This is the most consistently retarded poster on this forum.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
50 comments:
Theres a difference between jews and those of the Tribe Judah
No there is not. In the New Testament it's made very clear that the Israelites of the Old Testament are the Jews.
See for example Romans 2 and Romans 11.
See for example Romans 2 and Romans 11.
Counterpoint, Rev 2:9 and 3:9
See also 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15
See also 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15
Rev 2:9 and 3:9 talk about those who *claim to be Jews and are not*. Therefore it implies that the *real* Jews are good.
These verses prove the exact opposite of what you think they prove.
1 Thess 2:14-15 is a stronger argument, as here Paul mentions the Jews in a negative manner. But I believe he refers to only those Jews who killed Jesus and persecuted Christians, and not to all the people with Jewish blood (like himself!).
I will certainly agree that the Jews who reject and fight Jesus and his followers will not be saved. My problem is that the Jews who do accept Jesus seem to be given priority over the goyim.
These verses prove the exact opposite of what you think they prove.
1 Thess 2:14-15 is a stronger argument, as here Paul mentions the Jews in a negative manner. But I believe he refers to only those Jews who killed Jesus and persecuted Christians, and not to all the people with Jewish blood (like himself!).
I will certainly agree that the Jews who reject and fight Jesus and his followers will not be saved. My problem is that the Jews who do accept Jesus seem to be given priority over the goyim.
You missed the part where the Moabites and others were force-converted to become jews by the Maccabees.
This was the beginning of the great confusion that Jesus clears up, when he announces that they are not the seed of Abraham and that their father is Satan.
The people calling themselves jews in the first century, aside from a few, were not jews.
This was the beginning of the great confusion that Jesus clears up, when he announces that they are not the seed of Abraham and that their father is Satan.
The people calling themselves jews in the first century, aside from a few, were not jews.
Judah vs Israel were two parts of the kingdom, southern and northern respectively after the came into the land of Canaan. After returning from the Babylonian exile, forced “conversion” too place, or practice of Laws of Moses/Torah. All those that didnt belong to the Tribes but lived in the land were designated as jews, as they placed The Tribe Judah's religion. Edomites are considered jews since they resided and “practiced” the law
Because those 144k "Jews" (in fact Israelites, the Biblical Jews were only the three of the 12 tribes, whereas the 144K represents some members of all the tribes being saved, each tribe is named among those saved) were the first Christians, the modern Synagogue of Satan are imposters emerged well after the destruction of Jerusalem (and the original unconverted Jews who crucified Christ were destroyed as Jerusalem was destroyed, with only a small remnant of them escaping).
The "locusts" were probably referring to the brutal and destructive Roman siege of Jerusalem (with the Romans literally allowing the Christians to escape for some reason in the middle of the siege).
The "locusts" were probably referring to the brutal and destructive Roman siege of Jerusalem (with the Romans literally allowing the Christians to escape for some reason in the middle of the siege).
> Because those 144k "Jews" (in fact Israelites, the Biblical Jews were only the three of the 12 tribes, whereas the 144K represents some members of all the tribes being saved, each tribe is named among those saved) were the first Christians
So do you agree with me that at least 36k (12k per each tribe, for 3 tribes) were Jews by blood who accepted Jesus, became Christians, and now are getting a privilege over the goyim who became Christians?
So do you agree with me that at least 36k (12k per each tribe, for 3 tribes) were Jews by blood who accepted Jesus, became Christians, and now are getting a privilege over the goyim who became Christians?
Satan worshipers today or a small sect of jews a few thousand years ago? I'm much more willing to accept there was maybe a small amount of decent jews in the far distant past then I am willing to accept these modern satan worshiping baby dick sucking child rapsists are saved.
Yes I'm not saying that the Jews of today who openly reject Christ are going to be saved. Most likely these Jews are the ones that Jesus refers to as "Synagogue of Satan".
However, it does seem like between Jews and Gentiles the Jews (who don't hate Christ) are superior because of their inheritance, and the Gentiles are second class citizens because they were admitted later.
Have a look at Romans 11. In there it seems clear that the Jews are still the favorite of God, and the goyim are just getting sloppy seconds.
However, it does seem like between Jews and Gentiles the Jews (who don't hate Christ) are superior because of their inheritance, and the Gentiles are second class citizens because they were admitted later.
Have a look at Romans 11. In there it seems clear that the Jews are still the favorite of God, and the goyim are just getting sloppy seconds.
Jesus says that rejection of him is rejection of God and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. Which these jewish creatures do, daily.
Christkiller is the appropriate term in more ways than one. (((They))) not only had him killed - Romans were manipulated - they metaphorically kill and torture the divine *Logos* the way they mutilate the truth. All of their pedo-satanic rituals are a symbolic defilement of the Christ child in the (vain) hopes of preventing God's Everlasting Truth from coming into the world and exposing their lies.
We wuz da true Israelites.
u/#chad Yes.
Whites are God's Chosen. Nonwhites are soulless cattle fit only for slave labor. And the jew is Amalek who must be destroyed.
Whites are God's Chosen. Nonwhites are soulless cattle fit only for slave labor. And the jew is Amalek who must be destroyed.
I am a true Aryan Israelite, that’s why my parents named me the strong 💪 Aryan name Jedidiah Rehoboam Mordechai Zerubbabel Johnson.
Find me a group of actual, pro-White neopagans who have a genuine chance of effecting *real* change.
I don’t get why religion has to be the main focus of a racial movement? I’d rather have a secular pro-white movement than a religious one where every discussion devolves into bickering over interpretation of the Bible and who iz da tru Israelites
1) The people in current Israel are Edom. They consider Herod "the Great" who killed Israelite infants in anticipation of the Israelite messiah "Jewish". He was from Edom/Idumea. What would become Judaism didn't exist until shortly before Jesus arrived and it never became the "Jewish" religion until much later. The Pharisees arrived on the scene the same time the refugees from Edom came to live with Israel. Edom is Esau, Israel's (Jacob's) brother and God repeatedly said he hated them and foretold their ultimate doom in the one chapter book of Obadiah. Esau has always wanted their birthright back as first born and have fucked over the entire world to try to achieve that. The curse for turning against God was listed in Deut Chapter 28. Kikes in no way fit. They weren't slaves, they loaned money, when the curse was that they would only be loaned to.
Jesus called these people liars, laughed at their expanded upon kosher laws that the Pharisees only created to try to make the common people see them on common ground with the priests and nobility (Sadducees), who were actually Israelite and at Rev 2:9, 3:9 they are referred to as the synagogue of Satan and Rev 3:9-12 says new Zion is from heaven not kikes who build a third temple that rejects the body of Christ as the temple. In Daniel it talks about the robbers of thy people. This is the Edomite kikes.
On the "Torah". The real Torah is the first 5 books of the bible. Kikes don't follow that or they wouldn't have the occult kabbalah as part of their religion and that is where you get the word cabal. Kikes follow a historical fraud "oral Torah" and that was called a fraud by the Sadducees in the time of Jesus. They weren't perfect by any means and they killed Christ and were cursed for it, but they basically said the Pharisee kikes were a fraud. Even kike websites will tell you this. See the table at the bottom.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pharisees-sadducees-and-essenes
2) On the 12 tribes in Revelation. There are two trains of thought and to me it doesn't matter either way.
