Who Really Killed Jesus

From the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 20, verses 17-19:

As Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside,
and on the way he said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and
the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they
will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and
scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day."

"Anonymous" <cripto@ecn.org> wrote in message
news:ee74566228bf44b101cf7fc99d0f7e80@ecn.org... Who Really Killed Jesus From the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 20, verses 17-19:

But we want proof, not a story you are using to validate *itself*.

Susan

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote But we want proof, not a story you are using to validate *itself*.

So, you're like a 'crucifixion denier'?

Chas

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v7udnfJ1UtfW4NzdRVn-sQ@comcast.com... "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote But we want proof, not a story you are using to validate *itself*. So, you're like a 'crucifixion denier'?

So, you're like *extremely* ticked off that there's no actual proof of what
you're selling?
I figure you have to be, to make sick little revisionist remarks.

Susan

All I know is, it wasn't me. I've of an airtight alibi: I wasn't born yet.

Susan Cohen wrote: "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:v7udnfJ1UtfW4NzdRVn-sQ@comcast.com..."Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wroteBut we want proof, not a story you are using to validate *itself*.

The Jews must be acquitted, as there is no credible evidence that a
murder was committed. (Just to keep it relevant to misc.legal.)So, you're like a 'crucifixion denier'? So, you're like *extremely* ticked off that there's no actual proof of what you're selling?

They just *hate* it when we do that, don't they? ;-)

When we ask for proof, they say we are not worthy. Easy way to avoid
the question -- reminds one of the tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes."

It's blind faith, and blind faith alone. Heaven's Gate-class blind
faith.
I figure you have to be, to make sick little revisionist remarks.

The reality is that we don't know anything of substance about Jesus.
For all we know -- and I think it likely -- he was a first-century L.
Ron Hubbard, whose real life never quite measured up to his followers'
claims. After all, he *certainly* doesn't live up to it today.

The historians and intellectuals of the day didn't bother to mention
him (at least, those whose accounts have survived in some way, shape, or
form). The rabbinical writings are completely devoid of references to
him. Josephus was apparently altered to mention him. He wasn't much of
an issue until the Christian cult surfaced around seven or eight decades
later, which implies that he wasn't much of anything in real life.

"Miracles?" LOL! The god who supposedly scourged the Temple of the
evil moneychangers can't even put TBN out of business.

How *can* you have faith in an impotent ancient sky-pixie, Chas?

Tin Ear wrote: All I know is, it wasn't me. I've of an airtight alibi: I wasn't born yet.
They figured out a way to charge you anyway.... :)

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:4041FAC0.8010408@it.com... Tin Ear wrote: All I know is, it wasn't me. I've of an airtight alibi: I wasn't born
yet. They figured out a way to charge you anyway.... :)

Yes, but just with original sin, for which you may easily atone. Matter of
fact you can keep right on sinning (as they all do) --- even terrible,
despicable sins --- and then just pass go and collect your free atonement.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and
that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8.

jls wrote: "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:4041FAC0.8010408@it.com...Tin Ear wrote:All I know is, it wasn't me. I've of an airtight alibi: I wasn't born yet. They figured out a way to charge you anyway.... :) Yes, but just with original sin, for which you may easily atone. Matter of fact you can keep right on sinning (as they all do) --- even terrible, despicable sins --- and then just pass go and collect your free atonement. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8.

Yup. Create the disease, then sell the cure. The plot of Mission
Implausible II, and a Madison Avenue staple since there WAS a Madison
Avenue. :)

I've never done anything God has forbidden, or not done anything God
has required of me. So there, Christians!

Ken Smith wrote:

[the usual]

Who really killed Jesus? It was ... Ken Smith! Yes, Jesus, in His gracious
lovingkindness, went to the cross and suffered the penalty for Ken's sins
(which are legion). So now, if Ken would only accept Jesus' sacrifice, and
receive Christ as his Saviour and Lord, Ken will have new life in Christ.
Then, when Ken stands before God at the Final Judgement, he will have Christ
to plead his case for him, so that he may gain entrance into heaven and avoid
eternal torment and damnation in the lake of fire.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

jls wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: Tin Ear wrote:
All I know is, it wasn't me. I've of an airtight alibi: I wasn't born yet.
They figured out a way to charge you anyway ... :)
Yes, but just with original sin, for which you may easily atone.

Oh yeah? How well have you atoned for it?
Matter of fact you can keep right on sinning (as they all do) --- even terrible, despicable sins --- and then just pass go and collect your free atonement.

You do err in that you know not the Scripture: "What shall we say then?
Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we,
that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" [Rom. 6:1-2, KJV]
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8.

So then, have you received God's gift of salvation, which is freely offered
through His grace? If not, why not? What will you say to God when you stand
before Him at the Final Judgment, knowing that you have spurned so precious a
gift which He had freely offered you, and for which He had paid so dearly
such a terrible price?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote: [the usual] Who really killed Jesus? It was ... Ken Smith!

Another false and malicious accusation by Theodore A. Kaldis. What a
surprise....

Does this mean I get to be an honorary Jew? :)

Ken Smith <forget@it.com> enscribed: Susan Cohen wrote:
It's blind faith, and blind faith alone. Heaven's Gate-class blind faith.

Umm, uhh, do you really think everyone in soc.culture.jewish is an atheist?

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

Disgruntled Customer wrote: Ken Smith <forget@it.com> enscribed:Susan Cohen wrote: It's blind faith, and blind faith alone. Heaven's Gate-class blindfaith. Umm, uhh, do you really think everyone in soc.culture.jewish is an atheist?

I don't *do* soc.culture.jewish.

In article <40420574.8F3CF33@worldnet.att.net>,
Theodore A. Kaldis <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
So then, have you received God's gift of salvation, which is freely offeredthrough His grace? If not, why not? What will you say to God when you standbefore Him at the Final Judgment, knowing that you have spurned so precious agift which He had freely offered you, and for which He had paid so dearlysuch a terrible price?

"I didn't trust your middlemen, and you weren't willing to deal direct."
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Ken Smith <forget@it.com> enscribed: Disgruntled Customer wrote: Ken Smith <forget@it.com> enscribed:Susan Cohen wrote: It's blind faith, and blind faith alone. Heaven's Gate-class blindfaith. Umm, uhh, do you really think everyone in soc.culture.jewish is an atheist? I don't *do* soc.culture.jewish.

You are now, idiot. Susie wasn't objecting to the god of Abraham, she was
objecting to the idea that Jesus was the messiah.

You're cute when you're angry.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

Disgruntled Customer wrote: Ken Smith <forget@it.com> enscribed:Disgruntled Customer wrote:Ken Smith <forget@it.com> enscribed:>Susan Cohen wrote:> It's blind faith, and blind faith alone. Heaven's Gate-class blind>faith.Umm, uhh, do you really think everyone in soc.culture.jewish is an atheist? I don't *do* soc.culture.jewish. You are now, idiot. Susie wasn't objecting to the god of Abraham, she was objecting to the idea that Jesus was the messiah.

And I could object to the god of Abraham on the same grounds, which
is exactly my point. :) I've used this one against Christians who
complain that the Mormons are a satanic cult, and they don't seem to
have a solid answer.
You're cute when you're angry.

My wife thinks I'm cute all the time. ;-)

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
"Who really killed Jesus? It was ... Ken Smith!"


Oh. My. God.

I knew it, i knew, i KNEW it !!!!

Damn that Ken Smith for killing Jesus. I bet he singlehandedly whacked John
Kennedy in Dallas, Elvis in the bathroom and Colonel Mustard in the hall with a
lead pipe, too !!!!!

I'll never be able to watch "Quantum Leap" again after this one.....

-------
have a GREAT day !!!!!!
Solar

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote But we want proof, not a story you are using to validate *itself*. So, you're like a 'crucifixion denier'? So, you're like *extremely* ticked off that there's no actual proof of
what you're selling?

I simply asked for a clarification of your position.
I figure you have to be, to make sick little revisionist remarks.

Gee; what's *your* agenda?

Chas

"Disgruntled Customer" <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote ......Susie wasn't objecting to the god of Abraham, she was objecting to the idea that Jesus was the messiah.

Noted and logged-
so what?

Chas

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> enscribed: "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote > But we want proof, not a story you are using to validate *itself*. So, you're like a 'crucifixion denier'? So, you're like *extremely* ticked off that there's no actual proof of what you're selling? I simply asked for a clarification of your position. I figure you have to be, to make sick little revisionist remarks. Gee; what's *your* agenda?

Take potshots at anybody who believes differently than she does, and denounce
as intolerant and antisemitic anyone who suggests Palestinians are human
beings.

Susie's well known for her tolerance.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Disgruntled Customer" <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote Gee; what's *your* agenda? Take potshots at anybody who believes differently than she does, and
denounce as intolerant and antisemitic anyone who suggests Palestinians are human beings.

So she's Jewish?
Odd; you'd think they'd be more tolerant, the late unpleasantness and all.

Chas

Ken Smith wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote: [the usual] Who really killed Jesus? It was ... Ken Smith! Another false and malicious accusation by Theodore A. Kaldis. What a surprise.... Does this mean I get to be an honorary Jew? :)

Only Vince Foster knows the real truth. And he only knows 'cause he
heard it from Jimmy Hoffa.



--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: "Disgruntled Customer" wrote: Ken Smith wrote:> Susan Cohen wrote:
> It's blind faith, and blind faith alone. Heaven's Gate-class blind> faith.
Umm, uhh, do you really think everyone in soc.culture.jewish is an atheist?
I don't *do* soc.culture.jewish.
You are now, idiot. Susie wasn't objecting to the god of Abraham, she was objecting to the idea that Jesus was the messiah.

STOP THE PRESSES! Big surprise here! Christians believe that Jesus was the
Messiah. And Jews don't.

