Smith

Being a pastor, I conceal carry all the time. Some people just don't understand some life principles and it would be hard to explain that concept without them understanding the overriding principle of personal responsibility and its contrast of evil in the world.

If nothing else, this thread has been informative and really bumped my post count!

It was a point in a collaboration of dismissals of the historical accuracy of the NT. Which is to well argued by either side to so conclusive. Secondly, all writers, under your understanding, have agenda's. Including the one's you cite, without noting who they are. BTW, Josephus was not a claimed Christian. In fact he was a Jewish historian and Levitical Priest who saw and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. He also a commander in the Jewish forces that fought the Romans in the First Roman War 66-73 A.D. He probably the closest historian Jewish or otherwise to write so close to the time of Christ about the Jewish state, Rome, and Christianity.

And you should well know that using universals (ie. it is "undeniable" that the Sanhedrin account in the NT is completely made up) to dismiss the New Testament or any other textual documentation in its entirety is inherently erroneous as well as being a fallacy of philosophical argument. I do agree, with out a doubt, the Jews are (currently as well) the most persecuted group in all of history. However, to blindly dismiss the Christian persecution in China, Africa, Russia, Germany, and many other places both today and in the past as inconsequential is also erroneous (I also am aware that this was not done by the Jews). In fact in China alone (currently) the persecution is on par with any Jewish persecution event, save the Holocaust. You also said "ulterior motive" texts, referring to the Bible. Yet almost all of you citations are of Jewish writers or Jewish apologist. Not that they are wrong, but you can't argue against a point and then use the same one. I might also note that you have yet to cite Josephus, who is widely known to be an excellent Jewish and Roman historical source. I have enjoyed my discussions with you in person and will continue to do so. No hard feelings, just understand as much as you put in to the Talmud, I put in the Scriptures. You reject the NT while embracing the Old (partially), I embrace both as God's revelation to man and finished work, culminating with the Messiahs crucifixion. While the law is still in effect, Christ made perfect what Jewish legalism had distorted and changed. A law of the heart for God. Not a law of the man to God.

Check out this thread on another forum. It is female specific and address a lot of the issues unique to women packing http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=25430

Took that from his "Appearance and Reality" writings from "Problems with Philosophy". Interesting your professors didn't like him. My Philosophy professors fawned over him!

1. The Sanhedrin, as you well know, is simply an "assembly" based on the elder council of Moses. 2. Although the New Testament's account of the Sanhedrin's involvement in Jesus' crucifixion is detailed, the factual accuracy is disputed. Some scholars believe that these passages present a caricature of the Pharisees and were not written during Jesus' lifetime but rather some time after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE - a time when it had become clear that most Jews did not consider Jesus to be the Messiah. Also, this was a time Christians sought most new converts from among the Gentiles - thus adding to the likelihood that the New Testament's account would be more sympathetic to Romans than to the Jews. In addition, it was around this time that the Pharisaic sect had begun to grow into what is now known as Rabbinic Judaism, a growth that would have been seen by the early Christians direct challenge to the fledgling Church. Some claim that the New Testament portrays the Sanhedrin as a corrupt group of Pharisees, although it was predominantly made up of Sadducee's at the time. This does agree with the New Testament where the Sanhedrin's leadership - Annas and Caiaphas were Sadducee's. The Gospels also consistently make a distinction between the Pharisees and "the elders," "the teachers of the law," and "the rulers of the people". The opposition continues by saying that in order for the Christian leaders of the time to present Christianity as the legitimate heir to the Hebrew Scriptures, they had to devalue Rabbinic Judaism. In addition to the New Testament, other Christian writings relate that the Apostles Peter, John, and Paul, as well as Stephen (one of the first deacons), were all brought before the Sanhedrin for the blasphemous crime--from the Jewish perspective--of spreading their Gospel. Others point out that this is speculative. However, the Gospels exist, and do give an account of events that happened well before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, although most scholars consider them to have been penned after the Temple was destroyed (however, see Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew for views on earlier historical dating). Those scholars may believe them to have been based on earlier sources, rather than giving a first-person account; though the Gospels are not entirely dismissed, they are presumed to be biased rather than factual. However, Streeter and others of the Tuebingen school hold that Christian New Testament writings which discuss the Sanhedrin actually may date much earlier than previously thought, so supporters claim that the NT accounts quite possibly are more accurate than thought heretofore. According to Jewish law,[8] it is forbidden to convene a court of justice on a holy day, such as Pesach (Passover), making it highly unusual that religious Jews would have come together to hand down a death sentence. Additionally, Josephus seems to imply[citation needed] that there was a 'political' sanhedrin of Sadducee collaborators with Roman rule. Since proclaiming oneself Moshiach is not forbidden under halakha (there were many springing up at the time), but was illegal under Roman law as a challenge to imperial authority, perhaps this may be a more likely alternative. It should be noted, however, that John 19:12 cites the religious Sanhedrin using this argument to sway Pilate. Hyam Maccoby's book "The Mythmaker" presents an interesting account of a different historical interpretation. All this to say it is hardly undeniable.

You might want to clarify. Are talking semantics or in a "no such thing existed". Undeniable by who....the Sanhedrin? Now why would they want to deny that?