A) It's figurative. New Israel is just Christianity. The real Jews/Israelites lost the right to be priests and kings. Jesus is now priest and king and no one should ever put men between him and them again. That's how you get a hijacked Catholic Church that worships kikes.
B) It's not figurative but it doesn't have to be people from our time. It can be throughout history. Jesus raises the dead. Dan is replaced as a tribe here but you could debate the reason for that to. It could be that Dan was the first to lose their identity. Dan loved their ships and probably bailed. Kikes try to claim some inland deep African tribe is the remnant of Dan. Why? Cus they are full of shit. You have a lot of people who speculate on Dan from Greece to Danmark. Personally I think they were the best bet for white Europeans having some Israelite roots that were introduced, but again Europeans just don't fit the curses and countries like Germany (Ashkenaz) were listed as Japeth, not Shem (Shemite/Semite) or Hamite (Africa).
3) On repeated bullshit in your post. Jesus had to come to the real Israelites first to fulfill prophecy. It had nothing to do with any Jewish supremacy and he hated kikes because they were liars who claimed to be what they weren't. God is also outside of time. He knew what they would do and that was foretold in Obadiah that they would completely fuck over Israel and hand them over to Rome. That was supposed to happen but the kikes rejoiced and purposely fucked them over because they hate them due to the whole firstborn thing.
Anyways, Israel was scattered to the wind, their identity lost. Any claim to be of any tribe isn't even made. The only people who even have records are the Ethiopians and if those claims of Sheba and Solomon are true they are half Jewish. It's what makes it pointless to even claim you are "jewish" and who would want to be anyways. They are a cursed people and would be until Jesus returns. Kikes cursed? Slaves? Non bankers? Kikes are Satan's chosen who he has running the world.
4) You are a kike if you think Jesus was "Jewish and since you repeatedly, make posts pushing kike pseudo history as gospel, I would bet the farm you are a kike. That name is way too try hard.
You are simply here to divide Christians and set "goy" on other "goy". You are no different than Frank Collin (Cohn) a pedo kike that tried to hijack things with the Skokie Affair. A wolf among sheep.
Jesus called these people liars, laughed at their expanded upon kosher laws that the Pharisees only created to try to make the common people see them on common ground with the priests and nobility (Sadducees), who were actually Israelite and at Rev 2:9, 3:9 they are referred to as the synagogue of Satan and Rev 3:9-12 says new Zion is from heaven not kikes who build a third temple that rejects the body of Christ as the temple. In Daniel it talks about the robbers of thy people. This is the Edomite kikes.
On the "Torah". The real Torah is the first 5 books of the bible. Kikes don't follow that or they wouldn't have the occult kabbalah as part of their religion and that is where you get the word cabal. Kikes follow a historical fraud "oral Torah" and that was called a fraud by the Sadducees in the time of Jesus. They weren't perfect by any means and they killed Christ and were cursed for it, but they basically said the Pharisee kikes were a fraud. Even kike websites will tell you this. See the table at the bottom.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pharisees-sadducees-and-essenes
2) On the 12 tribes in Revelation. There are two trains of thought and to me it doesn't matter either way.
A) It's figurative. New Israel is just Christianity. The real Jews/Israelites lost the right to be priests and kings. Jesus is now priest and king and no one should ever put men between him and them again. That's how you get a hijacked Catholic Church that worships kikes.
B) It's not figurative but it doesn't have to be people from our time. It can be throughout history. Jesus raises the dead. Dan is replaced as a tribe here but you could debate the reason for that to. It could be that Dan was the first to lose their identity. Dan loved their ships and probably bailed. Kikes try to claim some inland deep African tribe is the remnant of Dan. Why? Cus they are full of shit. You have a lot of people who speculate on Dan from Greece to Danmark. Personally I think they were the best bet for white Europeans having some Israelite roots that were introduced, but again Europeans just don't fit the curses and countries like Germany (Ashkenaz) were listed as Japeth, not Shem (Shemite/Semite) or Hamite (Africa).
3) On repeated bullshit in your post. Jesus had to come to the real Israelites first to fulfill prophecy. It had nothing to do with any Jewish supremacy and he hated kikes because they were liars who claimed to be what they weren't. God is also outside of time. He knew what they would do and that was foretold in Obadiah that they would completely fuck over Israel and hand them over to Rome. That was supposed to happen but the kikes rejoiced and purposely fucked them over because they hate them due to the whole firstborn thing.
Anyways, Israel was scattered to the wind, their identity lost. Any claim to be of any tribe isn't even made. The only people who even have records are the Ethiopians and if those claims of Sheba and Solomon are true they are half Jewish. It's what makes it pointless to even claim you are "jewish" and who would want to be anyways. They are a cursed people and would be until Jesus returns. Kikes cursed? Slaves? Non bankers? Kikes are Satan's chosen who he has running the world.
4) You are a kike if you think Jesus was "Jewish and since you repeatedly, make posts pushing kike pseudo history as gospel, I would bet the farm you are a kike. That name is way too try hard.
You are simply here to divide Christians and set "goy" on other "goy". You are no different than Frank Collin (Cohn) a pedo kike that tried to hijack things with the Skokie Affair. A wolf among sheep.
By God you are going to hell for misquoting scripture.
Judah -- the jews -- is only one of 12 tribes. As far as the tribes go, they are bottom-rung, because their kingship was revoked when Jesus was born. It is only the tribe of Joseph that has any promise at all. Joseph received a greater blessing than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It says so in the Bible. So the other tribes have no part with Joseph when it comes to the promises.
And read the first few chapters -- it's clear that the jews lost their place as inheritors of God's blessings when they rejected Jesus. ONLY Christians have access to the blessings God promised Israel and Joseph.
The nations who God punishes in Revelation are the people who reject Jesus, including the jews or whatever they call themselves. The people living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's coming are condemned by God. The two prophets are sent to reclaim them one last time, and how were they received by the unrepentant jews?
In Matthew 15, Jesus explains that he was sent FIRST to the tribes of Israel and so he can't bless the Gentiles until after he fulfills his mission. However, she, understanding what the scriptures truly teach about the Gentiles, presses Jesus after Jesus explains that the dogs eat AFTER the children eat, and for her faith, he blesses her. If anything, it is obvious that Jesus is refuting the caricature that Gentiles will not be blessed of Jesus.
The only special privilege that the house of Israel has is that Jesus will come to them first. Jesus said "The first will be last, and the last will be first." I interpret that to mean that even though he went to the Israelites first, they rejected him (most of them at least) and so he went to the Gentiles, who accepted him. And so because the Gentiles accepted him, THEY ARE NOW CHIEF above the Israelites who rejected him.