Glad you cleared that one up.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:4041F635.5090203@it.com... Susan Cohen wrote: "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:v7udnfJ1UtfW4NzdRVn-sQ@comcast.com..."Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote>But we want proof, not a story you are using to validate *itself*. The Jews must be acquitted, as there is no credible evidence that a murder was committed. (Just to keep it relevant to misc.legal.)

Oh, should I start yelling about habeus corpus??
So, you're like a 'crucifixion denier'? So, you're like *extremely* ticked off that there's no actual proof of
what you're selling? They just *hate* it when we do that, don't they? ;-) When we ask for proof, they say we are not worthy.

This one went a step further, trying to pretend that we're like holocaust
deniers.
Easy way to avoid the question -- reminds one of the tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes." It's blind faith, and blind faith alone. Heaven's Gate-class blind faith. I figure you have to be, to make sick little revisionist remarks. The reality is that we don't know anything of substance about Jesus. For all we know -- and I think it likely -- he was a first-century L. Ron Hubbard, whose real life never quite measured up to his followers' claims. After all, he *certainly* doesn't live up to it today. The historians and intellectuals of the day didn't bother to mention him (at least, those whose accounts have survived in some way, shape, or form). The rabbinical writings are completely devoid of references to him. Josephus was apparently altered to mention him. He wasn't much of an issue until the Christian cult surfaced around seven or eight decades later, which implies that he wasn't much of anything in real life. "Miracles?" LOL! The god who supposedly scourged the Temple of the evil moneychangers can't even put TBN out of business. How *can* you have faith in an impotent ancient sky-pixie, Chas?

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:404202A0.200C83CF@worldnet.att.net... Ken Smith wrote: [the usual] Who really killed Jesus? It was ... Ken Smith!

Proof it.

(OBmisc.legal: habeus corpus!)

OOOPS!

Susan

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:4042227C.3040002@it.com... Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote: [the usual] Who really killed Jesus? It was ... Ken Smith! Another false and malicious accusation by Theodore A. Kaldis. What a surprise.... Does this mean I get to be an honorary Jew? :)

Actually, more gracious Xians say that *all* humanity is at fault, because
he supposedly came for all our sins. However, this would make Theodore
Kaldis as guilty as he says you are.

Susan

"Disgruntled Customer" <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote in message
news:1044biieobhqk6e@corp.supernews.com... Ken Smith <forget@it.com> enscribed: It's blind faith, and blind faith alone. Heaven's Gate-class blind faith. Umm, uhh, do you really think everyone in soc.culture.jewish is an
atheist?

No, but we're not the ones screaming at everyone in alt.atheism that the
have to believe what we do.
We're also not asking people to believe stuff that can be proven false.

Susan

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-cydncvehMeHyN_dRVn-tA@comcast.com... "Disgruntled Customer" <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote ......Susie wasn't objecting to the god of Abraham, she was objecting to the idea that Jesus was the messiah. Noted and logged-

If you're serious, make sure you correct the spelling.

Susan
so what? Chas

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:40420574.8F3CF33@worldnet.att.net... What will you say to God when you stand before Him at the Final Judgment, knowing that you have spurned so
precious a gift which He had freely offered you, and for which He had paid so dearly such a terrible price?

I won't be talking *nearly* as fast as you will be.....

Susan

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qtKdnaJWT4Yvyd_dRVn-hg@comcast.com... "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote > But we want proof, not a story you are using to validate *itself*. So, you're like a 'crucifixion denier'? So, you're like *extremely* ticked off that there's no actual proof of what you're selling? I simply asked for a clarification of your position.

You did no such thing & no one is fooled, not even you. I figure you have to be, to make sick little revisionist remarks. Gee; what's *your* agenda?

To be anti yours.

Susan

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:S_-dnYhFjbRhxt_dRVn-jw@comcast.com... "Disgruntled Customer" <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote Gee; what's *your* agenda? [snip lies]. So she's Jewish? Odd; you'd think they'd be more tolerant, the late unpleasantness and all.

We are never tolerant of those who try to pretend it's all our fault.

Susan

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote We are never tolerant of those who try to pretend it's all our fault.

All what?

c.

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote > > But we want proof, not a story you are using to validate *itself*. > So, you're like a 'crucifixion denier'? So, you're like *extremely* ticked off that there's no actual proof of what you're selling? I simply asked for a clarification of your position. You did no such thing & no one is fooled, not even you.

So you have no position?
I figure you have to be, to make sick little revisionist remarks. Gee; what's *your* agenda? To be anti yours.

heh.

c.

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> enscribed: "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:S_-dnYhFjbRhxt_dRVn-jw@comcast.com... "Disgruntled Customer" <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote > Gee; what's *your* agenda? [snip lies]. So she's Jewish? Odd; you'd think they'd be more tolerant, the late unpleasantness and all. We are never tolerant of those who try to pretend it's all our fault.

As usual, Susie, you miss the big picture. Setting aside for the moment
the question of whether Jesus was the messiah, if you accept rest of the
gospels as true, what do you have? You have a guy who said the purpose of
law is to serve man, and not that man should serve law. That is a dangerous
opinion to authority figures who derive their power from people's
unquestioning allegiance to the law. So the priests cooperated with the
Romans to have Jesus executed.

Now abstract out a pattern and see if you can apply it to other cases.
Say another priesthood which derives its authority by claiming the
people can only receive divine blessings through the priesthood. Then
along comes a guy, let's call him Martin Luther for no particular reason,
who says the priesthood is corrupt; that they're supposed to be serving
the people's need rather than coercing goods and services from the people.

Or perhaps a different kind of priesthood, not serving a god but still
a kind of impersonal transcendent. Again coercing the people into serving
them. Along comes a guy, let's call him Andrei Sakharov, or the
Mahatma Gandhi, or maybe Martin Luther King, for no particular reason.
And this guy stirs up trouble by saying the priesthood is supposed to be
serving the people. What are you going to do?

As one fictional Judean said, "What you did not do for the least of them,
you did not do for me."

Do I think it was the fault of the temple priests and other Jewish
authorities of that time? Of course it was. But they're all dead now,
and any sins died with them. I also fault Christian church leaders for
the Inquistion, pogroms, electing Ronald Reagan, and Moslem religious
authority for the current violence and the fatwa on Solomon Rushdie.
Fair's fair.

And if you want tolerance, expect to show some.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:06-dnYmJM6mRVd_dRVn-sQ@comcast.com... "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote We are never tolerant of those who try to pretend it's all our fault. All what?

All that you do to us, or want to do.
Thanks for letting me make it clearer.

Susan c.

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YOudnYtK2PlSVd_dRVn-sA@comcast.com... "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote > > > But we want proof, not a story you are using to validate
*itself*. > > So, you're like a 'crucifixion denier'? > So, you're like *extremely* ticked off that there's no actual proof
of what > you're selling? I simply asked for a clarification of your position. You did no such thing & no one is fooled, not even you. So you have no position?

I have a position on bigots who use revisionist slurs where they are not
applicable. > I figure you have to be, to make sick little revisionist remarks. Gee; what's *your* agenda? To be anti yours. heh.

Just keep laughing.

Susan

Susan Cohen wrote: "Disgruntled Customer" <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote in message news:1044biieobhqk6e@corp.supernews.com...Ken Smith <forget@it.com> enscribed:
It's blind faith, and blind faith alone. Heaven's Gate-class blindfaith.Umm, uhh, do you really think everyone in soc.culture.jewish is an atheist? No, but we're not the ones screaming at everyone in alt.atheism that the have to believe what we do.

This is one of Judaism's crowning graces -- no selling required, and
no selling even permitted.

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote Except, of course, that the priests were not in trouble from Jesus.

Well; they didn't like the little incident with the moneychangers much.
And of course, he was taken by temple proctors, not Romans.
Caiaphas was a Roman appointee- beholden to them for everything he had.
If they were, they could have had him brought up before a Jewish court on Jewish charges.

You mean like 'blasphemy'?
It would have silenced him *far* more effectively since his message -according to you - was religious.

Better to have the Romans do it- less notoriety than having temple proctors
do it.
A *religious* trial would have been the answer. But they didn't do that, because they had no need. Rome wanted him dead because he was a threat to *them*.

Caiaphas brought Y'shua to the Romans- Pilate didn't even see the problem at
first.
And, of course, Joseph Caiaphas was removed from his post a couple of years
after the Crucifixion for corruption- if the story be true.

Chas

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote > Gee; what's *your* agenda? To be anti yours. heh. Just keep laughing.

Keep playing the clown and I can.

Chas

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote This is one of Judaism's crowning graces -- no selling required, and no selling even permitted.

Yeah; if you're not born Jewish, small prospect of becoming one- Sammy Davis
Jr. given.

Chas

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:404336BB.70304@it.com... This is one of Judaism's crowning graces -- no selling required, and no selling even permitted.

Oh, absolutely. I'm very grateful it's this way, since I detest it in
others.

Susan

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-O6dnZStbZ-az97dRVn-hg@comcast.com... "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote This is one of Judaism's crowning graces -- no selling required, and no selling even permitted. Yeah; if you're not born Jewish, small prospect of becoming one

Hey, wrong *again*!!!

- Sammy Davis Jr. given.


Given what? He was certainly given a conversion.

Susan

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9vCdnZwcR7DNzN7dRVn-sw@comcast.com... "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote Except, of course, that the priests were not in trouble from Jesus. Well; they didn't like the little incident with the moneychangers much.

Nor would I like some yahoo disrupting temple worship.
You really have no clue as to what the "moneychangers" were doing there.
And of course, he was taken by temple proctors, not Romans. Caiaphas was a Roman appointee- beholden to them for everything he had.

Not that you can *prove* any of this, of course.
I am speaking historically. If they were, they could have had him brought up before a Jewish court
on Jewish charges. You mean like 'blasphemy'?

If he had committed any, yes. It would have silenced him *far* more effectively since his message -according to you - was religious. Better to have the Romans do it- less notoriety than having temple
proctors do it.

