Hello everyone

I've answered all your absurd accusations about the Huguenots, the Waldensians and Coligny, proving they were not guilty of anything you accused them of. Your job is to address what I've said.

There is some reason to believe that parts of the Lies of the Jews are a forgery. I'd like to see a photo of all the pages of the original. And if it is genuine all I can say is that Luther hadn't completely freed himself of the thinking of his Catholic past. However, I'd also point out that some four centuries had passed since he supposedly wrote that during which nobody acted on what he'd written. Clearly the Catholic Hitler with his Catholic henchmen found it a good excuse for their Catholic desire to get rid of the Jews. Not that German Protestants didn't also participate, to their shame, but the "Confessing Church" of true Bible believers protested against the Nazis holocaust and the Nazis in general.The exception always proves the rule don't you know. The rule is that in general --IN GENERAL-- the Protestants were innocent of violence against anyone while they were often the victims of the violence of the RCC.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've answered all your questions and shown you to be making up lies about the Huguenots and the Waldensians and Gaspard de Coligny. Time to stop the evasion and deal with the facts.

Yes I've seen the cover, what's needed is to know if there were different editions that had different statements in them.Sorry you don't know about exceptions to rules proving the rules, it's a very common and valid principle.Again, four hundred years passed during which no Protestant violence against Jews occurred, on the basis of anything Luther wrote or otherwise. How would YOU explain that? Again, Hitler who found Luther's words very useful for his purposes, was a Catholic and is on record saying he patterned much of his regime after the Catholic organization, and the Pope of the time considered Hitler to be a true son of the Church, and helped to provide secret escape for thousands of Nazis after the war. So whatever Luther wrote it was not made use of by Protestants but by the Catholic mentality of Hitler and the Pope. Which raises the question how much of it Luther actually wrote.And by the way, forgery is KNOWN to be a common method of manipulation by the Vatican. And I think among all those who have reported on this fact there's at least one Catholic writer, but I'll have to look that up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, I suppose I meant TRUE Protestants, thanks. Not cultural Protestants but people who actually believed and lived by the Bible. If they weren't truly Protestants they wouldn't have been persecuted, they'd have been willing to recant to save themselves.

No, I wouldn't expect it to have had a completely different attitude to the Jews, but that it might not have had some of the more ferocious directives for how to deal with them. You're probably right about possible other editions, but that IS the sort of information that often gets suppressed and can be found only through circuitous channels. All the copies of the original might have been destroyed or a few could have survived where they would be hard to find. And of course it would be disputed and so on. That sort of thing.I see no non sequitur. There were no Protestant pogroms, that was a Catholic thing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think I need to answer you better here: I don't "pick and choose," I know valid testable evidence from "evidence" that is nothing but speculation and interpretation. I'll say it again. Archaeology is one of the sciences that deals with the past where the interpretations and speculations cannot be verified. Interestingly enough they ignore the evidence we DO have because it contradicts their speculations. That is, we have the Bible WITNESSES to the time periods they study, but they prefer their own fallible interpretations. They make suppositions about time periods they can't prove, they interpret artifacts to suit their theories, they ignore the actual witnesses who lived through that time. Some "science." ABSOLUTELY. And over the years my certainty has done nothing but grow.
' It's at least as certain as knowledge of that sort gained through the senses. At least. I do NOT ridicule SCIENCE as guesswork. I call the UNVERIFIABLE sciences guesswork, which they are. Replicable science, testable science, the hard sciences, laboratory science, whatever you want to call it, is respectable true science because it can be tested and replicated. YOU CANNOT TEST THE UNWITNESSED PAST. But again, even where we have witnesses these "sciences" ignore them and discredit them. It's you who don't understand what science is and you've got yourself all tied in knots over an illusion that calls itself science but isn't. TRUE SCIENCE has produced the advancements you are talking about. Evolution, archaeology, Old Earth Geology have produced ZIP as far as advancement goes. Just a morass of navel-gazing speculations that cannot possibly contribute one thing to human advancement, and are in fact leading the whole human race down a primrose path of absolute nonsense. Again, you can't tell the difference between the genuine science that does promote useful knowledge and the smoke and mirrors fantasy of the speculative sciences of the ancient past, the purely mental constructs of evolutionism. PURELY MENTAL, UNVERIFIABLE, UNTESTABLE, JUST A WEB OF MENTAL SPECULATION BUILDING ON MENTAL SPECULATION. PURE IMAGINATION, NO REALITY. THAT IS ALL EVOLUTIONISM IS. Archaeology COULD make use of the Bible witness to keep it honest, but no, they prefer their useless speculations. No science there either.The sad sad thing is this abomination of a pretense for science, along with all the modern "scientific" scholarship that is tearing down the Bible's veracity, is taking millions of people to Hell. This is sad beyond description. I know it's all smoke and mirrors, I've spent time thinking through how it's all smoke and mirrors, but it's a very effective illusion and I'm sorry you've bought into it. The best position a person can take is Kurt Wise's: you may think the evidence supports evolution but you KNOW the Bible is God's word so you resolve the apparent contradictions in favor of God's word. I earnestly wish you might acquire that much faith.And stop believing the idiot scholars like Bruce Metzger who refused to believe that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. The Bible has been under attack for years, with a view to undermining people's faith in it and the attacks have succeeded although they are all based on fallible human speculation too and in some cases probably even forgeries and some pretty nasty underhanded schemes. I don't know if you'd get anything out of it but I just listened to a discussion about some of these issues that might at least make you curious to know more: An hour discussion about some aspects of how the Bible has been undermined by the "scholars," Answering James WhiteYou think you are following evidence. You are not. You are being deceived. The Bible asks for FAITH. Just believe it. That's what's required of you and when you do give it faith it will lead you into a depth of knowledge you can't even imagine. And it certainly does NOT contradict GENUINE science.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, I couldn't make out the date on the cover you showed. I COULD still wonder what was actually in it of course.Yes, thanks for reminding me about the word "pogrom," though Russian and Eastern Orthodoxy aren't all that different from Catholicism. And such things did happen in Europe. There were the Jewish ghettos with the yellow stars that were foisted on the Jews by the Catholics, and there was the Jedwabne massacre in Poland during WWII which was carried out by the Catholics of the town. Probably lots more but I'm not up on it all.