Read about Peter's vision of the unclean food. Read everything Paul wrote and look carefully how he regards his lineage as a descendant of Israel. Note carefully in Romans how he explains that the Israelites REJECTED the covenant, and now the GENTILES are receiving it.
Judah -- the jews -- is only one of 12 tribes. As far as the tribes go, they are bottom-rung, because their kingship was revoked when Jesus was born. It is only the tribe of Joseph that has any promise at all. Joseph received a greater blessing than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It says so in the Bible. So the other tribes have no part with Joseph when it comes to the promises.
And read the first few chapters -- it's clear that the jews lost their place as inheritors of God's blessings when they rejected Jesus. ONLY Christians have access to the blessings God promised Israel and Joseph.
The nations who God punishes in Revelation are the people who reject Jesus, including the jews or whatever they call themselves. The people living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's coming are condemned by God. The two prophets are sent to reclaim them one last time, and how were they received by the unrepentant jews?
In Matthew 15, Jesus explains that he was sent FIRST to the tribes of Israel and so he can't bless the Gentiles until after he fulfills his mission. However, she, understanding what the scriptures truly teach about the Gentiles, presses Jesus after Jesus explains that the dogs eat AFTER the children eat, and for her faith, he blesses her. If anything, it is obvious that Jesus is refuting the caricature that Gentiles will not be blessed of Jesus.
The only special privilege that the house of Israel has is that Jesus will come to them first. Jesus said "The first will be last, and the last will be first." I interpret that to mean that even though he went to the Israelites first, they rejected him (most of them at least) and so he went to the Gentiles, who accepted him. And so because the Gentiles accepted him, THEY ARE NOW CHIEF above the Israelites who rejected him.
Read about Peter's vision of the unclean food. Read everything Paul wrote and look carefully how he regards his lineage as a descendant of Israel. Note carefully in Romans how he explains that the Israelites REJECTED the covenant, and now the GENTILES are receiving it.
> Judah -- the jews -- is only one of 12 tribes.
Not true, there are at least two cases (Paul and Mordecai) of people referred to as "Jews" who come from other tribes.
In any case, 12,000 of the privileged chosen ones in Revelation are from the tribe of Judah.
Not true, there are at least two cases (Paul and Mordecai) of people referred to as "Jews" who come from other tribes.
In any case, 12,000 of the privileged chosen ones in Revelation are from the tribe of Judah.
The word in the Greek translates more correctly to "judean", which refers to someone living in the Roman province of Judea.
The word for a descendant of Judah would be Judahite in English. Notably, that word is never used. Instead the Greek specifically spells out "descended from Judah", IE, when it mentions the lineage of Jesus.
Thus the word "jew" in the Bible cannot mean someone descended from Judah, but instead someone living in that region at that time.
The word for a descendant of Judah would be Judahite in English. Notably, that word is never used. Instead the Greek specifically spells out "descended from Judah", IE, when it mentions the lineage of Jesus.
Thus the word "jew" in the Bible cannot mean someone descended from Judah, but instead someone living in that region at that time.
Its entirely symbolic, like most of Revelation. Meaning nothing more than 'a large number of God's people'.
>it's unclear if other goyim will also be saved
Not according to all of Jesus' major dialogues of the NT, where he repeatedly claims to have come to bring a light to the Gentiles.
>it's unclear if other goyim will also be saved
Not according to all of Jesus' major dialogues of the NT, where he repeatedly claims to have come to bring a light to the Gentiles.
It's possible but Dan not being there means it could be real people from the tribes. The idea it was all at one time though isn't necessary as Jesus raises the dead. Lots of Israelites and Christians have already died for him throughout history. Perhaps Dan didn't have enough so they are replaced. Or perhaps Dan is symbolic because they abandoned the rest of the Israelites and bailed on their ships and it looks like they went Northwest.
Jesus repeatedly talks about New Jerusalem, making all things new, true Israel being the church, his bride. So if I had to choose I would probably say symbolism. You have the 12 tribes, the 12 stones on the Ephod. Prob why you have 144.
Jesus repeatedly talks about New Jerusalem, making all things new, true Israel being the church, his bride. So if I had to choose I would probably say symbolism. You have the 12 tribes, the 12 stones on the Ephod. Prob why you have 144.
Yes. 12 is also a symbolic number found elsewhere in antiquity. Ever counted how many sig runes are in a Sonnenrad?
Yes I am familiar with the sun wheel symbol hijacked to be called the "black sun", which is in reference to the night sun, black sun from Babylon which referred to Saturn and that is now used by modern Nazi "occultists" which would have been mocked by the real Nazi's.
Nazi's went into hell holes like kike run Russia to liberate other Christians and to stop a country that actually had plans to invade (that media has lied about and told you about Germnay), not to sell them on an ancient pagan past. It's why kikes have hijacked the movements to make them neo-pagan. They sell you a Nazi Germany that never existed. It's fan fiction.
Nazi's went into hell holes like kike run Russia to liberate other Christians and to stop a country that actually had plans to invade (that media has lied about and told you about Germnay), not to sell them on an ancient pagan past. It's why kikes have hijacked the movements to make them neo-pagan. They sell you a Nazi Germany that never existed. It's fan fiction.
> Its entirely symbolic, like most of Revelation. Meaning nothing more than 'a large number of God's people'.
Symbolic for what?
> Not according to all of Jesus' major dialogues of the NT, where he repeatedly claims to have come to bring a light to the Gentiles.
This isn't true: Jesus never says this explicitly.
We had this conversation before and all you could bring were very vague references about *someone* replacing the kikes who rejected him. But nowhere does Jesus say explicitly that all goyim who believe will be saved. He may have been referring to other Jews who accept him replacing the Jews of the Sanhedrin.
Do you not see the importance of this post?
The foundation of Christianity is that Yahweh was first only the god (and military commander) of the kikes, but then *he changed his mind* and all humanity now is the Chosen People (as long as you accept Jesus). Your racial heritage does not matter, only faith does.
But still, in Revelation there is a preference in favor of those who descend from the 12 tribes. The Christians who have Jewish blood in their veins obtain a privilege and therefore they are superior to the Christian goyim.
This goes together Romans 11 in which it is implied that the Jews are still superior to the goyim. Christian goyim are second class citizens.
Symbolic for what?
> Not according to all of Jesus' major dialogues of the NT, where he repeatedly claims to have come to bring a light to the Gentiles.
This isn't true: Jesus never says this explicitly.
We had this conversation before and all you could bring were very vague references about *someone* replacing the kikes who rejected him. But nowhere does Jesus say explicitly that all goyim who believe will be saved. He may have been referring to other Jews who accept him replacing the Jews of the Sanhedrin.
Do you not see the importance of this post?
The foundation of Christianity is that Yahweh was first only the god (and military commander) of the kikes, but then *he changed his mind* and all humanity now is the Chosen People (as long as you accept Jesus). Your racial heritage does not matter, only faith does.
But still, in Revelation there is a preference in favor of those who descend from the 12 tribes. The Christians who have Jewish blood in their veins obtain a privilege and therefore they are superior to the Christian goyim.