But you say he was taken by temple proctors.
Now you are contradicting yourself as clearly as your bible does.
The "noteriety" is the point: the more publicity that the guy was a
religious criminal (if you will) would have undercut what power you say he
had.
A *religious* trial would have been the answer. But they didn't do that, because they had no need. Rome wanted him dead because he was a threat to *them*. Caiaphas brought Y'shua to the Romans- Pilate didn't even see the problem
at first. And, of course, Joseph Caiaphas was removed from his post a couple of
years after the Crucifixion for corruption- if the story be true.

That would have to be the only true part of it, since Pilate had total
control of over was/not the High Priest.
That's another reason why the story is unbelievqable: no way would Pilate
have deferred to any Jew, much less someone whose position depended on his
whim, in any matter that touched Rome.

Susan Chas

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bOKdnYgOjPQ3zN7dRVn-sA@comcast.com... "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote > > Gee; what's *your* agenda? > To be anti yours. heh. Just keep laughing. Keep playing the clown and I can.

It certainly takes a clown to pretend that I'm playing one.
Just make sure you keep it up.

Susan

Matthew Russotto wrote: In article <40420574.8F3CF33@worldnet.att.net>, Theodore A. Kaldis <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote: ... What will you say to God when you standbefore Him at the Final Judgment,.... "I didn't trust your middlemen, and you weren't willing to deal direct."

Beautiful! May I use that?

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote Yeah; if you're not born Jewish, small prospect of becoming one Hey, wrong *again*!!!

Do you not understand the words 'small prospect'?
- Sammy Davis Jr. given. Given what? He was certainly given a conversion.

Why yes; yes he was.

Chas

Susan Cohen wrote: "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:-O6dnZStbZ-az97dRVn-hg@comcast.com..."Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote This is one of Judaism's crowning graces -- no selling required, andno selling even permitted.Yeah; if you're not born Jewish, small prospect of becoming one Hey, wrong *again*!!!

Actually, I considered it quite seriously in my youth. IIRC, you
have to ask a rabbi three times -- far from the high-pressure sales
pitch and incessant advertising of that *MAD*ison Avenue religion.

Susan Cohen wrote: "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:9vCdnZwcR7DNzN7dRVn-sw@comcast.com..."Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wroteExcept, of course, that the priests were not in trouble from Jesus.Well; they didn't like the little incident with the moneychangers much. Nor would I like some yahoo disrupting temple worship. You really have no clue as to what the "moneychangers" were doing there.

You'd think that if Jesus felt so strongly about turning his house of
worship into a "den of thieves," he'd get off his moribund *** and take
out TBN. Again, proof positive that your false god is either a flaming
hypocrite, or is just too dead to get it up. :-)

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote Except, of course, that the priests were not in trouble from Jesus. Well; they didn't like the little incident with the moneychangers much. Nor would I like some yahoo disrupting temple worship. You really have no clue as to what the "moneychangers" were doing there.

You mean converting to temple tokens?
And of course, he was taken by temple proctors, not Romans. Caiaphas was a Roman appointee- beholden to them for everything he had. Not that you can *prove* any of this, of course. I am speaking historically.

Joseph Caiaphas a well known man from a well known family. His career is
chronicled outside of NT references. He was a Roman appointee.
But you say he was taken by temple proctors. Now you are contradicting yourself as clearly as your bible does.

In what regard?
On whose behalf was Judas working? And was he not paid in silver temple
tokens?
The "noteriety" is the point: the more publicity that the guy was a religious criminal (if you will) would have undercut what power you say he had.

The first 5,000 Christians were Jews, bubbelah.
That would have to be the only true part of it, since Pilate had total control of over was/not the High Priest.

Sure; Caiaphas was the creature of Pilate.
The compromise about the moneychangers was in the alternative to mounting a
statue in the temple courtyard- idolatry-wise.
That's another reason why the story is unbelievqable: no way would Pilate have deferred to any Jew, much less someone whose position depended on his whim, in any matter that touched Rome.

He sure handled his buddy's business soas to relieve Caiaphas of looking
like he was killing Y'shua for his own purposes. He obviously saw no
particular reason to kill Y'shua except the accusation from Caiaphas-
sedition. It's not like he hesitated or anything; killing rebels was pretty
commonplace- although the status of the accuser might have been less common.

Chas

Matthew Russotto wrote: In article <40420574.8F3CF33@worldnet.att.net>, Theodore A. Kaldis <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:So then, have you received God's gift of salvation, which is freely offeredthrough His grace? If not, why not? What will you say to God when you standbefore Him at the Final Judgment, knowing that you have spurned so precious agift which He had freely offered you, and for which He had paid so dearlysuch a terrible price? "I didn't trust your middlemen, and you weren't willing to deal direct."

Truly brilliant answer. I haven't seen it put so succintly.

And when you've got middlemen like our TeddiBeer (see attached), that
is an entirely reasonable position.

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote Just keep laughing. Keep playing the clown and I can. It certainly takes a clown to pretend that I'm playing one.

It certainly takes a clown to pretend that it certainly takes a clown to
pretend that it certainly takes a clown to pretend that you're wearing a big
red nose and floppy, yet comfortable, shoes.
Just make sure you keep it up.

from your mouth to Dog's Ear.

Chas

In article <40436B84.E428ECD5@sprintmail.com>,
Arthur L. Rubin <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:Matthew Russotto wrote: In article <40420574.8F3CF33@worldnet.att.net>, Theodore A. Kaldis <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote: ... What will you say to God when you standbefore Him at the Final Judgment,.... "I didn't trust your middlemen, and you weren't willing to deal direct."Beautiful! May I use that?

Sure. The first half is half-stolen anyway; I've seen the idea
before, though the wording's mine.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote..... What will you say to God when you standbefore Him at the Final Judgment, knowing that you have spurned so
precious agift which He had freely offered you, and for which He had paid so
dearlysuch a terrible price? "I didn't trust your middlemen, and you weren't willing to deal direct." Truly brilliant answer. I haven't seen it put so succintly.

Absolutely.
Simple observance won't do, simple submission and recitation won't do- there
is either a personal relationship with Yahweh, or there's not.
good call.

Chas

In article <9uI0c.9057$rW6.1016@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
Susan Cohen <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote:"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:-O6dnZStbZ-az97dRVn-hg@comcast.com... "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote This is one of Judaism's crowning graces -- no selling required, and no selling even permitted. Yeah; if you're not born Jewish, small prospect of becoming oneHey, wrong *again*!!!- Sammy Davis Jr. given.Given what? He was certainly given a conversion.

I believe the term he was looking for is "notwithstanding".


--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wroteGiven what? He was certainly given a conversion. I believe the term he was looking for is "notwithstanding".

stipulated; perhaps even 'deemed' <g>

Chas

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:404375F2.7000309@it.com... Susan Cohen wrote: "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:-O6dnZStbZ-az97dRVn-hg@comcast.com..."Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote> This is one of Judaism's crowning graces -- no selling required, and>no selling even permitted.Yeah; if you're not born Jewish, small prospect of becoming one Hey, wrong *again*!!! Actually, I considered it quite seriously in my youth. IIRC, you have to ask a rabbi three times -- far from the high-pressure sales pitch and incessant advertising of that *MAD*ison Avenue religion.

Yes, "difficult" is not the same as "small prospect."

Susan

"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:gw6dnSDdc6K0497dRWPC-g@speakeasy.net... In article <9uI0c.9057$rW6.1016@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>, Susan Cohen <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote:"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message- Sammy Davis Jr. given.Given what? He was certainly given a conversion. I believe the term he was looking for is "notwithstanding".

Ah.

Susan

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BOCdnbmDAZCW6N7dRVn-jA@comcast.com... "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote Yeah; if you're not born Jewish, small prospect of becoming one Hey, wrong *again*!!! Do you not understand the words 'small prospect'?

Pretending that *I'm* the dumb one instead of you will *not* make you right.

Susan

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jKudnWGaz88d6t7dRVn-uQ@comcast.com... "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote > Except, of course, that the priests were not in trouble from Jesus. Well; they didn't like the little incident with the moneychangers
much. Nor would I like some yahoo disrupting temple worship. You really have no clue as to what the "moneychangers" were doing there. You mean converting to temple tokens?

No. Converting money to sacrifices - you know *food*. And of course, he was taken by temple proctors, not Romans. Caiaphas was a Roman appointee- beholden to them for everything he
had. Not that you can *prove* any of this, of course. I am speaking historically. Joseph Caiaphas a well known man from a well known family. His career is chronicled outside of NT references. He was a Roman appointee.

You are being deliberately dense.
I am talking of "of course, he was taken by temple proctors, not Romans", &
everything written about Caiaphas *in* the Xian scriptures. But you say he was taken by temple proctors. Now you are contradicting yourself as clearly as your bible does. In what regard?

In th regard that you say he was taken by the Temple proctors, but that the
priests colluded w/Rome because it *wasn't* good for Jesus to be taken by
them.
On whose behalf was Judas working?

You presume there really was a Judas.
And was he not paid in silver temple tokens?

Who knows? There's no proof for it.
The only thing that comes close to proof is the logic of the historical
facts, & the Judas bit doesn't fit them anymore than the "priests colluding
w/Rome" does. The "noteriety" is the point: the more publicity that the guy was a religious criminal (if you will) would have undercut what power you say
he had. The first 5,000 Christians were Jews, bubbelah.

5,000, even if true, is a drop in the bucket, boy. That would have to be the only true part of it, since Pilate had total control of over was/not the High Priest. Sure; Caiaphas was the creature of Pilate. The compromise about the moneychangers was in the alternative to mounting
a statue in the temple courtyard- idolatry-wise.

And this is completely untrue.
The moneychangers were a necessary part of Jewish worship for nonagrarian
Jews. That's another reason why the story is unbelievqable: no way would
Pilate have deferred to any Jew, much less someone whose position depended on
his whim, in any matter that touched Rome. He sure handled his buddy's business soas to relieve Caiaphas of looking like he was killing Y'shua for his own purposes.

