13 Oct Debate- Biblical Fact Check or Why politicians shouldn't quote from the bible.

While I am a republican, I simply did not agree with the actions Bush took prior to the war in Iraq. Because of this disagreement, I have been watching the debates quite closely in order to determine if I could support Kerry by voting for him. I can understand both sides of the debate points, so one side or the other does not concern me all that much. What I have been looking at is whether I can trust what the candidate has to say.

I am a very spiritual person and I found it very interesting that Kerry quoted from the bible during the debate. I even gave him a few "points" for it. That is, until I checked the facts.


John Kerry from the Presidential Debate on 13 Oct 2004

My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, "What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead. "


From the New American Bible (Catholic Bible)

James 2: 14-17
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

While I am usually not critical of people misquoting scripture, I am an undecided voter in a battleground state and I found Kerry's statement hollow.

Problem number one:
His quote was not only misquoted but out of context.

Problem number two:
If it is such a "great passage", why didn't he remember the verses he did quote correctly?

Personal pet peeve:
People who take verses of the bible out of context to prove a point, or support their position.


Kerry claims their faith affects everything he does. I think those of strong faith should have a firm grasp on scripture if they quote from it.

I have been left to believe that Kerry was using the bible for political gain. It's one thing to have a strong faith in God, and allowing that faith to guide your decisions. It is quite another to abuse faith to sway voters.

I am looking for input on this-- why should this or why shouldn't this sway my vote away from Kerry?

Raphael

He claims this faith but as all good Catholics know, he stands for things that are in DIRECT contradiction to that faith.


That is what ergs me the most. Bush could probably quote a few himself, but chooses to refrain even though it would have earned him points with me also.

When it comes to Abortion, Thou Shalt Not Kill.......can Kerry not understand? Oh my constituants, i have to vote for them, but in so doing I give up my convictions..?? No, it is just justifiable homicide or legal homicide.

When it comes to Abortion, Thou Shalt Not Kill.......can Kerry not understand? Oh my constituants, i have to vote for them, but in so doing I give up my convictions..?? No, it is just justifiable homicide or legal homicide.

Though shall also do an infinite amount of other things that our leaders have not commited themselves to following...

Deep

God laughs his ass off anytime a politician quotes the Bible.

Power corrupts. That's why Christ was powerless. The most powerful men in the world are the most corrupt. I'm surprised Kerry's head didn't catch on fire from quoting the Bible. Bush probably can't even remember any versus from the Bible. I'd love to see him try to quote the Bible and screw it up, it'd be hilarious and he'd lose his Christian base.

I watched this debate closely myself. You put faith as an important part of your belief. I believe, Christ is my Lord and Savour. I am not a Bible scholar by any means. my Question is. Did Kerry's answer the question of his faith.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by snagltooth]

Originally posted by snagltooth
Did Kerry's answer the question of his faith.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by snagltooth]

Yes Catholic alter boy........but with exceptions

Originally posted by snagltooth
I watched this debate closely myself. You put faith as an important part of your belief. I believe, Christ is my Lord and Savour. I am not a Bible scholar by any means. my Question is. Did Kerry's answer the question of his faith.

Transcript so you can check for yourself.


Edit:
I missed this line in the debate from Kerry:

And the president and I have a difference of opinion about how we live out our sense of our faith.

I talked about it earlier when I talked about the works and faith without works being dead.

Is it just me, or is he using the bible to attack Bush?


[edit on 14-10-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Groupies:

John "Kerry" (a.k.a. Kohn/Cohen) was actually loosely quoting a passage from the Epistle of James the Just in the New Testament (from a greek translation of James' Hebrew) based on some solid history of thought between "Rabbinnic Jews" and "Christians" ------two now very distinct and discrete groups, but BOTH of which "Kerry" is related to by birth, but ones that were at the beginning the same group which splintered off after Rome destroyed Israel in AD 70.

Try to remember that the earliest "Christians" were all Torah Abiding Jews of the 1st century AD including the socalled founder.

There were several types of "Christianities" spread out throughout the Roman Empire before Rome destroyed Israel in AD 70, the two most vocal were the Hebrew-Aramaic speaking Nazorean Judaeisers based in Palestine (founded by R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean, aka "Jeeezuzz" and his brother " R. Yakkov bar Yosef ha Tsaddiq, "James the Just" who advocated faith with works of the Torah (Ma'aseh ha Torah) as a path to salvation

[e.g. "Good Rebbe, what must I do to inherit eternal life [in the last day]...?" a rich prince asks "Jeeezuzz": the response..."...Obey the Mitzvot Commandments of Moses, you know them don't you?...".and ...."not a Jot not a Tittle of the Torah must ever go un-obeyed: all must be performed"]