This goes together Romans 11 in which it is implied that the Jews are still superior to the goyim. Christian goyim are second class citizens.
>Symbolic for what?
Did you even read literally the next sentence? "A large number of God's people". You quoted my answer.
>This isn't true: Jesus never says this explicitly.
Luke chapter 4:
>But He said, “Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown. But I say to you in truth, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut up for three years and six months, when a severe famine came over all the land; and yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow [a Gentile]. And there were many with leprosy in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian [also a Gentile].”
Jesus is saying right here that God was sending prophets to the Gentiles even *before* He came along.
>But nowhere does Jesus say explicitly that all goyim who believe will be saved. He may have been referring to other Jews
Come on, man. Its blatantly obvious that you have *no desire* to understand the scriptures for what they really are and instead will interpret them in any way that fits your pre-established ideas about them. I've quoted to you the verses where Jesus says exactly this before. What good would it do for me to quote them to you again?
>the foundation of Christianity is that Yahweh was first only the god (and military commander) of the kikes, but then he changed his mind
See that's the thing. God *DOESN'T* just simply "change his mind". So what explains the discrepancy? The only thing that explains the discrepancy is that the old testament really *isn't* the legitimate Word of God, and that it was entirely twisted by the kikes to suit their agenda. In other words, kikes took the Word of God, distorted it by their own hand, and then wrote the torah in order to give themselves a "spiritual justification" for their kikey behavior.
>But still, in Revelation there is a preference in favor of those who descend from the 12 tribes.
It's *NOT* showing preference to any ethnic group, it's just a number that signifies a group of God's people (12 * 12), and a large number of them ( * 1,000). 12 is a symbolically significant number inside and outside of Christianity. Ever counted how many Sig runes are in a Sonnenrad?
>Christian goyim are second class citizens.
Except for that time where it is brought to the Apostles' attention that the jewish converts to Christianity are hoarding community resources and not evenly distributing them to Gentile converts to Christianity, so the Apostles appoint Presbyters to go and deal with the problem and see to it that the Gentile Christians are treated equally. They weren't no second-class citizens there.
Did you even read literally the next sentence? "A large number of God's people". You quoted my answer.
>This isn't true: Jesus never says this explicitly.
Luke chapter 4:
>But He said, “Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown. But I say to you in truth, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut up for three years and six months, when a severe famine came over all the land; and yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow [a Gentile]. And there were many with leprosy in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian [also a Gentile].”
Jesus is saying right here that God was sending prophets to the Gentiles even *before* He came along.
>But nowhere does Jesus say explicitly that all goyim who believe will be saved. He may have been referring to other Jews
Come on, man. Its blatantly obvious that you have *no desire* to understand the scriptures for what they really are and instead will interpret them in any way that fits your pre-established ideas about them. I've quoted to you the verses where Jesus says exactly this before. What good would it do for me to quote them to you again?
>the foundation of Christianity is that Yahweh was first only the god (and military commander) of the kikes, but then he changed his mind
See that's the thing. God *DOESN'T* just simply "change his mind". So what explains the discrepancy? The only thing that explains the discrepancy is that the old testament really *isn't* the legitimate Word of God, and that it was entirely twisted by the kikes to suit their agenda. In other words, kikes took the Word of God, distorted it by their own hand, and then wrote the torah in order to give themselves a "spiritual justification" for their kikey behavior.
>But still, in Revelation there is a preference in favor of those who descend from the 12 tribes.
It's *NOT* showing preference to any ethnic group, it's just a number that signifies a group of God's people (12 * 12), and a large number of them ( * 1,000). 12 is a symbolically significant number inside and outside of Christianity. Ever counted how many Sig runes are in a Sonnenrad?
>Christian goyim are second class citizens.
Except for that time where it is brought to the Apostles' attention that the jewish converts to Christianity are hoarding community resources and not evenly distributing them to Gentile converts to Christianity, so the Apostles appoint Presbyters to go and deal with the problem and see to it that the Gentile Christians are treated equally. They weren't no second-class citizens there.
> Did you even read literally the next sentence? "A large number of God's people".
When you read [these verses](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207%3A4-8&version=NIV) which list every Israel tribe individually, your interpretation is that it means "a large number of people of unspecified origins"?
> Come on, man. Its blatantly obvious that you have no desire to understand the scriptures for what they really are and instead will interpret them in any way that fits your pre-established ideas about them.
I think the same thing about you.
If someone who knows nothing about religion was to read the New Testament for the first time, he'd think that it's about a rabbi who demands to be worshiped like a god, gets angry at anyone who asks him to prove his claim, threatens hell to everyone who doesn't believe in him, preaches asceticism, and uses the sense of guilt as a weapon.
I grew up as an atheist, which means that my only exposure to Christianity is what I read in the scriptures. I don't really know much else.
I have the feeling that you learned Christianity from a different perspective: through Christian family members or friends or from some good priest, and now when you read Bible verses you want to reconcile them with what you already know as the truth.
This is why you often ignore the literal meaning of many passages, but you construct a whole concept out of a very liberal interpretation of some ambiguous passages. For example, the fact that a handful of individual goyim were saved is constructed as meaning that *all* goyim can be saved and that Jesus came for all of us, while I'd want to read that explicitly stated. But the explicit command to [not resist an evil person](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A39&version=NIV) is blatantly ignored. So why should I trust some creative interpretations of vague verses when you disregard explicit commands?
The strongest argument that you've ever put forward in our discussions is that Christianity is not only about scriptures, but also about the long standing Christian traditions. On this, I am happy to concede that you have a point.
But please don't always imply that I am not arguing in good faith. I'm probably just a bit autistic so I focus on the literal meaning of what's in the Bible.
>When you read these verses which list every Israel tribe individually
How would a jew at the time, being given Revelation as to events taking place in the far future at the end times, been able to express it any differently? Recall the entire concept of a god, particularly *their* God, having *anything* to do with the Gentiles was a completely alien concept to them. This belief was erroneously instilled in their people by the kike pharisees, but instilled it was nevertheless. This is why some of Jesus' hardest teachings for them to wrap their minds around, even the Apostles, was His desire to bring His Word to the Gentiles. So for a jew being granted such Revelation then, he would only be able to quantify it in jewish terms at the time. Thus, the number of 'saved' people are reflected in terms of the tribes of jews. Even under your logic, this can no longer have a literal meaning in today's world because the kikes of today masquerading as the jews of Jesus' time are in no way actually related to them; either genetically, theologically, or spiritually.
>If someone who knows nothing about religion was to read the New Testament for the first time, he'd think that it's about a rabbi who demands to be worshiped like a god
Correct, because He is. The miracles attested to that.
>gets angry at anyone who asks him to prove his claim
He only ever got angry with the kike pharisees and/or people who were merely trying to entrap Him in speech, as well as people arguing in bad faith ("A faithless generation asks for a sign, but no such sign will be given to it"). Nearly an innumerous amount of people who put their faith in Him were cured and healed of all manners of diseases, sicknesses, infirmities, or other maladies. Clearly proving God-like status.