Not that you can prove.
He obviously saw no particular reason to kill Y'shua except the accusation from Caiaphas- sedition.

Not that you can prove.
It's not like he hesitated or anything;

Really? Your side says that he washed his hands of it.
Sounds like reluctance to me.
This is what I mean by "inconsitent with its own internal logic."

Susan

killing rebels was pretty commonplace- although the status of the accuser might have been less
common. Chas

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nqydnRG8HKgZ5d7dRVn-jg@comcast.com... "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote > Just keep laughing. Keep playing the clown and I can. It certainly takes a clown to pretend that I'm playing one. It certainly takes a clown to pretend that it certainly takes a clown to pretend that it certainly takes a clown to pretend that you're wearing a
big red nose and floppy, yet comfortable, shoes.

I'd say that you qualify on all counts, but you obviously haven't learned to
count.
Or did you realize that you just insulted yourself? Just make sure you keep it up. from your mouth to Dog's Ear.

Now *I* would never say that you worship a dog.
I have to say that I'm surpised you did.

Susan

Susan Cohen wrote: "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nqydnRG8HKgZ5d7dRVn-jg@comcast.com..."Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote

Just make sure you keep it up.from your mouth to Dog's Ear. Now *I* would never say that you worship a dog.

Look at it this way, Susan: They're worshipping a dead Jew, who would
probably be as appalled as would the Buddha if he ever came back to see
what man had done in his name.

Susan Cohen wrote: "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:jKudnWGaz88d6t7dRVn-uQ@comcast.com..."Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote

[snip]
The first 5,000 Christians were Jews, bubbelah. 5,000, even if true, is a drop in the bucket, boy.

And 5,000 sounds like a grossly overinflated figure -- given that
Josephus bothered to mention the Essenes, who numbered only ~3,000.

More likely, the Christian cult didn't even number into the hundreds
in Jerusalem, and the only reason the diaspora Jews bought off on it was
because they couldn't read the original Hebrew (a real Jew wouldn't have
been expectng the messiah to be born of a virgin!)....

Chas wrote: "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote>..... What will you say to God when you stand>before Him at the Final Judgment, knowing that you have spurned so precious a>gift which He had freely offered you, and for which He had paid so dearly>such a terrible price?"I didn't trust your middlemen, and you weren't willing to deal direct." Truly brilliant answer. I haven't seen it put so succintly. Absolutely. Simple observance won't do, simple submission and recitation won't do- there is either a personal relationship with Yahweh, or there's not.

And if your Jesus (don't call him YHWH!) is either too busy being
dead or sodomizing young boys on the golf course to pay you a personal
visit, it can't possibly be your fault. A relationship has to work both
ways.

I can accept that answer, Chas. :)
good call. Chas

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:4043B107.1070906@it.com... Susan Cohen wrote: "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nqydnRG8HKgZ5d7dRVn-jg@comcast.com..."Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote>Just make sure you keep it up.from your mouth to Dog's Ear. Now *I* would never say that you worship a dog. Look at it this way, Susan: They're worshipping a dead Jew, who would probably be as appalled as would the Buddha if he ever came back to see what man had done in his name.

Oh, even more appalled than the Buddha!!

Susan

Susan Cohen wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
What will you say to God when you stand before Him at the Final Judgment, knowing that you have spurned so precious a gift which He had freely offered you, and for which He had paid so dearly such a terrible price?
I won't be talking *nearly* as fast as you will be ...

Actually, I won't need to be doing any talking. I will have an Advocate.
His Name is Jesus.

And why won't you be? You seem to do quite a bit of talking here, what will
change when you stand before G-d?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4043C5A6.7C69E3C6@worldnet.att.net... Susan Cohen wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: What will you say to God when you stand before Him at the Final
Judgment, knowing that you have spurned so precious a gift which He had freely offered you, and for which He had paid so dearly such a terrible price? I won't be talking *nearly* as fast as you will be ... Actually, I won't need to be doing any talking. I will have an Advocate. His Name is Jesus.

& good luck to you. And why won't you be?

I won't need to.
You seem to do quite a bit of talking here,

The better to tick you off, my dear.
what will change when you stand before G-d?

The obvious fact that there won't be the garbage there that I get here.

Susan

Chas wrote
Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote > Just keep laughing. Keep playing the clown and I can. It certainly takes a clown to pretend that I'm playing one.

*Somewhere* there is a little first grader sobbing that some mean ol woman
stole his best retort. Hopefully, he retained his bag of candy...

"It certainly takes a clown to pretend that it certainly takes a clown to
pretend that it certainly takes a clown to pretend that you're wearing a big
red nose and floppy, yet comfortable, shoes."

Let see here. Nose, check. Shoes, check. Hey, is that a fright wig also, or is
that just "new wave" making a biiiig comeback ??? <g>

-------
have a GREAT day !!!!
Solar

Susan Cohen wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Susan Cohen wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> What will you say to God when you stand before Him at the Final> Judgment, knowing that you have spurned so precious a gift which He had> freely offered you, and for which He had paid so dearly such a terrible> price?
I won't be talking *nearly* as fast as you will be ...
Actually, I won't need to be doing any talking. I will have an Advocate. His Name is Jesus.
& good luck to you.

Yes, thank you, but it won't be luck that will get me off that day.
And why won't you be?
I won't need to.
You seem to do quite a bit of talking here,
The better to tick you off, my dear.

At your service. BTW, I do quite a bit of ticking off myself here. Just ask
Ken Smith.
what will change when you stand before G-d?
The obvious fact that there won't be the garbage there that I get here.

Perhaps not. Ken Smith will certainly be speechless that day.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<pDb0c.9703$6K.8569@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>... "Anonymous" <cripto@ecn.org> wrote in message news:ee74566228bf44b101cf7fc99d0f7e80@ecn.org... Who Really Killed Jesus From the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 20, verses 17-19: But we want proof, not a story you are using to validate *itself*. Susan


Susan,
According to the NT, at the end of the crucifixion, Jesus was
stabbed by a centurion to ensure his death. The report says that
there was blood and water that poured from that wound. Dead men don't
bleed! He wasn't dead when he was stabbed and probably wasn't dead
when taken off the cross. It is a point of faith that he died. He
probably didn't. The cold of the tomb could have been enough to slow
his bleeding down and allow coagulation and then be enough of a shock
to awaken him. Sure makes resurrection a heck of a lot easier when
you never died. It's not like the local physician ever made an
official proclamation of death after reasonable verification. They
just took him off the cross and put him on the slab down at Joe's.
Cheers,
Pat

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Susan Cohen wrote:

[snip]
The better to tick you off, my dear. At your service. BTW, I do quite a bit of ticking off myself here. Just ask Ken Smith.

Learn the truth about Ted Kaldis -- he's serving as the P.R. guy for
a creep who apparently threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off
a cliff!

And ask him about his infamous tyre-iron. Ted's a violent punk with
a penchant for gay-bashing (surprising, as he's reputedly a closet
queer). Oh, our Teddi also hates chinks, gooks, Guidos, coons, swarthy
dot-heads ... and especially, Canadians. :-P

IOW, the kind of "Christian" we've all come to know and love.... ;-)

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote You mean converting to temple tokens? No. Converting money to sacrifices - you know *food*.

Actually, the sacrifices had to be bought with temple tokens- that's the
whole idea of converting the money from 'caesars' to 'the Lord's'. In
addition, the temple tokens could only be spent at the Temple- except by
weight of precious metal, they weren't 'coinage' per se.
In th regard that you say he was taken by the Temple proctors, but that
the priests colluded w/Rome because it *wasn't* good for Jesus to be taken by them.

What's your point?
The first 5,000 Christians were Jews, bubbelah. 5,000, even if true, is a drop in the bucket, boy.

Sure are the first 5,000 though, aren't they?
And this is completely untrue. The moneychangers were a necessary part of Jewish worship for nonagrarian Jews.

Actually, the moneychangers were a compromise between Caiaphas and Pilate.
Originally, Pilate wanted to put a statue in the courtyard.
Really? Your side says that he washed his hands of it. Sounds like reluctance to me. This is what I mean by "inconsitent with its own internal logic."

Only reluctance in that he was doing a killing for Caiaphas- not reluctance
for the killing itself.

Chas

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote And if your Jesus (don't call him YHWH!)

Y'shua; Yahweh is the Lord God.

Chas

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4043E416.6068C98F@worldnet.att.net... Susan Cohen wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Susan Cohen wrote:> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:>> What will you say to God when you stand before Him at the Final>> Judgment, knowing that you have spurned so precious a gift which He
had>> freely offered you, and for which He had paid so dearly such a
terrible>> price?> I won't be talking *nearly* as fast as you will be ... Actually, I won't need to be doing any talking. I will have an
Advocate. His Name is Jesus. & good luck to you. Yes, thank you, but it won't be luck that will get me off that day.

Actually, I am of the belief that any sincere, decent person will have no
trouble in an afterlife.
It simply isn't my experience of G-d that He loves any group more than
another based solely on *how* they believe.
I was really just spitballing with you, but I think I'm going to stop. And why won't you be? I won't need to. You seem to do quite a bit of talking here, The better to tick you off, my dear. At your service. BTW, I do quite a bit of ticking off myself here. Just
ask Ken Smith. what will change when you stand before G-d? The obvious fact that there won't be the garbage there that I get here. Perhaps not. Ken Smith will certainly be speechless that day.

Oh, I doubt it. He seems pretty articulate.

Susan

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:40440F06.1060608@it.com... Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Susan Cohen wrote: [snip]The better to tick you off, my dear. At your service. BTW, I do quite a bit of ticking off myself here.
Just ask Ken Smith. Learn the truth about Ted Kaldis -- he's serving as the P.R. guy for a creep who apparently threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a cliff!