This Jewish Moses-Torah abiding Hebrew-Aramaic Speaking Nazorean "Elect of the house of Israel" Judaeising group of "Palestinian based Messianists in the Last Days" DID NOT LIKE GENTILES (read Matthew chapter 15 where the goyim are called "dogs") were very similar to the Messianic Dead Sea Scrolls Group, and it was from this Nazorean ("Nazir" = branch of David) group that the family of "Jeezuzz" sprang, hoping to establish the kingdom of God in Israel and overthrow the Roman Occupiers during the 100th anniversary of the Invasion of the Roman General Pompey (read the Road to Emmaeus pericope in Luke chapter 24)

The other group of jewish "Messianic Hopefuls" were composed of Greek Speaking Jews in the Diaspora spread outside of Palestine, like Paul ("Saul of Tarsus" who by the way never met "iesous" and fought bitterly with James and the "disciples") who were located in the synagogues of the Roman Empire away from the physical location of the Temple in Jerusalem (in places like Spain for example) and thus could not fulfill most of the Moses-Torah laws as easily (hard to sacrifice to YHWH when you cannot get to, well...your sacrifice).

So one group was Palestinian Based (Hebrew speaking) and the other group was located in the Diaspora of the Roman Empire in places like Ephesus and Corinth, and were Greek speaking (they even used a Greek Old Testament called the LXX or Seputaginta)

"Paul" was one of the Diaspora "Messianic Jews" (whose anti-torah teaching James thought was heretical--read Acts chapter 15, and about whom the writer in Revelation wrote: "those of the Synagogue of Satan, who call themselves Jews when they are not Jews..") used to tell these out of the way goyim-influenced wannabe Jews that they could still inherit "the promises of Abraham" and not have to go ahead and maul their flesh with circumcision or keep kashrut diets or obey the Works of the Torah (Ma'aseh ha Torah) , and that they could have "eternal life in the last days" and "salvation by grace and faith in Iesous" alone---that the Ma'aseh HaTorah ("works of the Torah") did not apply to them.

Even "Peter" in his rooftop vision said, "Lord, in my WHOLE LIFE I have NEVER EATEN ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT KOSHER or UNCLEAN" --in other words, the 12 disciples obeyed the Kashrut Dietary Laws of Moses, inlcuding "Iesous"....

But Paul belonged to the Diaspora Greek friendly NON TORAH ABIDING clique of Messianists, who split off from the Nazoreans after the War.

These non Palestinian Gentile converts to the Movement, Paul said, needed "only to believe" (what ever that means)...well, it sure brought the membership AND the money in !!

James "the Just" of course was furious with "Paul" (read Galatians chapter 2) and demanded a stop to this anti Torah message. It was after all James who headed up the Jerusalem Church (although not a disciple of "Iesous") having immediately "taken over" "Jesus" fledgling Aramaic speaking Nazorean church mission, soley based on his Daviddic Bloodline after the execution of his brother Iesous for armed sedition against Rome (read Luke 22:18) :

The Nazoriean Torah-of-Moses abiding James (hence, The Just One) was the one responsible for the group of Nazorean Christians who wrote the Greek Epistle of James that Kerry is quoting) is here lashing out at the Paulinists who think salvation by grace/faith alone is enough. To James, like his brother "Jeeezuz", you had to obey the Torah of Moses and in the "right spirit of perfection" in order to gain "eternal life in the Last Days" when the Kingdom of God was supposed to appear....

"Faith alone without the Ma'aseh of the Torah is worthless" is the point being made---a direct snipe of James at the Pauline Christians who only knew "iesous" from visions and hearsay...and did not hear his preaching directly (Paul among them)...

Kerry is here loosely quoting a very Jewish sounding "Nazorean" passage in the NT----which links the "Christian" idea of Torah Abiding Jewish Messianists of the 1st century (most of whom died during the failed Coup attempt against Rome in AD 70) with the ideas of Mitzvot which modern (and ancient) Jewish Rabbinnic communities (both Ashkenazi and Sefardi) have always stressed ---

In other words, given John Kerry's (Ashkenazi) Jewish Grandparents (Fritz Kohn and his borhter both converted to Catholicsm in 1897 in Czechoslovakia after a violent Pogrom, apparently, and deliberately switched their family name FROM Kohn (Cohen) TO the Irish-sounding KERRY when they came to the US) he was cleverly quoting a passage that is in fact one of the most overt "Rabinnic Jewish" sounding passages in the New Testament in a "Nazorean Catholic" context...

And his quote is more of a summary in English of the Koine Greek, than a misquote: James The Just "the lord's brother" of course did not speak Greek, but expressed such ideas in Galilean Aramaic, so we really are dealing with a "translation of a translation"----

So there is much more to Kerry's comments than meets the eye, of which his handlers (both Jewish and Christian, by the way) are well aware...

Amadeus,

While your posts are often wordy, I do find them interesting.

