to learn about what's going on around you. stop fighting rifleman and get a thread started with a consensus about certain things..... then get a dialogue going about how to figure out what's going on around you.... and make things better

[sourtwist]

Carpe, you should find something else to do.

[CarpeDime]

Carpe, you should find something else to do.

like what? I do lots of things, this is kind of my "down time", but open to suggestions

should TheRifleman find something else to do?

i love it when these guys get buried and then their next strategy is to ask the guys who buried them to do something else

very Beavis and Butthead

[TheRifleman]

More quotes from our great right-wing hero, Mr. Lincoln!!

Quotes on Liberty and Government from our 16th President:
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.


As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.


Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors to bullets.


Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.


Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.


I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.


My dream is of a place and a time where America will once again be seen as the last best hope of earth.


The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.


This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.


hose who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.


To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.


We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.


You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.


You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative and independence.


You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.


You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.


Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.


I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for that day.


Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.


We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.


Let us then turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it.


I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.


No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.


Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.


I have never had a feeling, politically, that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.



Any nation that does not honor its heroes will not long endure


A true right-wing patriot!!

[TheRifleman]

Abraham Lincoln’s firm and unyielding opposition to slavery grew out of his dedication to the principles of our Founding Fathers, principles which have been under assault by the Left for decades. The Left seeks to reinterpret Lincoln as the father of the centralized administrative state that was actually created by early Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey (among others).

Those who actually study Lincoln’s thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he “never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” He loved and admired “the sentiments of those old-time men,” our Founding Fathers. He was dedicated to their principles – equal rights under the law, economic liberty, and a fidelity to the Constitution, our fundamental law.


Lincoln was, in short, a statesman who was guided by the principles of our Founding, and therefore he is a model of conservative leadership today. He believed in natural rights, not the expansive definition of positive rights, without any grounding in nature, advanced by today’s Left. He believed in equality before the law, but he also noted that the Declaration of Independence “does not declare that all men are equal in their attainments or social position.” He respected and followed the text of the Constitution, rather than interpreting it as a “living” and evolving document or simply scrapping it altogether.


He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage. He did not think that the market economy took advantage of those who worked for wages, but rather believed that economic freedom was a ticket to upward mobility for the individual and prosperity for society. He was fond of saying that, in a country with economic freedom, those who begin “poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition.” In a free society, a citizen can “look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.”


Are these the words of a Progressive?

Do Progressives defend the principles of natural rights, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and economic freedom?

A quick examination of the news cycle suffices to demonstrate otherwise. Lincoln would be at the forefront of the fight against the encroaching power of the national government, were he with us today. We honor his memory by fighting for the same conservative principles that he worked so diligently to pass along to us.

[SharpBoxing]

Right wingers hate liberal jews. Get your facts straight people

[muldoon]

Sodomite..........what right wingers don't like Jews? I'm sure some don't, but the right wing always supported Israel, unlike you filthy leftists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22413301

Hungary's far-right Jobbik party has staged a rally in central Budapest in protest at the capital's hosting of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) on Sunday.
Several hundred supporters took part, despite attempts by the government to prevent it going ahead.
Jobbik said the rally was a protest against what it said was a Jewish attempt to buy up Hungary.
The party, which says it aims to protect Hungarian values and interests, is the third largest in parliament.
It regularly issues anti-Semitic statements.

[TheRifleman]

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Do you hear that, OBONGO!????

[flyingillini]

Anyone that believes in the bible has a screw loose. Nothing but a comic book passed on from generation to generation. People are weak-minded and want something to believe in, it gives them hope. Nothing but a scam

[Mr KLC]

Anyone that believes in the bible has a screw loose. Nothing but a comic book passed on from generation to generation. People are weak-minded and want something to believe in, it gives them hope. Nothing but a scam

I'm honored to state that I have a screw loose with an extreme weak mind then since Jesus Christ is my savior.

[dante1]

I have rifle on ignore because he is too stupid to read. I have been writing since day one that this individual is the dumbest I have ever encountered in my entire life and many of you now agree. All one need do with these idiots is keep them writing and shortly they will prove beyond a doubt how very stupid they truly are.