Who on earth was that????
And ask him about his infamous tyre-iron. Ted's a violent punk with a penchant for gay-bashing (surprising, as he's reputedly a closet queer). Oh, our Teddi also hates chinks, gooks, Guidos, coons, swarthy dot-heads ... and especially, Canadians. :-P IOW, the kind of "Christian" we've all come to know and love.... ;-)

I take it as a personal favor that you put the word in quotes.

Susan

Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Susan Cohen wrote:
The better to tick you off, my dear.
At your service. BTW, I do quite a bit of ticking off myself here. Just ask Ken Smith.
Learn the truth about Ted Kaldis

Learn the truth about Ken Smith. He is trained as a lawyer -- which means
that mendacity is his stock in trade -- but alas he failed to gain a licence
to practise law in Colorado. It seems that the Colorado Bar Examiner's Board
had some questions about Ken's psychological fitness to practise law, so they
requested that Ken submit to a psychological examination to be administered
by a doctor of the board's choosing. And Ken refused. So no law licence for
Ken.

Ken sued, get this, the Supreme Court of Colorado (among others, up to but
not including the courthouse janitor), see:

<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ddcomp3p.htm>

but his suit was dismissed by Judge Nottingham in Denver Federal District
Court -- as it properly should have been. Ken appealed, and the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals tossed out his appeal. See:

<http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-1481.htm>

Ken Smith is just another well-known usenet kook and whack job.
-- he's serving as the P.R. guy for a creep who apparently threw his illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a cliff!

The man whom Ken is talking about is a kind and good-hearted generous person,
whose shoes Ken isn't even worthy to shine. He is being held on a trumped-up
charge, and a gross injustice is being committed.
And ask him about his infamous tyre-iron.

My tyre iron was once stolen many, many years ago, by someone from whom the
police later took it.
Ted's a violent punk with a penchant for gay-bashing (surprising, as he's reputedly a closet queer).

These are all vicious lies, and may serve as examples of the type of slander
that Ken Smith regularly commits against me.
Oh, our Teddi also hates chinks, gooks, Guidos, coons, swarthy dot-heads ... and especially, Canadians. :-P

More lies.
IOW, the kind of "Christian" we've all come to know and love ... ;-)

I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet kook and a whack job.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:54qdnUfm3srdhdndRVn-tw@comcast.com... "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote You mean converting to temple tokens? No. Converting money to sacrifices - you know *food*. Actually, the sacrifices had to be bought with temple tokens- that's the whole idea of converting the money from 'caesars' to 'the Lord's'. In addition, the temple tokens could only be spent at the Temple- except by weight of precious metal, they weren't 'coinage' per se.

Funny how I can't find any Jewish sources on this.
At any rate, let's just say you are correct.
All this means is that you are saying that Jesus was depriving people of
their livelihoods.
In th regard that you say he was taken by the Temple proctors, but that the priests colluded w/Rome because it *wasn't* good for Jesus to be taken
by them. What's your point?

That you contradicted yourself.
I'm sorry I can't make it any clearer than pointing it out. The first 5,000 Christians were Jews, bubbelah. 5,000, even if true, is a drop in the bucket, boy. Sure are the first 5,000 though, aren't they?

No, not sure. And this is completely untrue. The moneychangers were a necessary part of Jewish worship for
nonagrarian Jews. Actually, the moneychangers were a compromise between Caiaphas and Pilate. Originally, Pilate wanted to put a statue in the courtyard.

Wrong again, as I explained.
Not only was Caiaphas completely under the thumb of Pilate & thus no
compromise necessary, it doesn't even make sense that Temple coinage would
have anything to do with a statue. Really? Your side says that he washed his hands of it. Sounds like reluctance to me. This is what I mean by "inconsitent with its own internal logic." Only reluctance in that he was doing a killing for Caiaphas

Killing for someone over whom he had absolute power.
Uh-huh.
- not reluctance for the killing itself.

Cheap equivocation.

Susan

Ken Smith <forget@it.com> enscribed: Susan Cohen wrote: "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nqydnRG8HKgZ5d7dRVn-jg@comcast.com..."Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote>Just make sure you keep it up.from your mouth to Dog's Ear. Now *I* would never say that you worship a dog. Look at it this way, Susan: They're worshipping a dead Jew, who would probably be as appalled as would the Buddha if he ever came back to see what man had done in his name.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message news:40441FC2.CE747FBD@worldnet.att.net...

snip
|
| I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet kook and a whack
job.
| --
| Theodore A. Kaldis
| kaldis@worldnet.att.net

And, apparently, not a very good lawyer.

Of course, we all know what Abe Lincoln said.

Izzy

"Disgruntled Customer" <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote in message
news:1048i6be4esva4d@corp.supernews.com...
| Ken Smith <forget@it.com> enscribed:
| > Susan Cohen wrote:
| > > "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in
message
| > > news:nqydnRG8HKgZ5d7dRVn-jg@comcast.com...
| > >>"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote
| >
| >
| > >>>Just make sure you keep it up.
| > >>
| > >>from your mouth to Dog's Ear.
| > >
| > > Now *I* would never say that you worship a dog.
| >
| > Look at it this way, Susan: They're worshipping a
dead Jew, who would
| > probably be as appalled as would the Buddha if he ever
came back to see
| > what man had done in his name.
| >
Enlighten me.

What outrages have been committed in the name of the Buddha?

Izzy

Chas wrote: "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote And if your Jesus (don't call him YHWH!) Y'shua; Yahweh is the Lord God.

You're nothing but early Mormons, worshiping what you claim is the
god of the Jews -- but in fact, you have invented an entirely new
religion. You have a new book (the NT), and they have a new book (the
BoM). Jesus is no more the Jewish messiah than Jesus came to the Americas.

Iskandar Baharuddin wrote: "Disgruntled Customer" <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote in message news:1048i6be4esva4d@corp.supernews.com... | Ken Smith <forget@it.com> enscribed: | > Susan Cohen wrote: | > > "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message | > > news:nqydnRG8HKgZ5d7dRVn-jg@comcast.com... | > >>"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote | > | > | > >>>Just make sure you keep it up. | > >> | > >>from your mouth to Dog's Ear. | > > | > > Now *I* would never say that you worship a dog. | > | > Look at it this way, Susan: They're worshipping a dead Jew, who would | > probably be as appalled as would the Buddha if he ever came back to see | > what man had done in his name. | > Enlighten me. What outrages have been committed in the name of the Buddha?

LOL! *How many* graven images are there of the Buddha? You DO know
a little about Buddhism, don't you, Izzy?

Iskandar Baharuddin wrote: "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:40441FC2.CE747FBD@worldnet.att.net... snip | | I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet kook and a whack job. | -- | Theodore A. Kaldis | kaldis@worldnet.att.net And, apparently, not a very good lawyer. Of course, we all know what Abe Lincoln said.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and
under a just God, cannot long retain it?"

Real simple question, Izzy: Do you think the government should be
able to require us to submit to psychiatric examinations for any reason
or no reason at all? A yes or no answer will do.

And if you answered no, precisely what conditions would you place on
such a search? Please be reasonably specific.

Chas wrote:
Sure are the first 5,000 though, aren't they?

This is the lemming fallacy or, as your mamma said,
"If they were jumping off cliffs would you do it too?"

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
news:40448782.60505@it.com...
| Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
| > "Disgruntled Customer" <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote in
message
| > news:1048i6be4esva4d@corp.supernews.com...
| > | Ken Smith <forget@it.com> enscribed:
| > | > Susan Cohen wrote:
| > | > > "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in
| > message
| > | > > news:nqydnRG8HKgZ5d7dRVn-jg@comcast.com...
| > | > >>"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > >>>Just make sure you keep it up.
| > | > >>
| > | > >>from your mouth to Dog's Ear.
| > | > >
| > | > > Now *I* would never say that you worship a dog.
| > | >
| > | > Look at it this way, Susan: They're worshipping a
dead Jew, who would
| > | > probably be as appalled as would the Buddha if he
ever came back to see
| > | > what man had done in his name.
| > | >
| > Enlighten me.
| >
| > What outrages have been committed in the name of the
Buddha?
|
| LOL! *How many* graven images are there of the Buddha?
You DO know
| a little about Buddhism, don't you, Izzy?
|
Well, some Muslims get upset about "graven images", a Jewish
tradition.

However, since the invention of photography it has seemed a
bit silly.

Anyhow, the Buddhist body count is quite low.

Izzy

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
news:40448825.1010609@it.com...
| Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
| > "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
| > message news:40441FC2.CE747FBD@worldnet.att.net...
| >
| > snip
| > |
| > | I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet kook and a
whack
| > job.
| > | --
| > | Theodore A. Kaldis
| > | kaldis@worldnet.att.net
| >
| > And, apparently, not a very good lawyer.
| >
| > Of course, we all know what Abe Lincoln said.
|
| "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for
themselves; and
| under a just God, cannot long retain it?"

I was thinking more of:

"Anyone who acts in his own defense has a fool for a lawyer
and an *** for a client."

|
| Real simple question, Izzy: Do you think the government
should be
| able to require us to submit to psychiatric examinations
for any reason
| or no reason at all? A yes or no answer will do.

No
|
| And if you answered no, precisely what conditions would
you place on
| such a search? Please be reasonably specific.

Only if the position required a degree of sanity.

You really are not a very good lawyer, are you?

Izzy

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Susan Cohen wrote:

>The better to tick you off, my dear.At your service. BTW, I do quite a bit of ticking off myself here. Justask Ken Smith.Learn the truth about Ted Kaldis Learn the truth about Ken Smith. He is trained as a lawyer -- which means that mendacity is his stock in trade -- but alas he failed to gain a licence to practise law in Colorado. It seems that the Colorado Bar Examiner's Board had some questions about Ken's psychological fitness to practise law, so they requested that Ken submit to a psychological examination to be administered by a doctor of the board's choosing. And Ken refused. So no law licence for Ken.