>threatens hell to everyone who doesn't believe in him
Correct, because it's true
>preaches asceticism
Based
>and uses the sense of guilt as a weapon
Lotta people got a lotta things to be guilty about, over all the bad things they've done. But good people are always demonized for pointing that out, yeah?
>I have the feeling that you learned Christianity from a different perspective: through Christian family members or friends or from some good priest, and now when you read Bible verses you want to reconcile them with what you already know as the truth.
It's kind of like that, but not so highly specific. You see, the Scriptures were *never* intended to be the sole basis for the entirety of the Faith, because for as much as is actually there, they are still remarkedly incomplete. This belief, known as *Sola Scriptura*, was entirely a product of the Protestant reformation, which of course occurred nearly 1,500 years *after* the time of Jesus. Prior to that, the unanimous belief of *all* Christians around the globe (and yes, even between Western Catholics and the Eastern Orthodoxy, who had split another 500 years prior to that) was that the basis of the Faith rested on both the Scriptures and the teachings and traditions of the centralized Church. Because both sides, before the Great Schism of 1054 and after, had dozens and dozens of religious councils, together and separate, where the greatest theological minds got together and really fleshed out the beliefs of Christianity. Really figured out what the beliefs, habits, and rituals needed to be based on the Scriptures and the teachings of the people who had gone before them.
Which is something else you need to keep in mind, the Apostles who Jesus *directly commissioned* acted on this earth for decades after He was gone. They had disciples and followers, their disciples and followers had disciples and followers, and all the things they did and taught were passed down through the centuries via Sacred Tradition (as well as their own personal writings, some of which ended up in the Bible), which also heavily influenced the acts, rituals, behaviors, and teachings of the centralized Church. So if you *only* read the scriptures, you're missing out on all this history, tradition, and teaching; i.e. the *full experience*.
I'm biased of course because I'm Catholic (and I don't know if the Orthobros have a similar resource, might be worth asking them), but I'll give you a recommendation. If you ever have a topic and you want to know what the teaching of the Church is on it, type it into Google and put 'CCC' behind it. It stands for 'Catechism of the Catholic Church', which is basically a massive compendium of the Church's entire teaching on literally everything. So look up any topic, and see what the Catechism has to say about it. Of course as you well know we're in uncharted territory right now with the sheer amount of jewish subversion in the Catholic Church as well as all the other Christian churches right now, and the kikes are seriously trying to get all this stuff changed and rewritten, as they have been ever since the cessation of Vatican II in 1965. So just keep that in the back of your mind whenever you're researching, and if something sounds too jewish, then it might very well be.
>and now when you read Bible verses you want to reconcile them with what you already know as the truth.
It's not so much as that as it is reconcile them with Church teaching, as I've just previously outlined.
>This is why you often ignore the literal meaning of many passages, but you construct a whole concept out of a very liberal interpretation of some ambiguous passages.
Because as it is oftentimes the case with Scripture, passages that might *seem* literal are not actually meant to be taken that way while passages that may *not* seem literal are really meant to be taken literally. Again, this all falls back onto Church teaching, as well as additional context clues within Scripture itself for the reasons I have previously delineated. I can provide specific examples of this if you wish.
>But the explicit command to not resist an evil person is blatantly ignored
The "turn your other cheek" meme is *the* most often mistranslated and misrepresented verse in the entire Bible. Of course, it should come as no surprise to you that the jews have been the greatest furtherance of this as a way to neuter Christianity.
https://files.catbox.moe/3zs88l.png
https://files.catbox.moe/7y28rm.png
>So why should I trust some creative interpretations of vague verses when you disregard explicit commands?
Because it may not be what it appears to be on the surface. See the previous screenshots. Which, again, is why Church teaching on the matter is so important.
>But please don't always imply that I am not arguing in good faith
Alright, you got me. Sometimes it really does seem to me that the only reason you're even bothering to read Scripture is to find any and all potential "gotchas" so you can attempt to rub us Christians' noses in it. Which is *not* the way to read Scripture. You seem to soften your tone with me at times, but you really go at some of the other people around here. My mere act of typing these things out to you should prove my intentions; I wouldn't waste my time on someone who I thought was incorrigible in their beliefs. I'm still praying for you too as often as I can, so I know that one of these days you're going to be coming around :)
> I'm probably just a bit autistic so I focus on the literal meaning of what's in the Bible.
You're making the same mistake that the pre-Jesus kike pharisees/sadducees were doing, which is a common one. Going to great lengths to keep the *letter* of the law while completely ignoring the *spirit* of the law. Which is why Jesus says of them in Matthew 15, "These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine human precepts..."
How would a jew at the time, being given Revelation as to events taking place in the far future at the end times, been able to express it any differently? Recall the entire concept of a god, particularly *their* God, having *anything* to do with the Gentiles was a completely alien concept to them. This belief was erroneously instilled in their people by the kike pharisees, but instilled it was nevertheless. This is why some of Jesus' hardest teachings for them to wrap their minds around, even the Apostles, was His desire to bring His Word to the Gentiles. So for a jew being granted such Revelation then, he would only be able to quantify it in jewish terms at the time. Thus, the number of 'saved' people are reflected in terms of the tribes of jews. Even under your logic, this can no longer have a literal meaning in today's world because the kikes of today masquerading as the jews of Jesus' time are in no way actually related to them; either genetically, theologically, or spiritually.
>If someone who knows nothing about religion was to read the New Testament for the first time, he'd think that it's about a rabbi who demands to be worshiped like a god
Correct, because He is. The miracles attested to that.
>gets angry at anyone who asks him to prove his claim
He only ever got angry with the kike pharisees and/or people who were merely trying to entrap Him in speech, as well as people arguing in bad faith ("A faithless generation asks for a sign, but no such sign will be given to it"). Nearly an innumerous amount of people who put their faith in Him were cured and healed of all manners of diseases, sicknesses, infirmities, or other maladies. Clearly proving God-like status.
>threatens hell to everyone who doesn't believe in him
Correct, because it's true
>preaches asceticism
Based
>and uses the sense of guilt as a weapon
Lotta people got a lotta things to be guilty about, over all the bad things they've done. But good people are always demonized for pointing that out, yeah?
>I have the feeling that you learned Christianity from a different perspective: through Christian family members or friends or from some good priest, and now when you read Bible verses you want to reconcile them with what you already know as the truth.
It's kind of like that, but not so highly specific. You see, the Scriptures were *never* intended to be the sole basis for the entirety of the Faith, because for as much as is actually there, they are still remarkedly incomplete. This belief, known as *Sola Scriptura*, was entirely a product of the Protestant reformation, which of course occurred nearly 1,500 years *after* the time of Jesus. Prior to that, the unanimous belief of *all* Christians around the globe (and yes, even between Western Catholics and the Eastern Orthodoxy, who had split another 500 years prior to that) was that the basis of the Faith rested on both the Scriptures and the teachings and traditions of the centralized Church. Because both sides, before the Great Schism of 1054 and after, had dozens and dozens of religious councils, together and separate, where the greatest theological minds got together and really fleshed out the beliefs of Christianity. Really figured out what the beliefs, habits, and rituals needed to be based on the Scriptures and the teachings of the people who had gone before them.