However, this is one of the few times that the history of the words does not apply. Simply put, we are dealing with current beliefs of people not the beliefs of the people on which those beliefs are founded. Nor is Kerry's heritage an issue in this case.

My original issue is Kerry "loosely quoting" what he claims is a great passage.

Simply loosely quoting a passage is not an issue with me. I often do it myself, except I am clear that I am not quoting verbatim. Those verses I consider "great passages" I do know verbatim from the english version I use most often.

This led me to question the sincerity of what he was saying, which was a major factor for my watching of the debates.

Add to that what I perceive as a clarification that he had used his quote to off handedly attack the President's faith, and I am left with the opinion that his faith simply is not as important as he claims.

To me, this issue boils down to three words: integrity, integrity, integrity.



[edit on 14-10-2004 by Raphael_UO]

Hi Raphael UO:

I just wanted to bring out some of the background to that verse and put it into some context.....sorry for the rambling on...!

Since R. Yehoshua ("Iesous") fell into the "Nazorean" camp, it would appear that "Iesous" would have agreed with his brother's comments in the Epistle of James: which boils down to "faith without Mitvot ("works of the Torah") is dead". It woud therefore be ipso facto a very "Christian" message by definition: but it flies in the face of Paul's ideas that most "Christians" follow (for some reason).

Christians today do not tend to follow this mindset of the founder of Christiantiy, ("Iesous") ut have chosen to follow the gentile oriented lenient stance of "Paul" which is an easier sell to the masses.

John Kerry has to placate both "Christians" and "Jews" for their votes from the various religious blocks in the US---and he chose a verse which straddled the two weltanschauungen, viz. Jewish and Chrsitian by quoting the MOST JEWISH SOUNDING BOOK in the entire New Testament:

I do not think this "straddling a Bava Metzia" (middle gate) was by chance. It seems deliberate on his part.

So it is interesting at least that John "Kerry" chose to attack Bush with that particualr verse (albeit in paraphrase)------ of all verses in the New Testament, a verse which would appeal both to Nazorean minded Christians today as well as Rabinnic Jews today----it is much more closely related to the spirit of "R. Yeshoshua's teaching" than Paul's "salvation by grace and faith alone" heresy which the Nazoreans fought against.

It seems to me, Kerry's "handlers" must have been aware of this and asked him to seize upon that very "straddling" verse because it was one verse that both Christians and Jews can relate to, each in their own way----but alas, it also divides them, ultimately.

Christians today probably would not be aware of what a Jewish "Mitzvah" (lit. "Commandment" but used nowadays in the sense of "good deed of the day") is or what James meant by "works" when he wrote that Faith without Works is dead...

But Kerry seems sometimes to speak on different levels (possibly on the advice of his "sales-team", many of whom are sensitive to Jewish wording).

This is just one example of double sided messaging. And both sides apparently are doing it, for the very same reasons: they want both blocks of voters to vote for them....

If it sounds too subtle, it really isn't !!




[edit on 14-10-2004 by Amadeus]

[edit on 14-10-2004 by Amadeus]

Sorry-

line 12 in my post above should read: Bava Metzia ("Middle Gate") meaning middle path or half-way point: I type waaaay too fast !!)

It seems you are saying this was a calculated attack. An attack with careful consideration given to the verse that was chosen.

Would that be an accurate simplification of what you are saying?

can't a man just paraphrase a simple verse without causing a religious war?
I am a christian, I am a democrat, and i FIRMLY believe the two should be separate.
IMO he was trying to show that he does know the teachings of the bible, but WOULDN"T enforce his own beliefs on others.
Which is the perfect stance for a president. Bush on the other hand, would whole heartidly have us believe that he is the second coming and will bring about the zionist regime and take back the holy land and all the other so popular missions of the "contemporary christian" to lead us into the "end times".

Isn't that why we had a revolution and told the King to "stick it". America is for Americans, not catholics, protestants, hindu, Muslim, booger eaters, or raelians... it is for everyone.
so who cares if he prefers to paraphrase... he said clearly that his OWN beliefs wont make a bit of difference in how he represents US (thank god for that). He is supposed to represent OUR interests. Not support one religion over the other by supporting his own.

Hi Raphael UO:

I suspect any quote from the Bible on the lips of Kerry at this stage in his Presidential Campaign (at least) especially since the most recent example was deliberatley chosen from the obscure "Epistle of James"--- would have had to have been a calculated move rather than a spontaneous outburst of faith (and there's a reason why these subjects come up on Conspiracy Threads!!!)

Let's imagine, that there existed a little conclave (for the sake of argument, you understand) of John Kerry/Kohn handlers who have to deal with the strongly divisive issue of Bush's religious pandering to the right wing "fundamentalist Christians" which form a good piece of his "base" voters.

What to do?