Of course, Ted is too mendacious to tell anyone that the Board didn't
have any credible evidence of mental unfitness, nor does he mention that
they had a world-class bug up their *** about my activities in exposing
a corrupt televangelist:

http://members.freespeech.org/boblarson

Ted carefully cherry-picks his "facts," because he knows that a fair
and balanced analysis of the situation would show that my cause is just.
Ken sued, get this, the Supreme Court of Colorado (among others, up to but not including the courthouse janitor),

Who should not be included in that complaint, and why? Are you
saying that state supreme court justices should be able to commit
federal civil rights violations with impunity, and if so, why?
see: <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ddcomp3p.htm>

It's just a placeholder complaint. It didn't have to be a thing of
beauty; all it had to do is beat the deadline. See Colo.R.Civ.P. 15(a). :) but his suit was dismissed by Judge Nottingham in Denver Federal District Court

Who just happened to be a member of the Denver Athletic Club -- a
notorious social club -- along with at least five of the Defendants.
-- as it properly should have been.

I've challenged you to back this up with case law, and you continue
to refuse. You don't know enough law to know how outrageous that
decision was. But then again, you've *never* been one to shut up when
you don't know **** from shinola, have you?
Ken appealed, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out his appeal. See: <http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-1481.htm>

And now, it is in state court, because I had the prudence to cover my
bases.
Ken Smith is just another well-known usenet kook and whack job.-- he's serving as the P.R. guy for a creep who apparently threw hisillegitimate four-year-old daughter off a cliff! The man whom Ken is talking about is a kind and good-hearted generous person, whose shoes Ken isn't even worthy to shine.

Last time I checked, I didn't have any illegitimate daughters. But
then again, now, neither does Cam Brown -- as it appears quite likely
that he threw that poor four-year-old child off a cliff.
He is being held on a trumped-up charge, and a gross injustice is being committed.

And the Colorado Board of Law Examiners would *NEVER* do such a
thing, but we are to believe that the L.A. Sherriff does it every day
and twice on Sunday?

As near as can be told, your brother-in-law is responsible for the
death of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter. And they certainly
had grounds to hold him for murder with aggravating circumstances.And ask him about his infamous tyre-iron. My tyre iron was once stolen many, many years ago, by someone from whom the police later took it.

The truth is that Ted admits to being a co-conspirator in an
attempted armed robbery ... except that we are to believe that he didn't
know what was going on. Of course, you'd have to have a
sub-room-temperature I.Q. to not know what was going on, because you
don't really need a tyre-iron to get beer.Ted's a violent punk with a penchant for gay-bashing (surprising, as he'sreputedly a closet queer). These are all vicious lies, and may serve as examples of the type of slander that Ken Smith regularly commits against me.

We've seen how you obsessively harass gays, and the tyre-iron
incident is evidence of your character.Oh, our Teddi also hates chinks, gooks, Guidos, coons, swarthy dot-heads... and especially, Canadians. :-P More lies.

Really? Do you deny making the statements I had attached?IOW, the kind of "Christian" we've all come to know and love ... ;-) I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet kook and a whack job.

I'm telling you, Ted Kaldis is a malicious whack job, a compulsive
liar, and everything we've come to know and love in a Christian... ;-P

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Ken Smith wrote:Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:Susan Cohen wrote:

>The better to tick you off, my dear.At your service. BTW, I do quite a bit of ticking off myself here. Justask Ken Smith.Learn the truth about Ted Kaldis Learn the truth about Ken Smith. He is trained as a lawyer -- which means that mendacity is his stock in trade -- but alas he failed to gain a licence to practise law in Colorado. It seems that the Colorado Bar Examiner's Board had some questions about Ken's psychological fitness to practise law, so they requested that Ken submit to a psychological examination to be administered by a doctor of the board's choosing. And Ken refused. So no law licence for Ken.

Of course, Ted is too mendacious to tell anyone that the Board didn't
have any credible evidence of mental unfitness, nor does he mention that
they had a world-class bug up their *** about my activities in exposing
a corrupt televangelist:

http://members.freespeech.org/boblarson

Ted carefully cherry-picks his "facts," because he knows that a fair
and balanced analysis of the situation would show that my cause is just.
Ken sued, get this, the Supreme Court of Colorado (among others, up to but not including the courthouse janitor),

Who should not be included in that complaint, and why? Are you
saying that state supreme court justices should be able to commit
federal civil rights violations with impunity, and if so, why?
see: <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ddcomp3p.htm>

It's just a placeholder complaint. It didn't have to be a thing of
beauty; all it had to do is beat the deadline. See Colo.R.Civ.P. 15(a). :) but his suit was dismissed by Judge Nottingham in Denver Federal District Court

Who just happened to be a member of the Denver Athletic Club -- a
notorious social club -- along with at least five of the Defendants.
-- as it properly should have been.

I've challenged you to back this up with case law, and you continue
to refuse. You don't know enough law to know how outrageous that
decision was. But then again, you've *never* been one to shut up when
you don't know **** from shinola, have you?
Ken appealed, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out his appeal. See: <http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-1481.htm>

And now, it is in state court, because I had the prudence to cover my
bases.
Ken Smith is just another well-known usenet kook and whack job.-- he's serving as the P.R. guy for a creep who apparently threw hisillegitimate four-year-old daughter off a cliff! The man whom Ken is talking about is a kind and good-hearted generous person, whose shoes Ken isn't even worthy to shine.

Last time I checked, I didn't have any illegitimate daughters. But
then again, now, neither does Cam Brown -- as it appears quite likely
that he threw that poor four-year-old child off a cliff.
He is being held on a trumped-up charge, and a gross injustice is being committed.

And the Colorado Board of Law Examiners would *NEVER* do such a
thing, but we are to believe that the L.A. Sherriff does it every day
and twice on Sunday?

As near as can be told, your brother-in-law is responsible for the
death of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter. And they certainly
had grounds to hold him for murder with aggravating circumstances.And ask him about his infamous tyre-iron. My tyre iron was once stolen many, many years ago, by someone from whom the police later took it.

The truth is that Ted admits to being a co-conspirator in an
attempted armed robbery ... except that we are to believe that he didn't
know what was going on. Of course, you'd have to have a
sub-room-temperature I.Q. to not know what was going on, because you
don't really need a tyre-iron to get beer.Ted's a violent punk with a penchant for gay-bashing (surprising, as he'sreputedly a closet queer). These are all vicious lies, and may serve as examples of the type of slander that Ken Smith regularly commits against me.

We've seen how you obsessively harass gays, and the tyre-iron
incident is evidence of your character.Oh, our Teddi also hates chinks, gooks, Guidos, coons, swarthy dot-heads... and especially, Canadians. :-P More lies.

Really? Do you deny making the statements I had attached?IOW, the kind of "Christian" we've all come to know and love ... ;-) I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet kook and a whack job.

I'm telling you, Ted Kaldis is a malicious whack job, a compulsive
liar, and everything we've come to know and love in a Christian... ;-P


Courtesy: moemcal@mail.cswnet.com (Moe)


Or to dig up an old post of your in your own words:
*************************'
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=Feb.15.19.31.46.1990.400%40traffic.rutgers.ed u

hwere he uses the word we in terms of the incident

From: Theodore A. Kaldis (kaldis@topaz.rutgers.edu)
Subject: Re: "Rolling Queers"
View: Complete Thread (17 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.flame, soc.singles, talk.politics.misc
Date: 1990-02-16 16:48:04 PST


In article <1990Feb16.063828.13266@agate.berkeley.edu>
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes:
Theodore A. Kaldis: a) This incident happened a very long time ago and should be properly viewed as a manifestation of youthful indiscretion. When you posted this story, I wondered if you were making it up to see what kind of reaction you would get.

When I first posted this story, it was in response to the suggestion
that I would be inclined to go "fag bashing". I originally intended
to post a straightforward account about how a naive youth was cajoled
by some miscreant acquaintances (the proverbial "bad company") to
reluctantly accompany them on an expedition aimed at acquiring funds
through a procedure that this youth considered to be of EXTREMELY
dubious merit (to put it mildly), and that how this youth was
EXCEPTIONALLY horrified at the events that subsequently transpired.

But seeing as the sort of activity that occurred that evening has
recently been defended as an expression of constitutionally protected
freedom of speech, I decided to play a few games with the story.
Unsurprisingly (and rightfully so), no one has come to my defense.
Also unsurprisingly, I have since become a raving sociopath (due to,
doubtless, the fact that I espouse a position that is absolutely at
variance with the officially accepted politically correct view) -- on
the basis of a rudimentary account that no one here has a
comprehensive conception or understanding of.
Since it looks like you really mean it, I can only say that you are apparently a borderline sociopath.

Excuse me, a BORDERLINE sociopath. Declared to be so by Gene Ward
Smith, an erstwhile sociopath in his own right of exemplary
credentials, in an absolutely serious posting (I don't know if this is
a USENET first, but it is certainly a first for me) posted to
alt.flame (among other places). (It takes one to know one.)
You brag to the net about your violent, antisocial proclivities, which is another sign of a borderline personality disorder.

I brag about nothing. The account I posted was perhaps wry (it was
meant to be, in order to reflect the nature of life), but it was by no
means comprehensive. For the record, the only reasons these *ssholes
wanted me along was because I had the car. Me and another individual
managed to evade the police primarily for the reason that we were
unarmed. (This is the guy I have lost track of -- a number of years
subsequent to this incident. He too went straight and managed to stay
out of trouble with the police for the years that I knew him.) The
guy in jail and the guy who OD'd were the instigators, the active
participants, and the ones who were apprehended by the police. The
cops should have properly thrown their hind ends in jail, and I
afterwards told them so to their face in essentially those words.
It's the sort of thing rapists and muggers will sometimes do.