Which is something else you need to keep in mind, the Apostles who Jesus *directly commissioned* acted on this earth for decades after He was gone. They had disciples and followers, their disciples and followers had disciples and followers, and all the things they did and taught were passed down through the centuries via Sacred Tradition (as well as their own personal writings, some of which ended up in the Bible), which also heavily influenced the acts, rituals, behaviors, and teachings of the centralized Church. So if you *only* read the scriptures, you're missing out on all this history, tradition, and teaching; i.e. the *full experience*.
I'm biased of course because I'm Catholic (and I don't know if the Orthobros have a similar resource, might be worth asking them), but I'll give you a recommendation. If you ever have a topic and you want to know what the teaching of the Church is on it, type it into Google and put 'CCC' behind it. It stands for 'Catechism of the Catholic Church', which is basically a massive compendium of the Church's entire teaching on literally everything. So look up any topic, and see what the Catechism has to say about it. Of course as you well know we're in uncharted territory right now with the sheer amount of jewish subversion in the Catholic Church as well as all the other Christian churches right now, and the kikes are seriously trying to get all this stuff changed and rewritten, as they have been ever since the cessation of Vatican II in 1965. So just keep that in the back of your mind whenever you're researching, and if something sounds too jewish, then it might very well be.
>and now when you read Bible verses you want to reconcile them with what you already know as the truth.
It's not so much as that as it is reconcile them with Church teaching, as I've just previously outlined.
>This is why you often ignore the literal meaning of many passages, but you construct a whole concept out of a very liberal interpretation of some ambiguous passages.
Because as it is oftentimes the case with Scripture, passages that might *seem* literal are not actually meant to be taken that way while passages that may *not* seem literal are really meant to be taken literally. Again, this all falls back onto Church teaching, as well as additional context clues within Scripture itself for the reasons I have previously delineated. I can provide specific examples of this if you wish.
>But the explicit command to not resist an evil person is blatantly ignored
The "turn your other cheek" meme is *the* most often mistranslated and misrepresented verse in the entire Bible. Of course, it should come as no surprise to you that the jews have been the greatest furtherance of this as a way to neuter Christianity.
https://files.catbox.moe/3zs88l.png
https://files.catbox.moe/7y28rm.png
>So why should I trust some creative interpretations of vague verses when you disregard explicit commands?
Because it may not be what it appears to be on the surface. See the previous screenshots. Which, again, is why Church teaching on the matter is so important.
>But please don't always imply that I am not arguing in good faith
Alright, you got me. Sometimes it really does seem to me that the only reason you're even bothering to read Scripture is to find any and all potential "gotchas" so you can attempt to rub us Christians' noses in it. Which is *not* the way to read Scripture. You seem to soften your tone with me at times, but you really go at some of the other people around here. My mere act of typing these things out to you should prove my intentions; I wouldn't waste my time on someone who I thought was incorrigible in their beliefs. I'm still praying for you too as often as I can, so I know that one of these days you're going to be coming around :)
> I'm probably just a bit autistic so I focus on the literal meaning of what's in the Bible.
You're making the same mistake that the pre-Jesus kike pharisees/sadducees were doing, which is a common one. Going to great lengths to keep the *letter* of the law while completely ignoring the *spirit* of the law. Which is why Jesus says of them in Matthew 15, "These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine human precepts..."
> My mere act of typing these things out to you should prove my intentions; I wouldn't waste my time on someone who I thought was incorrigible in their beliefs.
Thank you for this, I appreciate.
Your post was useful for me to read, I pay attention to what you write.
> You seem to soften your tone with me at times, but you really go at some of the other people around here.
That is because you've always been respectful and polite, while still being firm in your beliefs. Your manly behavior begets respect.
On the other hand when other users start accusing me of being a Jew (which is so ironic to me) or tell me to kill myself, my reaction is to mock them. But I don't take anything personally, I think everyone on here enjoys blowing off some steam.
> Sometimes it really does seem to me that the only reason you're even bothering to read Scripture is to find any and all potential "gotchas" so you can attempt to rub us Christians' noses in it.
I am aware that it may come across that way, but that is not accurate. I have offered a critique of Christianity *in its spirit*, rather than in the letter, multiple times. I quote Scriptures to prove my arguments.
And my arguments are rooted in National Socialism. For example, I totally agree with Richard Darré, and explained his views on this forum.
> I know that one of these days you're going to be coming around :)
Haha, sure :)
I've always felt the same about you. Not just about you, but about anyone on this forum who is both a Christian and claims to have racial consciousness. While National Socialism and Christianity can coexist on a superficial level, which is the case for the masses that do not concern themselves with moral questions, on a deeper philosophical level they present very different worldviews.
I do not want, however, to try to take faith away from anyone who may need it. I'd rather you be strong and healthy and a Christian, than you agreeing with me on some philosophical ideas and being depressed because you can't find meaning in life without Christianity.
> I'm still praying for you too as often as I can
Thank you, I appreciate. I wish you well too. I sometimes think about our conversations in my daily life.
I honestly wish all of us in this forum could help each other, but it's so difficult because of the situation we're in. We're political dissidents so must keep our anonymity, so it's very difficult to form real human bonds.
But who knows.... Maybe one day we'll meet in person for a coffee at the Aryan Spirit café in Third Reich Square in New Berlin ;)
o/
Thank you for this, I appreciate.
Your post was useful for me to read, I pay attention to what you write.
> You seem to soften your tone with me at times, but you really go at some of the other people around here.
That is because you've always been respectful and polite, while still being firm in your beliefs. Your manly behavior begets respect.
On the other hand when other users start accusing me of being a Jew (which is so ironic to me) or tell me to kill myself, my reaction is to mock them. But I don't take anything personally, I think everyone on here enjoys blowing off some steam.
> Sometimes it really does seem to me that the only reason you're even bothering to read Scripture is to find any and all potential "gotchas" so you can attempt to rub us Christians' noses in it.
I am aware that it may come across that way, but that is not accurate. I have offered a critique of Christianity *in its spirit*, rather than in the letter, multiple times. I quote Scriptures to prove my arguments.
And my arguments are rooted in National Socialism. For example, I totally agree with Richard Darré, and explained his views on this forum.
> I know that one of these days you're going to be coming around :)
Haha, sure :)
I've always felt the same about you. Not just about you, but about anyone on this forum who is both a Christian and claims to have racial consciousness. While National Socialism and Christianity can coexist on a superficial level, which is the case for the masses that do not concern themselves with moral questions, on a deeper philosophical level they present very different worldviews.
I do not want, however, to try to take faith away from anyone who may need it. I'd rather you be strong and healthy and a Christian, than you agreeing with me on some philosophical ideas and being depressed because you can't find meaning in life without Christianity.
> I'm still praying for you too as often as I can
Thank you, I appreciate. I wish you well too. I sometimes think about our conversations in my daily life.