I didn't defend Luther's recommendations, merely explained what had made him so righteously angry at the Jews after his attempts to befriend them, when he discovered their blasphemies against Christ. Righteous anger for the honor of God. I recently heard somewhere that Lies of the Jews might have parts that were forged, that's why I brought that up this time. Perhaps I'll hear more to confirm it eventually, or perhaps it's untrue.Funny though how so much is made out of this polemic of Luther's which had no effect whatever in the world until Hitler made use of it some four hundred years after it was written, while the RCC had been murdering millions of people including Jews for at least a millennium and the Pope was certainly complicit in the Nazi Holocaust, but you all don't like to hear about THAT.

Amazing, you don't hate the murdering isms of this world. How very strange. OK, so if we understand WHY the Vatican felt it necessary to torture and murder heretics by the multiplied millions, fomented massacres among Catholics against Protestants, put the Jews in ghettos and made them wear a yellow star, which got picked up by Hitler, and why the Pope encouraged Hitler's Holocaust, we'd sympathize with their efforts, right?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh there's plenty of EVIDENCE, but there is no way to verify a particular interpretation of that evidence because you can't replicate the past.And the way you find oil is by knowing where certain fossils tend to show up in relation to the structure of the rocks and the strata. That does not require the interpretation of millions of years, it's a SPATIAL thing.What you all have is INTERPRETATION and SPECULATION about the past that builds only on more interpretation and speculation and CANNOT be verified the way laboratory science can be. There is no way to KNOW the past unless there were witnesses there to tell us about it.You are looking at evidence that is ALWAYS IN THE PRESENT, where else could it be? Then you impose on it your IDEAS and IMAGINATION about how it got produced in the past, based for the most part on the assumption that the past was like the present. Which you cannot verify. Some of the ideas are reasonable enough but you still cannot prove any of them and, weirdly, you don't even know all you are doing is imposing an opinion that can't be verified. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Golly gee, you love those special exceptions, don't you? Comparing a spontaneous non-religiously-motivated riot over local conditions that didn't massacre anybody with the programmed religiously-motivated intentional and cruel massacres of heretics by the RCC. And you apparently did find a real "Protestant" uprising against the Jews, but you impose the term "Protestant" on it because it too was not religiously motivated as the Catholic pogroms were.OK, apparently you'd rather hate us Protestants than the RCC. I guess I'm getting used to it.

No, not "SOMEONE." As I've said over and over and over I do not hate CATHOLICS, I'm talking about doctrines and systems of thought, ISMS, about CatholicISM, NazISM, etc etc. Puhleeze, you CAN read, can't you?You don't hate Nazism either? Well, if not, I know why: it's because I hate it too and you wouldn't want to agree with ME about anything.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You can replicate evidence for interpretations of things IN the present. You can replicate how anything behaves in the present to prove a theory about something that is always observable in the present. That is the case with laboratory science, with physics and genetics and chemistry etc. You cannot test something that occurred in the past, meaning something historical, one-time events in the past, by evidence in the present. You can know the past only by witnesses who were there.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sure, you can hate Protestantism and I'm sure you do, though you may hate particular Protestants more.