To answer one question in this thread about why some right wingers hate and others love the jews it is simply a question of religion flavor. If you call yourself an evangelical or born again Christian you probably defend the jews because that is what is taught by your particular faith. However, these same morons believe and truly believe that those same jews that never accept Christianity will be punished forever in a never ending fire. Yep, I have heard these guys claim that people like Hitler can easily escape hell fire but a non repentant jew has no chance at all. This is what they believe and you can toss rifle into that camp too.

[flyingillini]

Long Live Jesus Christ and Brock Lander's!

[pronk]

__________


“...I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan”
Revelation 2:9

[The iron sheik]

Anyone that believes in the bible has a screw loose. Nothing but a comic book passed on from generation to generation. People are weak-minded and want something to believe in, it gives them hope. Nothing but a scam

Try being optimistic.

At least these nonsense believing savages don't murder people and offer animals to their bloodthirsty god anymore. A few of them are actually good people (must be an accident in dogma).

[flyingillini]

Luke is a hero as well as mathew

[TheRifleman]

__________


“...I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan”
Revelation 2:9

We read in the book of Revelation of a mysterious group of people — a church or group of people whom the apostle John describes as the "synagogue of Satan." Many churches have claimed this refers to the Jews, who persecuted the early Church and had Yeshua the Messiah put to death. Is this claim true? Does Satan the devil really have a "synagogue"? Just what is a "synagogue," anyway? Here is new insight into an old and mysterious question.

Notice! In the book of Revelation, we read that YEHOVAH God declares to the church at Smyrna, "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9).

Then, in a prophecy regarding the Philadelphia church, He says: "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee" (Rev. 3:9).

What is the "synagogue of Satan" mentioned in the book of Revelation?

Is this a warning to beware of the Jews, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who persecuted the early Christians? Is it a warning to beware of the Jewish people in general?

A Warning against the Jews?

Some people, in their hatred of the Jews, claim that ALL the modern Jewish people are not really Jews at all, but are descended from Esau — and are really Edomites! Some even go so far as to claim that — believe it or not — the German people are true Jews, whereas the millions whom they sent to the concentration camps and ovens were actually "Edomites," descended from Esau — that is, false Jews!

Some anti-Semitic religious ministers even claim the Jews are the "serpent's seed" — and claim their father was none other than Satan the devil. They even quote the words of the Messiah in John 8:44 as "proof" of this claim.


However, when we read the words of the Messiah, we find he was referring not to the Jewish people as such, but rather to the Jewish religious leaders who were at that moment interrogating him and denying his Messiahship !


To those specific religious leaders who were seeking to kill him (John 8:37), and who sneered and accused him of being born of sex out of wedlock (verse 41), and who boasted that YEHOVAH God was their father — the Pharisees and Sadducees — to them he replied, because of their evil works, "You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him" (John 8:44).

These evil religious leaders, who rejected the Messiah, were on dangerous ground. But Yeshua was not accusing the Jewish people as such. Rather, his remarks were addressed to those Jerusalem rabbis who should have known better, or did, but rejected him anyway. These particular religious leaders he branded as "hypocrites," "snakes," "vipers," "blind leaders of the blind," and worthy of "hell" (compare Matthew 23:13-14, 17, 19, 23, 26-27, 33).
Regarding the term "synagogue of Satan," the Jewish New Testament Commentary argues that

Virtually all the commentators ignore the obvious and straightforward interpretation that Yochanan [John] is talking here about Gentiles who pretend to be Jews. The same kind of expression is used in v.2: "...you tested those who call themselves emissaries [apostles] but aren't — and you found them to be liars." It obviously refers to false apostles, and there the commentators accept the literal sense without demur. But here they opt for the metaphorical interpretation that Yochanan [John] is talking about the Jews who reject Yeshua as the Messiah instead of the literal understanding that these are non-Jews who lie and say they are Jews but in fact are Gentiles. In this way a verse which says nothing about Jews is given a virulently anti-Semitic significance. The result is that over the centuries Jews have had the epithet "synagogue of Satan" hurled at them by Christians who thought they understood the Bible (David H. Stern. P. 795).