I honestly wish all of us in this forum could help each other, but it's so difficult because of the situation we're in. We're political dissidents so must keep our anonymity, so it's very difficult to form real human bonds.
But who knows.... Maybe one day we'll meet in person for a coffee at the Aryan Spirit café in Third Reich Square in New Berlin ;)
o/
Maybe they're the few (actually) decent ones like Nathanael Kapner.
St. Paul was originally not just a jew but a pharisee and the Orthodox churches he founded are infinitely less (((cucked))) than the judeochristian prot fag "churches" here.
St. Paul was originally not just a jew but a pharisee and the Orthodox churches he founded are infinitely less (((cucked))) than the judeochristian prot fag "churches" here.
"Jew" is like "American". I think we can all agree that "American" doesn't automatically mean "white" (unfortunately).
In the same way, "Jew" in the New Testament does not mean "literal blood descendant of the twelve tribes of Jacob/Israel". This can be translated just as fairly as "Judaean" (i.e., a resident of the Roman province of Judaea). Jew in the New Testament is geographical - not racial or even religious.
Both "Jew" and "Gentile" have taken on inherently racial connotations in more recent times that are not supported or intended by the text itself.
As an example, the murderous Herods were actually Edomites (an accursed race), but they were categorised as "Jews" due to John Hyrcanus forcibly converting the Edomites around 135 BC.
Modern archaeology also backs this up: there is increasing evidence indicating that [the Jews today actually have Canaanite DNA](https://archive.is/oLK5q), not the totally separate DNA they ought to have if they really were legit Israelites originating in far-distant Ur. In order to uphold their "true Israelite" LARP, some Jews jump to the conclusion that this means the Israelites must have actually originated in Canaan all along (making the whole Genesis/Exodus account fictional).
The geographical definition of a Jew explains why you'll find various points where the early believers are hiding from "the Jews" despite also being "Jews" themselves in the broadest sense.
When believers speak of converting "Jews", this is very specifically about their race, not the physical residents. In Romans 9, Paul is concerned for his literal relatives ("my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh". Later, God shows Paul that the gospel is also for the dispersed brethren of the tribes ("Gentiles"), not solely for the remnant found in Judaea itself.
There are various examples where a clear distinction is made between God's literal people Israel and those merely residing in the physical boundaries of Israel, Judaea, or Jerusalem, e.g.:
* In Matthew 8, Jesus praises the faith of the centurion, saying "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel" and contrasts the dispersed sheep being accepted with the residents being rejected: "many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness"
* In Romans 9, Paul outs himself as a racist - he's concerned specifically for his racial brethren ("my countrymen according to the flesh"), not the local residents in general, and even says "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"
* You'll surely be familiar with the Synagogue of Satan™ label in Revelation 2:9 and Revelation 3:9, but note this also says "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" - they claim to be legit Israelites by virtue of geography, but they aren't. Sounds familiar, right?
Jesus never tries "soul winning" with His racial enemies. In John 10, Jesus tells "the Jews" that He's here for His sheep. "Sheep = muh Jews", right? Well, not quite. Here, Jesus says the scattered people afar off are *already* His sheep even though He clearly says they haven't even heard about Him yet - but Jesus then says His enemies in Judaea are not His sheep. Jesus says the reason why His enemies do not believe is because they are not His sheep (rather than what we might expect, that they simply haven't "become sheep" because they don't believe).
In the same way, "Jew" in the New Testament does not mean "literal blood descendant of the twelve tribes of Jacob/Israel". This can be translated just as fairly as "Judaean" (i.e., a resident of the Roman province of Judaea). Jew in the New Testament is geographical - not racial or even religious.
Both "Jew" and "Gentile" have taken on inherently racial connotations in more recent times that are not supported or intended by the text itself.
As an example, the murderous Herods were actually Edomites (an accursed race), but they were categorised as "Jews" due to John Hyrcanus forcibly converting the Edomites around 135 BC.
Modern archaeology also backs this up: there is increasing evidence indicating that [the Jews today actually have Canaanite DNA](https://archive.is/oLK5q), not the totally separate DNA they ought to have if they really were legit Israelites originating in far-distant Ur. In order to uphold their "true Israelite" LARP, some Jews jump to the conclusion that this means the Israelites must have actually originated in Canaan all along (making the whole Genesis/Exodus account fictional).
The geographical definition of a Jew explains why you'll find various points where the early believers are hiding from "the Jews" despite also being "Jews" themselves in the broadest sense.
When believers speak of converting "Jews", this is very specifically about their race, not the physical residents. In Romans 9, Paul is concerned for his literal relatives ("my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh". Later, God shows Paul that the gospel is also for the dispersed brethren of the tribes ("Gentiles"), not solely for the remnant found in Judaea itself.
There are various examples where a clear distinction is made between God's literal people Israel and those merely residing in the physical boundaries of Israel, Judaea, or Jerusalem, e.g.:
* In Matthew 8, Jesus praises the faith of the centurion, saying "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel" and contrasts the dispersed sheep being accepted with the residents being rejected: "many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness"
* In Romans 9, Paul outs himself as a racist - he's concerned specifically for his racial brethren ("my countrymen according to the flesh"), not the local residents in general, and even says "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"
* You'll surely be familiar with the Synagogue of Satan™ label in Revelation 2:9 and Revelation 3:9, but note this also says "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" - they claim to be legit Israelites by virtue of geography, but they aren't. Sounds familiar, right?
Jesus never tries "soul winning" with His racial enemies. In John 10, Jesus tells "the Jews" that He's here for His sheep. "Sheep = muh Jews", right? Well, not quite. Here, Jesus says the scattered people afar off are *already* His sheep even though He clearly says they haven't even heard about Him yet - but Jesus then says His enemies in Judaea are not His sheep. Jesus says the reason why His enemies do not believe is because they are not His sheep (rather than what we might expect, that they simply haven't "become sheep" because they don't believe).
> You'll surely be familiar with the Synagogue of Satan™ label in Revelation 2:9 and Revelation 3:9, but note this also says "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" - they claim to be legit Israelites by virtue of geography, but they aren't. Sounds familiar, right?
No, they claim to be legit Israelites (i.e. Jews) by virtue of their blood. This is clear if you read John 8: first Jesus acknowledges that the Jews who want to kill him are blood descendant of Abraham, and then he says that (spiritually) they are the children of the devil *because they rejected him*.
Rev 2:9 and Rev 3:9 can be understood by carefully reading John 8.
I'm afraid I'll have to strongly disagree with you saying that the term "Jew" refers to geography. Jew means that one is a blood descendant of Jacob and the 12 tribes.
In fact, in the book of Esther Mordecai is referred to as a "Jew" of the tribe of Benjamin, who lives in Susa. Susa is very far away from Judea, and he lives there, but he's called a Jew because he's a descendant of Benjamin.
No, they claim to be legit Israelites (i.e. Jews) by virtue of their blood. This is clear if you read John 8: first Jesus acknowledges that the Jews who want to kill him are blood descendant of Abraham, and then he says that (spiritually) they are the children of the devil *because they rejected him*.
