America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
How soon people forget.
Published on December 27, 2008 By Moderateman In Current Events

In a new national poll from Russia, Dictator and Mass murderer Joseph Stalin is in the running for the number one slot.

Remember now this man by conservative estimates slaughtered 25 million people and sent countless millions to slave labor camps {called Gulags}

The poll claims Stalin acted in a "rational" MANNER while in charge of Russia from 1928 to 1953, the thing most remembered was that Stalin "saved" the Russian people from Hitler, another mass murderer whos atrocities pale in comparrison to Stalin.

How soon people forget the midnight raids on homes where people disappeared, never to be seen again, where any form of free speech was instantly and severely stopped and the speaker either executed or sentenced as a political prisoner and sent to Siberia to work in SLAVE labor camps till they died.

The only comparrison I can make in an American way would be to have the BTK OR THE GREEN RIVER KILLER being declared the single best role model for children in the United States.

How sick is this?

Stalin's secret police were so feared that just the mention of them could tear households apart, the ruthlessness of the KGB far outstripped our own CIA.

When Russia disbanded the KGB the members simply used their knowledge to go Gangster, the Russian Mafiya is one of the most feared criminal organizations on the planet due to their training while in the KGB, they used their connections they had as spies to get them going and have never looked back and we have Joseph Stalin to thank for this legacy too.

Religion was repressed, this was probably the only GOOD thing Stalin did.


Comments (Page 12)
12 PagesFirst 10 11 12 
on Jan 20, 2009

(Also, I thought Jesus had been circumcised?)

Yes, according to Luke 2:21 he was circumcised on the 8th day in accordance to Torah.

Not sure what you are saying but I understand you agree that circumcision has nothing to do with consequences of sin.

Just basically agreeing with you n the beeman.

on Jan 20, 2009

 

AD posts:

Any evidence that Mary was of David's lineage?

Yes. Let's begin with Scripture.

In St. Luke 1:30-32, "The angel said to her: Fear not, Mary for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and thou shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great; and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of David, His father. and He shall reign in the house of Jacob forever."

I believe St.Luke was inspired by God to write this and it alone is evidence enough that the Blessed Mother Mary herself by her own right was in the Davidic line. The angel of God describes the child as the Davidic Messias.

Again, we know that the Jews were very careful to keep the record of their genealogical tree...especially the Jews of royal or priestly families to guide them in their exercise of rights, obligations and functions. We also know the Jewish custom was to draw up the genealogies of the paternal ancestors as you noted below....

According to Matthew 1:16: "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah." (NASB)

This lineage is Joseph's NOT Mary.

According to Luke 3:23: When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

Again we see the son of Joseph. No mention of Mary and her lineage.

Both evangelists are quoting St. Joseph's genealogy. St.Matthew gives us the legitimate succession where the Davidic rights come through St.Joseph as legal father to Jesus. A successor is not necessarily a son and St.Matt. shows how the David rights descended to Joseph and his legal Son Jesus while the real and legal genealogy according to consanguinity given by St.Luke.

Again, the genealogy of St.Joseph was also that of the Blessed Mother Mary. 1--we know that from Scripture as well as from  this verse above (highlighted). 

St.Matthew 1: 19-21 records that the angel told St. Joseph that the child was conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit and not through the intervention of man.  St.Luke v. 23, in turn, left no doubt as to his mind on the subject when he carefully wrote that "Jesus....being (as it was supposed) the Son of Joseph."

Both lists show that Jesus by being the legal son of Joseph had a right to be called Son of David, a recognized title of the Messias.

 

on Jan 20, 2009

Lula posts:

our Lord was without sin so He had no need of circumcision.

kingbee posts:

how did i miss the part about circumcision being required as a consequence of sin.

Sorry about that ....it was a kind of "run-on" thought that I blended into one sentence. I can see where you guys would raise a ruckus.

But there is a connection.

We read in Gen. 17 that Almighty God made His covenant first with Abraham as being the father of His chosen people. Later on Mt. Sinai, He confirmed it and renewed it with all the people of Isreal.

Almighty God instituted the religious rite of Circumcision as an outward and visible sign of this covenant that it might be cut in the flesh so that it could not be forgotten. Circumcision was a sacred sign (Sacrament) of admission among the people of God. It signified citizenship of the male child in the nation of God's chosen children just as the Sacrament of Baptism (which removes Original and actual Sin) signifies citizenship in the kingdom of the Messias.

So by the indelible mark of circumcision, man belonged to the Old Covenant and pledged himself to observe it; by Baptism he belongs to the New Covenant and has the indelible mark on the soul. The difference lies in that circumcision could not cleanse man from sin like Baptism does.

The interesting thing is that even though our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin, He subjected Himself to both the religious rite of circumcision and Baptism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jan 20, 2009

the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of David, His father

somebody better check the scorecard cuz, based on the claim above, it appears there are as many as three baby

daddies in lil jesus' life.  one is a highly unlikely candidate having been dead quite some time prior to xmas 00 so i'm guessing what's really supposedly meant is 'forefather'. 

really it's a shame they didn't have dna testing back then; imagine having a complete perfect set of genes and chromosones to study.

He subjected Himself to both the religious rite of circumcision

no more nor less than any days-old infant is able to subject itself to anything especially being mutilated..unless you're imbuing him with full cognition, volition and consciousness from moment of entry (or, perhaps, one hell of a quick study) either of which would greatly diminish his status as being as human as any the rest of us.

btw, no one ever seems to wanna provide an answer to my many inquiries regarding god's insistence on taking tips.

on Jan 21, 2009

I believe St.Luke was inspired by God to write this and it alone is evidence enough that the Blessed Mother Mary herself by her own right was in the Davidic line. The angel of God describes the child as the Davidic Messias.

So basically your proof is, it was documented that an angel said so?

A successor is not necessarily a son and St.Matt. shows how the David rights descended to Joseph and his legal Son Jesus while the real and legal genealogy according to consanguinity given by St.Luke.

Any proof of this happening anywhere else in scripture (refering to the adopted son by father gaining father's inheritance)?

12 PagesFirst 10 11 12