Salvation Is "of the Jews"

It is a fact that the early Church was viciously persecuted by the authorities of ancient Judaism. The Sadducees and Pharisees looked upon the new "Christians" as heretics, and a dire threat to the very existence of Judaism. But the Jewish people themselves were not responsible for the misdeeds of some of their religious leaders. Yeshua the Messiah himself said to the woman of Samaria, "Salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22).

Rather than hate the Jews, the apostle Paul exclaimed, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God" (Rom. 10:1-3).

He later wrote, "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew" (Rom. 11: l-2).

Although many Jewish people have been "blinded" to the truth of the gospel, Paul goes on, the day is coming when they will be restored to YEHOVAH's truth. He declared, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so, ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED . . ." (Rom. 11:24-25).


The Jewish religion, Judaism, rejected Yeshua as the Messiah, and they still do. Most rabbis do not admit the credentials of Yeshua the Messiah, but look for another Messianic figure. Nevertheless, Paul explains; this blindness will soon be lifted from their eyes, and they will soon acknowledge the TRUTH — and then all Israel, or Israel as a whole, will be saved! The rabbis themselves will accept the true Yeshua the Messiah of the Bible!


But, the amazing truth is that the Messiah of the Bible is NOT the same "Jesus Christ" that is preached in the vast majority of so-called "Christian" churches in the world! They preach a Gentilized, paganized, corrupted image or form of the Messiah — one who supposedly abolished his Father's Law, repudiated the Ten Commandments, did away with the Sabbath and Holy Days, and whose worship today is fraught with pagan holidays such as Easter, Christmas, Halloween, and Sunday worship.


Perhaps one of the main reasons the Jewish people have rejected the true Messiah, over the centuries, is because of how the pagan "Christian" churches have corrupted the teachings and customs of the original Messiah, so that their "counterfeit Christ" is nothing more than a sanitized rendition of Satan the devil in disguise!

[TheRifleman]

Rising Up of Counterfeit "Christianity"

The apostle Paul warned the early church that many deceivers were entering in, subverting whole congregations, and perverting the true message of the Messiah. He wrote the Corinthians, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth ANOTHER JESUS, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another GOSPEL, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him" (II Cor. 11:3-4).
Paul warned, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel: for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed AS the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" (II Cor. 11:13-15).
Notice carefully! Paul is saying here that Satan the devil has HIS MINISTERS! Paul is also warning us that they are disguised AS IF they were ministers of YEHOVAH's true Church!
Were some of these men leaders of a "synagogue of Satan"?
The idea that this "synagogue of Satan" refers to the Jewish nation is utter nonsense. The New Testament repeatedly shows us the nation itself was composed of REAL JEWISH PEOPLE — and repeatedly calls them what they were, "Jews." They were not lying about it. Yeshua himself called them "Jews." Therefore, they were not "impostors" who were "lying" about being Jews.
What, then, is this "synagogue of Satan" mentioned in Revelation? And why do they call themselves "Jews," even though YEHOVAH God Himself says that they are not Jews?
In the Bible, a "synagogue" is an "assembly" — a religious group, such as a "church" or "synagogue." The Greek word "synagogue" simply means "assembly." Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words explains: "sunagoge, properly 'a bringing together' (sun, 'together,' ago, 'to bring'), denoted (a) 'a gathering of things, a collection' then, of 'persons, an assembling, of Jewish religious gatherings"' (page 614).

Smith's Bible Dictionary defines "synagogue" as "a recognized place of worship." It goes on to say that "a knowledge of the history and worship of the synagogues is of great importance, since they are the characteristic institution of the later phase of Judaism."

Unfortunately, neither one of these references — or many others available to the Bible student — state the FACT that synagogues were the places of worship for several different groups besides the Jews!

http://www.iamthewitness.com/listene...e.of.Satan.htm

[Dr.Gonzo]

Some anti-Semitic religious ministers even claim the Jews are the "serpent's seed" — and claim their father was none other than Satan the devil. They even quote the words of the Messiah in John 8:44 as "proof" of this claim.