This can go no where good, but I just can't resist. Paul in his own admission, had been and had set out to purge the "Christians". It was only after his conversion on the road to Emmaus (in which he had asked and gotten permission from the Sanhedrin to kill Christians), that things changed. Anyway, this thread was about Islam. Not about who else has been or was persecuting someone else. It is interesting that you seem to see Christians as a greater problem than the Islamist who want to "drive the Jews into the Sea". Christians, especially in the US are the by far the greatest supporters of Israel. I am as well. I will support God's people and his promises to them.

That's the point. I wasn't trying to pigeon hole anyone as I felt some was starting to happen. Catholics in fact do consider themselves "Christians". The point was that lumping all "Christians" in the same boat is a little disingenuous. All those instances were committed by the Catholic church under the leadership of the Pope. There were many other "Chrisitan" groups that were persecuted by them. Who was the target of the Inquisition? Here are just a small sample of those who consider themselves "Christian"....Mormons, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Church of Christ, Orthodox, Anglican, African Baptist, ..............some are protestant, some are not. To say Christianity has committed atrocities is a little erroneous and a side affect of "anti"-propaganda that has infiltrated our culture. As a Jew you should understand that. Also, I didn't say the Crusaders didn't terrorize the Jewish population, but in a historical perspective had it been only the Muslims, the Holy land would look a little different today. You are entirely correct in your historical analysis. Sorry if I angered you, just trying to lend historical objectiveness to the discussion.

To be exact they were actually Catholic. There were a lot of other "Christians" that fought back and eventually changed the course of the Christian faith back to it's rightful path - unlike what is happening in Islam were there is no attempt to change. Comparing Islam with Christianity is like trying to compare the U.S.S.R. with the U.S. Sure there are some similarities and both have done things we would rather forget, but the underlying ideologies and right and wrong of things are worlds apart and black and white. To confuse the two is ideological suicide. BTW had it not been for the Crusades (more of an economic crusade than Religious) the Jews would have never had a chance to go back and inhabit Israel. Just food for thought.

Russell also didn't believe that anything really exist and he was not the happiest of people either. He feared reality.

This is about the best I could find. http://gun-deals.com/displayammo.php?caliber=7.62x39

I have the CTAC and recently got my K&D Dakota Defender. Get the Dakota! Unbelievably good holster. I thought the CTAC was great, but the Dakota is that much better. here are a couple of threads comparing the CTAC, Crossbreed, and th Dakota. http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32489&highlight=Dakota+Defender,

I'm glad you asked. I haven't been pulled over, so I haven't had a chance to ask. Was wondering though. Thanks.

I'd say leather. I have a CTAC and a K&D Dakota Defender. The Defender (leather) is way more comfortable and fitting than the CTAC. That being said, I was never uncomfortable with the CTAC. It is a great holster as well. Custom leather just can't be beat. The only drawback is that you will probably have to wait 10 weeks as opposed to 1 week (or less) on a quality custom leather holster. Cost are a wash. check out K&D http://www.kdholsters.com/basefile/holsters_accessories.html. Very, Very good. just check my thread on mine. http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1129

In the words of Lloyd Christmas, "I like it a lot!" Over on XD talk there is a guy who compares the crossbred with his K&D. He likes the K&D a lot better. http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32489&highlight=Dakota+Defender

+111 for East Side Gun Shop. Bill Bernstein is great!

Not only is it slimmer, but the Kel-tec is significantly lighter. I handled the Kahr before the KT and there is a noticeable difference.

I don't know. What do you think? Yes, as a matter of fact I did, and +100 for East Side Gun Shop! Thanks

Kevin usually keeps it in the 8-10 week range, but i understand he had some heath problems that backed him up a bit. No complaints now, however!

After a long and frustrating wait (12 weeks), it finally came. It took a little longer than expected, but the time was well worth it. My new K&D Dakota Defender came Tuesday! It is absolutely beautiful. The pictures don't do it justice. The attention to detail were evident the moment I opened the box and saw the beauty that awaited me. Thanks Kevin for unbelievably good work!

Well, I got it over the weekend and just now had a chance to shoot it today. My only comparison was the P11 I used to have and sold, because I just couldn't get used to the trigger. Well, let's just say they are night and day. The PF9 was a pleasure to shoot. Recoil was very manageable, almost like shooting a larger framed heavier gun and the trigger, although still long, was very consistent and the break was crisp. The P11 used to hurt my hand after a about 2 mags. The PF9 I ran 250 rnds through with no discomfort at all. My only problem was having to stop to load mags. It was a joy to shoot. Now to the range part. It took a minute to get used to the trigger (My main gun is an XD9 service with a custom trigger job! Very nice!), but once I got over the hump, I was able to keep my shot placement at about 4 in @ 15 yrds! I had the occasional flyer on first shots, but that was it. Follow ups were very fast considering the guns size and the sights were very manageable. I must also note that I did not have a single FTF, or FTE using CCI Blazer 115g FMJ, Sellier & Belliot 115g FMJ, or my PF9 carry ammo Federal HST 124g! All in all I am very pleased I traded a Hi-Power for this little gem. I was concerned after my P11 experience (i like them a lot, just couldn't get me to work with the gun) how the PF9 would fair. It more than met my expectations and now will take on a lot of daily carry duty, along side my XD9. Now all i have to do is send it to Mr. Fusilier for the two tone look!

I think one article I read said it best, "it's an answer to a question nobody asked." I personally think it's dead.

I've got a Saiga that Red Stick is converting at the moment. A true Russian AK for 500? Can't beat that deal.