Take this, you pagan strumpet: Rebecca Meiser's January 29 article ("Jews for Bejesus") describes the problems of the extended Rapp family. Edie Rapp is quoted in regard to herself and her dying husband: "If there's one thing the two of us were definite about, it was our Jewishness." The story goes on to say, in regard to her Christian/Jewish stepson Bruce, that Edie "cringed as Bruce cracked open the New Testament and turned to Psalm 23:4."
My comment is that I do not know what type of Jewishness Edie is referring to, whether it be Orthodox, modern, or nonpracticing, but it is obviously a false statement on her part, because anyone who is "definite" about their Jewishness would know that Psalms is not in the New Testament but in the Jewish books of the Old Testament. Most of the 150 Psalms were written by a very Jewish King David. If she were very "Jewish," she would not even know about the New Testament.
As for her famous attorney, he should look at the Jewish fact that God in the attorney's point of view is singular, according to the Jews, yet that God did promise that he would send a Messiah to save his people, and that promise is shown in Isaiah 52:10, Isaiah 52:13, and all of Isaiah 53, where the Jewish singular God speaks of his other portion of godness that shall come in salvation. The Jews look to one God but pray for the other portions of that God to come to their rescue.
The trouble is, the Jews of Jesus' time could not see what was before them but only what they had dreamed of. Thus, they killed Jesus because he did not rid the Jews of the Roman rule. They killed Jesus before there was a single Christian. Christians came into existence when "Greeks" converted at Antioch, so no Christians existed at the time of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Via the Internet
Suffer this, you Assyrian turd: I'm not a scholar of Judaism nor Christianity by any means; however, I am certain that the book of Psalms is in the Old Testament -- not the New Testament, as stated in your article. I also do not understand the objection to reading the passage from Psalms, because from the research I have done, the book of Psalms, referred to as Tehillim, is part of the Jewish bible. This error really makes me question the reputation and validity of this newspaper. These errors and inconsistencies are too large to overlook.
Via the Internet
And pound this one, infidel scumbucket: After reading "Jews for Bejesus," I have come to the conclusion that both parties in this lawsuit need a refresher course in the Bible. The title of the article should have been, "Jews for Moses versus Jews for Jesus." As we know, the New Testament is rooted in the Old Testament, particularly in the Pentateuch, the so-called five books of Moses, so I shall concentrate on that part of the Bible.
I think that the biggest scam of the past 2,500 years is the propaganda that the Bible is the work of the creator of the universe, the domain of whom is more than 40 light years, or about 240 trillion miles, away. Thomas Paine, in his book Age of Reason, proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible was not the work of the creator and was actually an insult to the creator. However, the proponents of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and that includes both groups in this lawsuit, refuse to listen to Paine's evidence because, unfortunately, a myth repeated over and over again for 2,500 years is accepted as fact by people who are unwilling to cross-examine the witnesses.
Rabbi Barry Silver is wrong when he says that Judaism teaches that we cannot be held responsible for the sins of another; not so, according to the Torah. He should read Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, in which the God of Israel allegedly tells Moses that he will punish up to the tenth generation for the sins of the fathers.
The ancient Romans had a saying: "Falsus in Uno, falsus in Omnibus" ("False in one thing, false in all things"). We still use this in our courts to discredit witnesses who give false testimony. The entire book of Genesis is a myth, and the false testimony of the witness Moses proves it. There are none so blind as those who will not see. This applies to both the plaintiffs and the defendants in this case.
West Palm Beach
Editor's note: The reference in the article to the Old Testament was the result of a reporting error. We regret it. And how.
Get thee to a straight nunnery: The January 8 column by Courtney Hambright was one of the most appalling pieces of drivel I've ever seen ("G-strings at the Boardwalk"). It was ghastly to read, and it is painful to respond to. The writing was trash and the opinions absurd.
The Boardwalk is a fun, escapist bar with a large following that has been a popular gay institution for years. The dancers are there to show the older gentlemen a good time, not to "titillate" women or to be reviewed by pretentious teeny-brain "critics" who opine about a "well-shorn ass crack," a female "fruit fly," "pitchers" and "catchers," and the "real dough" being made behind the black curtain near the bar. (Oh, this girl is so-o-o "in.") Critics have no place in the Boardwalk, and neither do "girlies shaking with peenie-happy energy" and "an itch to scratch." (What vile, repulsive writing. How is this girl qualified to review anything?) Then, to call Auntie Mame "a large, worn-out drag queen" tops it all.
I first met Auntie Mame one Sunday this past October when she was performing at the Boardwalk. I was stunned at the high caliber of her material. She was the first female impersonator in Florida I had ever paid any attention to. Mame was performing songs by the likes of Murray Grand and Ruth Wallace. I said to her: "What are you doing performing such sophisticated New York cabaret material here in a Florida dance club? I never saw anything like it." Mame looks like a cross between Bea Arthur and Elaine Stritch -- two of my favorite Broadway ladies. I believe that Mame's fans truly appreciate the variety and sophistication of the material she brings to them.
The excruciating tastelessness of Courtney Hambright permeates her opinions. Let her bring her "writing skills" to the straight male strip clubs. Leave the gay ones alone. They are innocent. They did nothing to deserve her.
Focus on the QB, Waynester: My husband, Steve, and I read Bob Norman's January 1 article, "You Move, You Lose." We have been saying all along that Dave Wannstedt should have been gone this year. He has done nothing for this team, playoffs or motivation. We have good players who, I think, have motivated themselves but still need the guidance of a good coach. Let's face it: We'll never find another Don Shula... he's one of a kind, but we can still do better than Wannstedt!
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
As far as Jay Fiedler goes, we never liked him. He's a B quarterback. And Brian Griese is not his dad! That was a waste this year. But we have a third-string quarterback, Sage Rosenfels, who, in his short time on the field, has proven he has an incredible throwing arm. Why has he been sitting on the bench for the past two years? He deserves a chance to show his stuff.
Steve and I enjoyed your article. Unfortunately, Dolphins owner Wayne Huizenga doesn't give a damn what we think. As far as Pudge goes, what a mistake to let him walk. He's incredible!
Linda and Steve Jacobson