However, when we read the words of the Messiah, we find he was referring not to the Jewish people as such, but rather to the Jewish religious leaders who were at that moment interrogating him and denying his Messiahship !

So Jewish leaders who deny Christs' Messiahship are of the "serpent's seed", um that would be all of them.

Their Saviour was Jesus Christ and they rejected him.

I repeat, read what the Talmud says about Jesus Christ, they are no friends of the Christians.

[TheRifleman]

So Jewish leaders who deny Christs' Messiahship are of the "serpent's seed", um that would be all of them.

Their Saviour was Jesus Christ and they rejected him.

I repeat, read what the Talmud says about Jesus Christ, they are no friends of the Christians.

The Talmud doesn't say anything at all about Jesus. you are misinformed.

The Accusation
Insults Against Blessed Mary, Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men. "Jesus was a bastard born of adultery." (Yebamoth 49b, p.324).
"Mary was a whore: Jesus (Balaam) was an evil man." (Sanhedrin 106a &b, p.725).
"Jesus was a magician and a fool. Mary was an adulteress". (Shabbath 104b, p.504).

The Text:




Mishnah Yevamot 4:18


R. Shimon ben Azzai said: I found a book of geneologies in Jerusalem and in it is written "The man Plony is a bastard."



This is claimed to be a reference to Jesus. However, this claim is patently ridiculous. The Mishnah was most likely referring to a famous person and, due to the lack of any practical ramifications, his name was left out by the compilers of the Mishnah. Plony is a biblical term used similar to John Doe today (cf. Ruth 4:1). The keeping of geneological records was very common in talmudic times so that regular Jews did not marry bastards and violate the biblical prohibition (Deuteronomy 23:3). Investigations into lineage and proclamations of bastardy were not uncommon (cf. Nehemiah 7:5; Talmud Kiddushin 70b-71a). There is no reason to assume that this refers to Jesus.
Gustaf Dalman rejects the assertion that this Mishnah refers to Jesus [Dalman, Die Worte Jesus (Liepzig: Hinrichs, 1898), p. 4 n. 2]. Similarly, RT Herford calls this suggestion "doubtful and probably unfounded" [Herford, "Jesus in Rabbinical Literature", The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 6 pp. 87-88]. Johann Maier calls it "odd speculation" [Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Uberlieferung, p. 50]. All of this is cited approvingly by John P. Meier in his highly acclaimed A Marginal Jew, vol. I p. 108 n. 53. See also Avraham Korman's discussion in Zeramim Vekitot Beyahadut, pp. 348-349.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html

[TheRifleman]

The Jewish Talmud and the Death of Christ

By Wayne Jackson
In one of his epistles, Paul, lifting a text from the book of Job (5:13, LXX) to emphasize the folly of human wisdom in contrast to that which is divine, observed that God “catches the wise in their own craftiness” (1 Corinthians 3:19). A fisherman “caught in his own net” is a pathetic sight. Or, as Chrysostom (c. A.D. 347-407) of Constantinople once expressed it, the soldier “is worsted with his own weapons.”
An evil contingent within the Jewish nation influenced the Romans to put Christ to death. No serious student of history can deny this reality. This is not to discount the culpability of all sinners in the death of God’s Son; it merely acknowledges the historical events that occurred in the spring of A.D. 30 in the city of Jerusalem.
For nearly two millennia Jewish writers have been attempting to revise history in an effort to rationalize their role in the death of Jesus of Nazareth. In each attempt, they pitifully ensnare themselves. Better it would have been had they treated the awful history factually and simply moved on.
In this brief article we take note of a passage in the Jewish Talmud that speaks of the death of Jesus. It sought to explain the execution of Christ against the background of Hebrew law, with the contention that the Lord’s death was implemented legally. The result, however, is a remarkable confirmation of the details of the biblical narratives.
The Jewish Text

The Babylonian Talmud is a commentary on Jewish laws composed between A.D. 500-600 (Neusner/Green, 69) Therein is a text about Jesus’ death. The Tractate Sanhedrin (43a) contains this passage:

Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, “He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whosoever has anything to say in his defense, let him come and declare it.” As nothing was brought forward in his defense, he was hanged on Passover Eve.