Of which I am neither. As I said, I was absolutely horrified at what
went on. Have you ever seen anyone get mugged? It's not a pretty
sight. In order to effectively do it, one has to be an absolute, cold
sadist. Part of the ritual is to make the victim squirm like a
cornered rat. This is what Goetz was talking about in his confession
tape to the New Hampshire police when he turned himself in, and it is
this that caused him to become so enraged as to shoot his assailants.
Anyone who has ever witnessed this knows what he's talking about. All
you liberals who haven't are just blowing out your *ss.

Moreover, I had to give the junkyard a buck to replace my tire iron,
and these chumps never reimbursed me like they said they would.
By the way, I thought you claimed that in your misspent youth you were a flower child?

No, not a flower child. A long-hair anti-war demonstrator, yes; a
"freak", yes; but never a "flower child".
As a self-proclaimed Christian, you should instead feel shame and a desire to change, by the way.

It should have been obvious that this incident occurred prior to my
Christian days.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis | "Perhaps we
may
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- | frighten
away
email: kaldis@topaz.rutgers.edu | the ghost of
so
UUCP: {...}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!kaldis | many years
ago
U.S. Snail: P.O. Box #1212, Woodbridge, NJ 07095 | with a
little
ex-Ma Bell: (201) 283-4855 (voice) | illumination
.. . ."

*************************

Iskandar Baharuddin wrote: "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:40448825.1010609@it.com... | Iskandar Baharuddin wrote: | > "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in | > message news:40441FC2.CE747FBD@worldnet.att.net... | > | > snip | > | | > | I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet kook and a whack | > job. | > | -- | > | Theodore A. Kaldis | > | kaldis@worldnet.att.net | > | > And, apparently, not a very good lawyer. | > | > Of course, we all know what Abe Lincoln said. | | "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and | under a just God, cannot long retain it?" I was thinking more of: "Anyone who acts in his own defense has a fool for a lawyer and an *** for a client."

I would respond that it is never preferable for anyone to represent
himself -- but necessity can be a real mother....

In 21st century America, you get about as much justice as you can
afford, and he who acts in his own defense is a man of comparatively
modest means.
| Real simple question, Izzy: Do you think the government should be | able to require us to submit to psychiatric examinations for any reason | or no reason at all? A yes or no answer will do. No | | And if you answered no, precisely what conditions would you place on | such a search? Please be reasonably specific. Only if the position required a degree of sanity.

So, you would of course agree that, if a position required a degree
of sanity, everyone should have to submit to a psychiatric examination
as a condition of admission to that profession? A yes or no answer will do.

And if you answer no, what limits would you place on the government's
power to require one? Please be reasonably specific.

Patricia Heil wrote: Chas wrote:Sure are the first 5,000 though, aren't they?
This is the lemming fallacy or, as your mamma said, "If they were jumping off cliffs would you do it too?"

I would estimate that the Christian cult never numbered more than a
hundred in pre-Jewish War Jerusalem.

No doubt, if Jesus was crucified, he was tossed into a shallow common
grave, in accordance with the Romans' standard practice. (Assuming, of
course, that he was crucified at all.)

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
news:40449031.6030307@it.com...
| Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
| > "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
| > news:40448825.1010609@it.com...
| > | Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
| > | > "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote
in
| > | > message news:40441FC2.CE747FBD@worldnet.att.net...
| > | >
| > | > snip
| > | > |
| > | > | I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet kook and a
whack
| > | > job.
| > | > | --
| > | > | Theodore A. Kaldis
| > | > | kaldis@worldnet.att.net
| > | >
| > | > And, apparently, not a very good lawyer.
| > | >
| > | > Of course, we all know what Abe Lincoln said.
| > |
| > | "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not
for themselves; and
| > | under a just God, cannot long retain it?"
| >
| > I was thinking more of:
| >
| > "Anyone who acts in his own defense has a fool for a
lawyer
| > and an *** for a client."
|
| I would respond that it is never preferable for anyone
to represent
| himself -- but necessity can be a real mother....
|
| In 21st century America, you get about as much justice
as you can
| afford, and he who acts in his own defense is a man of
comparatively
| modest means.
|
| > | Real simple question, Izzy: Do you think the
government should be
| > | able to require us to submit to psychiatric
examinations for any reason
| > | or no reason at all? A yes or no answer will do.
| >
| > No
| > |
| > | And if you answered no, precisely what conditions
would you place on
| > | such a search? Please be reasonably specific.
| >
| > Only if the position required a degree of sanity.
|
| So, you would of course agree that, if a position
required a degree
| of sanity, everyone should have to submit to a psychiatric
examination
| as a condition of admission to that profession? A yes or
no answer will do.

No. Only on "reasonable grounds".
|
| And if you answer no, what limits would you place on
the government's
| power to require one? Please be reasonably specific.

As a lawyer I am sure you know exactly how specific
"reasonable grounds" is.

Izzy

Susan Cohen wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: Susan Cohen wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:> Susan Cohen wrote:>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>> What will you say to God when you stand before Him at the Final>>> Judgment, knowing that you have spurned so precious a gift which He>>> had freely offered you, and for which He had paid so dearly such a>>> terrible price?
>> I won't be talking *nearly* as fast as you will be ...
> Actually, I won't need to be doing any talking. I will have an> Advocate. His Name is Jesus.
& good luck to you.
Yes, thank you, but it won't be luck that will get me off that day.
Actually, I am of the belief that any sincere, decent person will have no trouble in an afterlife.

And I agree. Man looketh on the outward appearance, but G-d looketh on the
heart.
It simply isn't my experience of G-d that He loves any group more than another based solely on *how* they believe.

G-d loves all men (inclusive of women) equally.
I was really just spitballing with you, but I think I'm going to stop.

Awwww. Some of us just love those spitball fights.
> And why won't you be?
I won't need to.
> You seem to do quite a bit of talking here,
The better to tick you off, my dear.
At your service. BTW, I do quite a bit of ticking off myself here. Just ask Ken Smith.
> what will change when you stand before G-d?
The obvious fact that there won't be the garbage there that I get here.
Perhaps not. Ken Smith will certainly be speechless that day.
Oh, I doubt it. He seems pretty articulate.

Yes, but he will have an entirely different perspective on that day, and he
won't be able to make his usual charges against G-d.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

Iskandar Baharuddin wrote: "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:40449031.6030307@it.com... | Iskandar Baharuddin wrote: | > "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message | > news:40448825.1010609@it.com... | > | Iskandar Baharuddin wrote: | > | > "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in | > | > message news:40441FC2.CE747FBD@worldnet.att.net... | > | > | > | > snip | > | > | | > | > | I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet kook and a whack | > | > job. | > | > | -- | > | > | Theodore A. Kaldis | > | > | kaldis@worldnet.att.net | > | > | > | > And, apparently, not a very good lawyer. | > | > | > | > Of course, we all know what Abe Lincoln said. | > | | > | "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and | > | under a just God, cannot long retain it?" | > | > I was thinking more of: | > | > "Anyone who acts in his own defense has a fool for a lawyer | > and an *** for a client." | | I would respond that it is never preferable for anyone to represent | himself -- but necessity can be a real mother.... | | In 21st century America, you get about as much justice as you can | afford, and he who acts in his own defense is a man of comparatively | modest means. | | > | Real simple question, Izzy: Do you think the government should be | > | able to require us to submit to psychiatric examinations for any reason | > | or no reason at all? A yes or no answer will do. | > | > No | > | | > | And if you answered no, precisely what conditions would you place on | > | such a search? Please be reasonably specific. | > | > Only if the position required a degree of sanity. | | So, you would of course agree that, if a position required a degree | of sanity, everyone should have to submit to a psychiatric examination | as a condition of admission to that profession? A yes or no answer will do. No. Only on "reasonable grounds".

Great. So far, you have been giving me precisely the answers I want
-- because, I would submit, they are the right answers.
| And if you answer no, what limits would you place on the government's | power to require one? Please be reasonably specific. As a lawyer I am sure you know exactly how specific "reasonable grounds" is.

Now, let us assume that you are the bar applicant, and your sworn
enemy is the one administering the admission program. What kind of
safeguards would you like to see in the procedure (to ensure that he
doesn't abuse it to your detriment) and why?

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4044A1A9.831FAF5F@worldnet.att.net...
Man looketh on the outward appearance, but G-d looketh on the heart.


You think while he's looketh-ing around in there, he could
clean out some of the low density lipo-protein build-up?
That would be great.

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
news:4044A5D5.7040906@it.com...
| Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
| > "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
| > news:40449031.6030307@it.com...
| > | Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
| > | > "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:40448825.1010609@it.com...
| > | > | Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
| > | > | > "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net>
wrote
| > in
| > | > | > message
news:40441FC2.CE747FBD@worldnet.att.net...
| > | > | >
| > | > | > snip
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet kook
and a
| > whack
| > | > | > job.
| > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | Theodore A. Kaldis
| > | > | > | kaldis@worldnet.att.net
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And, apparently, not a very good lawyer.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Of course, we all know what Abe Lincoln said.
| > | > |
| > | > | "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it
not for themselves; and
| > | > | under a just God, cannot long retain it?"
| > | >
| > | > I was thinking more of:
| > | >
| > | > "Anyone who acts in his own defense has a fool for a
lawyer
| > | > and an *** for a client."
| > |
| > | I would respond that it is never preferable for
anyone to represent
| > | himself -- but necessity can be a real mother....
| > |
| > | In 21st century America, you get about as much
justice as you can
| > | afford, and he who acts in his own defense is a man of
comparatively
| > | modest means.
| > |
| > | > | Real simple question, Izzy: Do you think the
government should be
| > | > | able to require us to submit to psychiatric
examinations for any reason
| > | > | or no reason at all? A yes or no answer will do.
| > | >
| > | > No
| > | > |
| > | > | And if you answered no, precisely what
conditions would you place on
| > | > | such a search? Please be reasonably specific.
| > | >
| > | > Only if the position required a degree of sanity.
| > |
| > | So, you would of course agree that, if a position
required a degree
| > | of sanity, everyone should have to submit to a
psychiatric examination
| > | as a condition of admission to that profession? A yes
or no answer will do.
| >
| > No. Only on "reasonable grounds".
|
| Great. So far, you have been giving me precisely the
answers I want
| -- because, I would submit, they are the right answers.
|
| > | And if you answer no, what limits would you place
on the government's
| > | power to require one? Please be reasonably specific.
| >
| > As a lawyer I am sure you know exactly how specific
| > "reasonable grounds" is.
|
| Now, let us assume that you are the bar applicant, and
your sworn
| enemy is the one administering the admission program.
What kind of
| safeguards would you like to see in the procedure (to
ensure that he
| doesn't abuse it to your detriment) and why?