Rev 2:9 and Rev 3:9 can be understood by carefully reading John 8.
I'm afraid I'll have to strongly disagree with you saying that the term "Jew" refers to geography. Jew means that one is a blood descendant of Jacob and the 12 tribes.
In fact, in the book of Esther Mordecai is referred to as a "Jew" of the tribe of Benjamin, who lives in Susa. Susa is very far away from Judea, and he lives there, but he's called a Jew because he's a descendant of Benjamin.
I should have been clearer when I said Jew as in the New Testament.
Back when America was founded, "American" was implicitly a white man, likely a literal descendant of the early settlers - but this changed over time to be anyone of any race who merely lives within the physical boundaries of the US. In the same way, Jew was originally a strict racial, tribal definition (i.e., a Judahite - of the tribe of Judah specifically).
After Israel split into two kingdoms, a Judahite became a racial Israelite dwelling in the kingdom of Judah (who might be descended from any of the twelve tribes). This is how you see Jew used in Esther etc. during/after the exile - not always the tribe of Judah,
but it was still implicitly racial.
By the New Testament era, Jew had shifted to be a vague religious/geographical label. We see this in how the Herods are called Jews despite being Edomites (who are not even descended from Jacob, let alone Judah).
As for Jesus calling the Jews Abraham's seed, this is true but I think you're confusing Abraham and Jacob a bit here. Strictly speaking, Israelites were literal blood descendants of the man Jacob specifically, not merely his grandfather Abraham - so as with the Herods, one could be a "Jew" (from Abraham) while not actually being an Israelite.
Abraham fathered Isaac and Ishmael - but Isaac was the heir of the promise, and Ishmael was rejected. The Arabs today have descent from Abraham, but not from Jacob.
Isaac fathered Esau (aka Edom) and Jacob (aka Israel) - but Jacob was chosen, and Esau was rejected. Like the Ishmaelites, Esau's descendants the Edomites have descent from Abraham, but not from Jacob.
Various secular histories cover times when groups known to have no descent from Jacob became "Jews" through religion or geography. Some had descent from Abraham, but that wasn't a requirement either.
The DNA study I linked to lines up with this - the Jews themselves have acknowledged at various points that they have some descent from Esau/Canaan/etc., making them "Jews" religiously (Judaism) and geographically (their ancestors lived in Canaan), but but not in the actual, literal sense of being blood descendants of the patriarch Jacob.
Back when America was founded, "American" was implicitly a white man, likely a literal descendant of the early settlers - but this changed over time to be anyone of any race who merely lives within the physical boundaries of the US. In the same way, Jew was originally a strict racial, tribal definition (i.e., a Judahite - of the tribe of Judah specifically).
After Israel split into two kingdoms, a Judahite became a racial Israelite dwelling in the kingdom of Judah (who might be descended from any of the twelve tribes). This is how you see Jew used in Esther etc. during/after the exile - not always the tribe of Judah,
but it was still implicitly racial.
By the New Testament era, Jew had shifted to be a vague religious/geographical label. We see this in how the Herods are called Jews despite being Edomites (who are not even descended from Jacob, let alone Judah).
As for Jesus calling the Jews Abraham's seed, this is true but I think you're confusing Abraham and Jacob a bit here. Strictly speaking, Israelites were literal blood descendants of the man Jacob specifically, not merely his grandfather Abraham - so as with the Herods, one could be a "Jew" (from Abraham) while not actually being an Israelite.
Abraham fathered Isaac and Ishmael - but Isaac was the heir of the promise, and Ishmael was rejected. The Arabs today have descent from Abraham, but not from Jacob.
Isaac fathered Esau (aka Edom) and Jacob (aka Israel) - but Jacob was chosen, and Esau was rejected. Like the Ishmaelites, Esau's descendants the Edomites have descent from Abraham, but not from Jacob.
Various secular histories cover times when groups known to have no descent from Jacob became "Jews" through religion or geography. Some had descent from Abraham, but that wasn't a requirement either.
The DNA study I linked to lines up with this - the Jews themselves have acknowledged at various points that they have some descent from Esau/Canaan/etc., making them "Jews" religiously (Judaism) and geographically (their ancestors lived in Canaan), but but not in the actual, literal sense of being blood descendants of the patriarch Jacob.
Toast message
Go back to torah study Shlomo
Please enlighten me, how do the 12 tribes work?
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pharisees-sadducees-and-essenes
IF kikes actually followed the torah they would stone kikes that practiced kabbalah, which is where you get the word cabal. It's simply the occult and kabbalah is now part of their religion. A religion based on the Pharisee Cult that later adopted the occult as legitimate. A newer religion than Christianity and not an older one and only a kike would claim it was the same religion as the original "Israelites".
The Sadducees were from Levi. Some of them could even trace their lineage back to Aaron, the brother of Moses. At least they had a claim to operate the temple and perform sacrifice.
The Pharisees and scribes NEVER had any claim on the blessings God promised to the RIGHTEOUS Israelites who accept Jesus. Jesus is explicit about this in his own words, especially near the end of his mortal ministry, where he literally says that the jews are from Satan.
Meanwhile, the Samaritans, likely the descendants of Joseph, were well-accepted by Jesus and even used as examples of righteousness in his parables. He announced his mission publicly for the first time to the woman at the well -- a SAMARITAN.
The jews had already hardened their hearts against the plain teachings of Moses and Jesus exposes that fact. The religion they invent hundreds of years later has no relation to what God gave Moses or the prophets. In fact, it is the exact opposite of it!
The Star of David is a middle fraud as the Britannica will tell you. It was the Star of Chiun called Remphan in the time of Jesus. Everyone knew it referred to Saturn and the Star of Chiun was outlawed for Israelites to use at Amos 5:26.
The entire idea behind Judaism is to become like their god Saturn. Duality, good and evil, a law unto themselves, do what thou wilt is the whole of the law. as above so below. Saturn ate his own children and they killed their own children with Moloch sacrifices. They actually hate their god, which is why they say g_d. They love Lucifer which is an honorary title they invented. Lightbringer. Satan never gets a name in the bible. Satan means adversary, he disguises himself as a messenger of light and only his rank is told, morning star. Stars were a lower rank angel. Jesus is the bright morning star in Revelation. I always took this as perhaps the angel of the Lord is to angels as Jesus is to us. The word, the mouthpiece avatar of God so that his lcreatures can understand and relate to him.
Judaism is a perversion of everything the true Hebrew religion stood
for and it's why a fraudulent oral Torah replaced the Torah. All the books after that showed jews were NOT cart blanche chosen who could do what they wanted. Even kings were laid low if they sinned. It's why they don't even know Jesus was supposed to be crushed for our iniquity from Isaiah. Babylonian Talmud (oral Torah) and kabbalah (the occult) is their religion.
Jews are told all other humans are subhuman, the Orah Torah is the true message of g_d and kabbalah is how you become like g_d. Jews were given witch hats to wear for a reason. They were witches.