An analysis of this paragraph is extremely rewarding. First, one must observe that the document is written from the Jewish viewpoint; thus, as expected, is hostile to Jesus, and is defensive of Jewish jurisprudence. This makes it all the more valuable as a document for the support of Christianity.
Jesus — A Real Person of History

The first fact readily apparent is that the Jews responsible for the Babylonian Talmud, who had every motive for wanting to eradicate Christ from history, did not. That is telling. The historicity of Jesus is conceded.
This is powerful testimony since a few modern skeptics (very much a minority within their ranks) deny that Jesus ever lived. G.A. Wells is one modern example; he has attempted to argue that Jesus was purely a mythical character, yet even he admits that “nearly all present-day scholars” do not agree with his thesis (Wells, 1.363).
The Manner of Jesus’ Death

The mode of his death was by “hanging.” This is an expression that was used for crucifixion. Note Peter’s description: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a tree” (Acts 5:30). Literally, the text reads, “whom you killed, having hanged him on a tree.” The participle, “having hanged,” is “coincident with that of the verb” (Lenski, 225). See also Acts 10:39.
There was divine planning in the manner of Christ’s death. In his atoning act, he was bearing the “curse” of sin, i.e., the consequence of human sin — potentially available to the entire family of mankind. As Paul would later explain: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree” (Galatians 3:13; cf. Deuteronomy 21:23). More on this momentarily.
The Time of Jesus’ Death

The general time of his death is indicated: at the “Passover Eve.” John the apostle, who was present at the time of Christ’s death, writes: “Now it was the Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he [Pilate] said unto the Jews, ‘Behold your king’” (19:14). For a study of the alleged problems associated with the time element of the Passover, the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, etc., see Geldenhuys (649-670).
This timing, of course, was a perfect complement to the imagery of the Old Testament that made the Passover lamb a “type,” i.e., pictorial preview, of the atoning death of the Savior (see John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7).
The Illegal Trial of Christ

The reference to a “herald” crying out for “forty days,” proclaiming the guilt of Christ appears to be an obvious attempt to cover up the illegal malfeasance that occurred in connection with the Lord’s trial and death.
Jewish legal procedure dictated that en route to an execution, a “herald” was required to: proclaim the victim’s name, state his alleged crime, provide the names of witnesses against him, and call for any exculpatory testimony (see our article on the trial of Jesus, Part 1 and Part 2. ) There is not a shred of evidence in the New Testament that such was done in connection with Jesus’ death. Christ was not even in Jerusalem until five days before his crucifixion!
Accusation of Collusion with Satan

Christ was accused of practicing sorcery, which, in effect, was a charge that he was in league with the devil. The term “sorcery” represents a perversion of truth regarding Jesus; nonetheless, in a subtle way, it concedes that he was doing extraordinary things (his miracles) that were inexplicable from a strictly natural vantage point.
As support for the Lord mounted, the Hebrew leaders were frantic.

The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, “What are we to do? For this man is doing many signs. If we let him alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (John 11:47-48).

Their ploy, therefore, was this: they would attribute his amazing deeds to the devil. After the Savior had healed a man who was both blind and mute as a consequence of being demon possessed, the Pharisees charged: “This man does not cast out demons except by [the power of] Beelzebub” (Matthew 12:24). This is what the Talmud characterized as “sorcery.” Sorcery indeed! Christ exploded the argument by demonstrating that if their theory was true, Satan would be divided against himself!
Stoning or Crucifixion — Which?