Someone in the "Kerry Kamp" must have said: "Fight Fire with Fire, and quote the Bible yourself, John !! But...be careful what part you quote...there's a lot of dangerous stuff in that book!"

And what book did they recommend?

Let's say they recommended The Epistle of James, which is from a group who practiced an early form of Nazorean Torah Abiding Christianity...and so was "safe".

This is one of those rarely quoted books that Pauline Christians (99% of all modern Christians) would like to "just go away":

Most of the book is not quoted very often in the churches in the US and its something of a "minor miracle" that the Greek Bishops even voted the text into the canon "as scripture" in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. Only because it had a tentative link with the blood-brother of Iesous was the book even considered.

It could be that Kerry/Kohn was "advised" (by the more savvy members our imaginary conclave) to quote from the "Bible" and express his so-called faith (of sorts) to the Average American Voter in order to pander to their religious hot-buttons...

Then it could be imagined that it was probably discussed (behind closed doors one can only think !) about what exactly he should quote in the Bible that would not automatically piss off an entire 17% of the voting public in a few seconds---

They must have been thinking that "if he quotes from overtly Zionist verses in the Old Testament, people will say "he's kissing up to his Jewish relatives" or "he's trying to curry favour with the the Jewish bloc" ----"

If he quotes verses from the New Testament (e.g. from a salvation by faith alone type wording of anti Jewish anti Torah Pauline letter) they would say, "he's trying to out Bush Mr Bush and kiss up to the Fundamentalist Christian bloc...." and might lose the Jews in Florida.

So they probably decided to advise their candidate Kerry/Kohn to find a book from the NEW TESTAMENT (to please the Fundies) that was able to kiss up to BOTH camps and not necessarily piss off either one.

One that would be safe (they could have decided) for Kerry/Kohn to quote from and not piss off either the Jews or the Christians or both: so he took a passage from the NT which sounded exactly like the OLD testament----from the Jewish sounding Epistle of James which is a Christian (Nazorean Torah Abiding circle influenced) from the New Testament but which reads almost like an Old Testament Jewis text or a loose Greek paraphrase of a Dead Sea Scroll from Qumran in phraseology).

In other words, avoid overtly divisive Christian phrases, and focus more on verses that both Jews and Christians can swallow without throwing up all over the place...

Hence, our little Nazorean quote....quotes the NT without pissing off followers of the Old.

Sounds like people who make it to the Presidential Debates are more calculatiing and "politically savvy" than might first appear on the surface...

And you all know me by now...I like to dig....and dig and dig and dig until I get to something of the truth (which is usually way below the surface of things) !!





[edit on 14-10-2004 by Amadeus]

I thought maybe one day people (politicians, etc.) would stop quoting the Bible when talking about Government...read the second picture in my signature...its absolutely true! Many of the founding fathers would be disgusted with the way modern politics is done, and rightly so.

Quoting the Bible = cheap way to curry votes with the "good Christian people" of this nation.

I don't doubt either candidates commitment to their religion, but lets leave it out of politics. Period.

Hi Jazzerman:

People in the US talk alot about "separation of Church and State" but these two "mind control machines" will always be linked together----no matter how hard people like you and me try to keep them apart.

And it is no different in other parts of the world where Rabbis and Sheiks and Mullahs and Ministers and Priests have a captive audience every week to whom they can shout political views from their bully-pulpits.

Not a lot of talking back during a sermon.

There was a good reason why the Catholic Church did not allow non-clergy to read and write for 1000 years. Knowledge is power, and giving that power to the people is downright dangerous, according to "rulilng bodies".

The deliberately "dumbed down" voting public in the US still seems to cast their votes along group think i.e. party lines as well as the affiliations of their so-called "organised" religious organisations....rather than bother to look deeply at REAL issues one at a time, and decide what is best for the nation in each case...

Look at the Headlines in today's newspaper: any word about the IDF massacres in Gaza lately?

It would be refreshing to see people in the US begin to think for themselves on the various issues facing the country instead of being dragged down by "group think"---

But the US Media and the US school system DOES NOT encourage original thought---just cattle mentality...

But then again, it is clear that dumbed down "cattle" are easier to control than "thinking" people.....

The US Media and certain elements in the US Govt seem to work in tandem to support the idea: dumb the masses down, and they'll do what you tell them to do...keep them in the dark about the true state of affairs in the world and tell them how they should think...and they'll do what they're told.....and only discuss what you want them to discuss...etc.

And it's the same with the Church. No "Christian: today ever talks about "Jesus" arming his disciples on the hill with swords and cutting of high priest's slave's ears during a failed coup against Rome during a Feast...they make the man out to be some kind of "prince of peace" when his Aramaic rhetoric sounded a lot more like Osama bin Laden if you were to analyse it closely....

But then again, look how all THAT turned out.....