How does one get a sworn enemy? I have never had one.

Izzy
|

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
news:40448E1D.8030701@it.com...
| Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
| > Ken Smith wrote:
| >>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
| >>>Susan Cohen wrote:
|
|
| >>>>The better to tick you off, my dear.
| >
| >>>At your service. BTW, I do quite a bit of ticking off
myself here. Just
| >>>ask Ken Smith.
| >
| >>Learn the truth about Ted Kaldis
| >
| > Learn the truth about Ken Smith. He is trained as a
lawyer -- which means
| > that mendacity is his stock in trade -- but alas he
failed to gain a licence
| > to practise law in Colorado. It seems that the Colorado
Bar Examiner's Board
| > had some questions about Ken's psychological fitness to
practise law, so they
| > requested that Ken submit to a psychological examination
to be administered
| > by a doctor of the board's choosing. And Ken refused.
So no law licence for
| > Ken.
|
| Of course, Ted is too mendacious to tell anyone that
the Board didn't
| have any credible evidence of mental unfitness, nor does
he mention that
| they had a world-class bug up their *** about my
activities in exposing
| a corrupt televangelist:
|
| http://members.freespeech.org/boblarson
|
| Ted carefully cherry-picks his "facts," because he
knows that a fair
| and balanced analysis of the situation would show that my
cause is just.

This term "cherry-picking" fascinates me. I have often been
accused of it. especially by JTEM. It seems to meet trotting
out specific facts which are very difficult to deal with.

Izzy

snip

"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:404202A0.200C83CF@worldnet.att.net... Ken Smith wrote: [the usual] Who really killed Jesus? It was ... Ken Smith!

Ken! How could you do such a thing?

Susan Cohen wrote: "Chas" <chasclementsFLAME@comcast.net> wrote in message news:jKudnWGaz88d6t7dRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
The first 5,000 Christians were Jews, bubbelah. 5,000, even if true, is a drop in the bucket, boy.

Drop in the bucket is mild. Between 41 and 44 CE King Agrippa the first
wanted a census of male Jews. He had the high priest count one of each
pair of kidneys of the Passover sacrifice, and the total was 600,000,
which represented 6 million people who could observe the Passover. It
would have excluded males who were unclean, and males who lived too far
from Judea to go there every year. (Babylonian Talmud Pesachim 64b)
There were Jews from India in the
east to Spain in the west, from the Temple of Onias in Egypt toward
the cataracts of the Nile to the Roman colonies in Germany in the North.
That is what it means by too far from Judea. But of course Chas
has never read Talmud.

"Patricia Heil" <pjayheil@erols.com> wrote The first 5,000 Christians were Jews, bubbelah. 5,000, even if true, is a drop in the bucket, boy. Drop in the bucket is mild.

Well, gee; look at us now.
Between 41 and 44 CE King Agrippa the first wanted a census of male Jews.

So that would have been about 10 yrs. into the formation of the religion at
all?
...But of course Chas has never read Talmud.

You mean the collection of fairy stories everybody keeps talking about?
sure I have.

Chas

Iskandar Baharuddin wrote: "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:4044A5D5.7040906@it.com... | Iskandar Baharuddin wrote: | > "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message | > news:40449031.6030307@it.com... | > | Iskandar Baharuddin wrote: | > | > "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message | > | > news:40448825.1010609@it.com... | > | > | Iskandar Baharuddin wrote: | > | > | > "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote | > in | > | > | > message news:40441FC2.CE747FBD@worldnet.att.net... | > | > | > | > | > | > snip | > | > | > | | > | > | > | I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet kook and a | > whack | > | > | > job. | > | > | > | -- | > | > | > | Theodore A. Kaldis | > | > | > | kaldis@worldnet.att.net | > | > | > | > | > | > And, apparently, not a very good lawyer. | > | > | > | > | > | > Of course, we all know what Abe Lincoln said. | > | > | | > | > | "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and | > | > | under a just God, cannot long retain it?" | > | > | > | > I was thinking more of: | > | > | > | > "Anyone who acts in his own defense has a fool for a lawyer | > | > and an *** for a client." | > | | > | I would respond that it is never preferable for anyone to represent | > | himself -- but necessity can be a real mother.... | > | | > | In 21st century America, you get about as much justice as you can | > | afford, and he who acts in his own defense is a man of comparatively | > | modest means. | > | | > | > | Real simple question, Izzy: Do you think the government should be | > | > | able to require us to submit to psychiatric examinations for any reason | > | > | or no reason at all? A yes or no answer will do. | > | > | > | > No | > | > | | > | > | And if you answered no, precisely what conditions would you place on | > | > | such a search? Please be reasonably specific. | > | > | > | > Only if the position required a degree of sanity. | > | | > | So, you would of course agree that, if a position required a degree | > | of sanity, everyone should have to submit to a psychiatric examination | > | as a condition of admission to that profession? A yes or no answer will do. | > | > No. Only on "reasonable grounds". | | Great. So far, you have been giving me precisely the answers I want | -- because, I would submit, they are the right answers. | | > | And if you answer no, what limits would you place on the government's | > | power to require one? Please be reasonably specific. | > | > As a lawyer I am sure you know exactly how specific | > "reasonable grounds" is. | | Now, let us assume that you are the bar applicant, and your sworn | enemy is the one administering the admission program. What kind of | safeguards would you like to see in the procedure (to ensure that he | doesn't abuse it to your detriment) and why? How does one get a sworn enemy? I have never had one.

Assume that you have one -- or think of someone who you know doesn't
like you, and might be motivated to do you harm. Or better yet, assume
that it is me, and I'm inclined to injure you, to "teach you a lesson."
Either way, I don't give a damn; the question is intended to illustrate
a point.

Just answer the question and stop evading, Izzy. You're starting to
sound like Ted Kaldis. :-P

"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
news:4044C7AD.8010407@it.com...
| Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
| > "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
| > news:4044A5D5.7040906@it.com...
| > | Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
| > | > "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:40449031.6030307@it.com...
| > | > | Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
| > | > | > "Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:40448825.1010609@it.com...
| > | > | > | Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
| > | > | > | > "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net>
| > wrote
| > | > in
| > | > | > | > message
| > news:40441FC2.CE747FBD@worldnet.att.net...
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > snip
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet
kook
| > and a
| > | > whack
| > | > | > | > job.
| > | > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | > | Theodore A. Kaldis
| > | > | > | > | kaldis@worldnet.att.net
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > And, apparently, not a very good lawyer.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Of course, we all know what Abe Lincoln
said.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve
it
| > not for themselves; and
| > | > | > | under a just God, cannot long retain it?"
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I was thinking more of:
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Anyone who acts in his own defense has a fool
for a lawyer
| > | > | > and an *** for a client."
| > | > |
| > | > | I would respond that it is never preferable for
anyone to represent
| > | > | himself -- but necessity can be a real mother....
| > | > |
| > | > | In 21st century America, you get about as much
justice as you can
| > | > | afford, and he who acts in his own defense is a
man of comparatively
| > | > | modest means.
| > | > |
| > | > | > | Real simple question, Izzy: Do you think
the government should be
| > | > | > | able to require us to submit to psychiatric
examinations for any reason
| > | > | > | or no reason at all? A yes or no answer will
do.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > No
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | And if you answered no, precisely what
conditions would you place on
| > | > | > | such a search? Please be reasonably specific.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Only if the position required a degree of
sanity.
| > | > |
| > | > | So, you would of course agree that, if a
position required a degree
| > | > | of sanity, everyone should have to submit to a
psychiatric examination
| > | > | as a condition of admission to that profession? A
yes or no answer will do.
| > | >
| > | > No. Only on "reasonable grounds".
| > |
| > | Great. So far, you have been giving me precisely
the answers I want
| > | -- because, I would submit, they are the right
answers.
| > |
| > | > | And if you answer no, what limits would you
place on the government's
| > | > | power to require one? Please be reasonably
specific.
| > | >
| > | > As a lawyer I am sure you know exactly how specific
| > | > "reasonable grounds" is.
| > |
| > | Now, let us assume that you are the bar applicant,
and your sworn
| > | enemy is the one administering the admission program.
What kind of
| > | safeguards would you like to see in the procedure (to
ensure that he
| > | doesn't abuse it to your detriment) and why?
| >
| > How does one get a sworn enemy? I have never had one.
|
| Assume that you have one -- or think of someone who you
know doesn't
| like you, and might be motivated to do you harm. Or
better yet, assume
| that it is me, and I'm inclined to injure you, to "teach
you a lesson."
| Either way, I don't give a damn; the question is intended
to illustrate
| a point.
|
| Just answer the question and stop evading, Izzy.
You're starting to
| sound like Ted Kaldis. :-P
|
This is hypothetical, of course. Let us assume that I have
an enemy in a position of power who will do anything to
block my legitimate aspirations.

I think the logical thing would be to go down to Northbridge
late of night, speak to a few people, and agree a contract
to have him taken out.

Is that the right answer?

Izzy

Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
Ken Smith wrote: Iskandar Baharuddin wrote: Ken Smith wrote:> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:>> Ken Smith wrote:>>> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>> I'm telling you, Ken Smith is a usenet kook and a whack job.
>>>> And, apparently, not a very good lawyer.

Ken Smith is NOT a lawyer. His application to practise law in Colorado was
DENIED. See:

<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/Order.gif>
>>>> Of course, we