The Sanhedrin text notes that he was led away for “stoning” (as with the later cases of Stephen and Paul – Acts 7:58; 14:19). Stoning was a Hebrew method of execution. This is amazing since the same Talmudic text says Christ was “hanged.” See above on the “Manner of Jesus’ Death.”
From a legal standpoint, the Jews could not execute a person by stoning, for the Romans had taken from them the option of implementing capital punishment directly (see John 18:31b); they were required to go through the Roman judicial system for executions, and for a non-Roman, that meant crucifixion.
This, of course, ultimately was of divine planning. His “hands and feet” were to be “pierced” (Psalms 22:16b), and his “soul” [Heb. nephesh; “life,” resident in the blood; cf. Leviticus 17:11] was to be “poured out” (or “laid bare”; Isaiah 53:12b; cf. Zechariah 13:1). The Savior had to die in some fashion involving the profuse loss of blood. Crucifixion accommodated that requirement much more effectively than stoning (cf. John 19:34). It is incredible that the Talmud should provide such an unintended confirmation of the biblical record.
The Lack of Defense

The claim that Jesus lacked any “defense” is noteworthy in that it corroborates the prophecy of Isaiah. “He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth” (53:7).
Reflect upon the testimony of the Gospel records: “And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered not a word…. And he gave him [Pilate] no answer, not even one word” (see Matthew 27:12, 14; cf. Mark 15:5; Luke 22:67; 23:9). These texts reveal that while Christ made a few brief comments in the course of his several “court” appearances, he offered no formal defense for his innocence.
Christ’s Influence

This Jewish document also takes note of the influence of the Lord Jesus. He was said to have led “Israel astray … into apostasy,” a circumstance which the chief priests and Pharisees anticipated with fear (cf. John 11:48).
It has been estimated that by the time Stephen was martyred (Acts 7:60), the Jerusalem church consisted of no fewer than 20,000 souls (Kistemaker, 148). This represented more than one-third of the estimated 55,000 citizens in Jerusalem at that time (Jeremias, 83).
Conclusion

How strange it is (dare we say “providential”?) that Jewish writers of the post-apostolic age ended up providing the sort of evidence that does not undermine the New Testament accounts; rather, unwittingly it supports them!

The commentary, Acts of the Apostles — From Jerusalem to Rome, by Wayne Jackson is available from Christian Courier Publications. Call 1-888-818-2463 for

[CarpeDime]

it's so weird how TheRifleman cares so much about Heaven and Hell

if Heaven and Hell do exist, then he is 100% DEFINITELY going to Hell, and he must be aware of this

so shouldn't he be hoping/praying that Hell doesn't exist?

[dante1]

it's so weird how TheRifleman cares so much about Heaven and Hell

if Heaven and Hell do exist, then he is 100% DEFINITELY going to Hell, and he must be aware of this

so shouldn't he be hoping/praying that Hell doesn't exist?

exact same comment I made to this nitwit a while back, he had better hope no divine god exists because if he does exist rifle is in big shit trouble. he actually believes he is a christian can you imagine? Well the Westboro idiots believe they are christian too. it is unbelievable how many truly evil people go by the name christian.

btw, he becomes very upset when you call him evil, yeah he was defending himself not too long ago and said hey I give money to people, like that is the definition of not evil. No you idiot, wanting to kill all the catholics declares you are evil. That little fact and dozens of other evil comments you have made over and over and over.

[ADR51]

Ummm, these right wingers?

Some aloe vera for his ass!

[CarpeDime]

exact same comment I made to this nitwit a while back, he had better hope no divine god exists because if he does exist rifle is in big shit trouble. he actually believes he is a christian can you imagine? Well the Westboro idiots believe they are christian too. it is unbelievable how many truly evil people go by the name christian.

btw, he becomes very upset when you call him evil, yeah he was defending himself not too long ago and said hey I give money to people, like that is the definition of not evil. No you idiot, wanting to kill all the catholics declares you are evil. That little fact and dozens of other evil comments you have made over and over and over.

i see it a bit differently. He knows he's not a christian and he doesn't believe there is a Heaven and Hell. Same as all the priests who made love to children all these years. You think they actually believed that Heaven/Hell exists, but that what they were doing wouldn't matter? no way. You think they were just like "well I do believe Hell as I define it does exist, but I'll just make love to these children now, and deal with Hell later"? no way.

They didnt at all believe in Heaven/Hell from the beginning, and neither does TheRifleman. What they all have is a mental disorder, an uncontrollable compulsion to do and say the things they do and say. And being extremely self-righteous about christianity fires some neurons is their brains that they have become addicted to, they dont feel normal or comfortable unless those neurons fire, and the only way they can fire is by saying extreme self-righteous religious stuff, because that is the way their brains developed, out of years-long habits. And they know it's ok to be grotesquely hypocritical about religion, and also to continue to do evil things, because they don't in fact, at all, believe in Heaven/Hell.

the human brain is structured to be vulnerable to self-righteousness about fairytales. And that's why cults exist and have always existed. And you see it manifest itself in many other less obvious ways as well. Some people I would assume are more susceptible to it, and what gets it set in stone is habit, like everything else in life. Habits that make us feel "comfortable" and "right" are very very difficult to break, and that's how you wind up with otherwise relatively capable and even intelligent people exhibiting jaw-droppingly bizarre behavior from the outside. It's much more about "emotional intelligence" and awareness of cause-and-effect than it is about pure information processing intelligence. I even had an acquaintance from high-school who wound up in a cult for many years, and this was a broad who was together enough mentally to graduate from Harvard. But that's how this stuff happens - Waco, Jonestown, Scientology, Charles Manson, Muslim terrorism, and on and on and on. Countless examples of the exact same thing. People becoming addicted to doing things in the name of a good myth.

TheRifleman doesn't really believe in Heaven/Hell at all, he just can't stop being how he is, because his brain has solidified into that structure and chemistry.

[TheRifleman]

i see it a bit differently. He knows he's not a christian and he doesn't believe there is a Heaven and Hell. Same as all the priests who made love to children all these years. You think they actually believed that Heaven/Hell exists, but that what they were doing wouldn't matter? no way. You think they were just like "well I do believe Hell as I define it does exist, but I'll just make love to these children now, and deal with Hell later"? no way.

They didnt at all believe in Heaven/Hell from the beginning, and neither does TheRifleman. What they all have is a mental disorder, an uncontrollable compulsion to do and say the things they do and say. And being extremely self-righteous about christianity fires some neurons is their brains that they have become addicted to, they dont feel normal or comfortable unless those neurons fire, and the only way they can fire is by saying extreme self-righteous religious stuff, because that is the way their brains developed, out of years-long habits. And they know it's ok to be grotesquely hypocritical about religion, and also to continue to do evil things, because they don't in fact, at all, believe in Heaven/Hell.

the human brain is structured to be vulnerable to self-righteousness about fairytales. And that's why cults exist and have always existed. And you see it manifest itself in many other less obvious ways as well. Some people I would assume are more susceptible to it, and what gets it set in stone is habit, like everything else in life. Habits that make us feel "comfortable" and "right" are very very difficult to break, and that's how you wind up with otherwise relatively capable and even intelligent people exhibiting jaw-droppingly bizarre behavior from the outside. It's much more about "emotional intelligence" and awareness of cause-and-effect than it is about pure information processing intelligence. I even had an acquaintance from high-school who wound up in a cult for many years, and this was a broad who was together enough mentally to graduate from Harvard. But that's how this stuff happens - Waco, Jonestown, Scientology, Charles Manson, Muslim terrorism, and on and on and on. Countless examples of the exact same thing. People becoming addicted to doing things in the name of a good myth.

TheRifleman doesn't really believe in Heaven/Hell at all, he just can't stop being how he is, because his brain has solidified into that structure and chemistry.

well, you're wrong about me, Sodomite,( half-boy, half-girl) , I strongly believe in heaven and hell/good and evil; too bad if my beliefs don't fit into your little, selfish, self-absorbed, me, me, me world of debauchery and decadence.

The one thing you is for certain: You are going to hell, and trust me,there is a Hell.

Dirty,filthy, disgusting Sodomites ( half-boy, half-girl) like yourself are on the fast-track there, and so are Godless liberal filth like the pedophile, Dumty1 who has never seen a little boy that he doesn't have lustful desires for.