In Revelation 7 Jesus puts his mark of protection on 144,000 Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel. This will protect them from the 5th trumpet that unleashes locusts that look like horses with human faces and female hair and crowns and breastplates of iron and tails with stingers like scorpions.
These monsters torture everyone except those 144,000 Jews that were protected by the seal. It is then revealed that these 144,000 are all Jewish incels, and they have been redeemed.
So why did Jesus decide to save these Jews, and not the goyim?
This is odd. Also odd is that the only time the goyim are especially mentioned in this book is in Revelation 11:1-2. These verses say that the goyim are not admitted in the temple of God with "its worshipers" (which are presumably all Jews). The goyim are left outside and treated differently.
This reminds me of Matthew 15:24-26, where Jesus refers to us goyim as dogs.
I think the goyim can still be saved (at least those who let themselves be killed in the name of Christ - it's unclear if other goyim will also be saved), but why does Jesus give special privileges for the Jews?
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.
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..."
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/
Appreciate it. It's good to know that I'm not *always* shouting into the void...
>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
Yeah, I guess I understand. I should after all; I've been called a glownigger jew fed enough times to understand.
>I am aware that it may come across that way, but that is not accurate.
You've engaged with me enough that I don't really think you're *consciously* doing it, but I do think you *are* doing it unconsciously at times.
>I have offered a critique of Christianity in its spirit
Herein lies the problem. The modern aberration you see before you is fundamentally *not* Christianity. Not in the slightest. It was not the Christianity of our fathers and their fathers; it is not the Christianity of the Knights in the Crusades, and it is certainly not the Christianity that built Europe. You are correct to critique and deride said aberration, but you incorrectly ascribe this modern condition as being the historical norm. And this is far from the truth.
>I quote Scriptures to prove my arguments.
The devil can quote Scripture; that is nothing special. The Bible is *the* single most often mistranslated, misquoted, and mistaken work out there today. I might have mentioned it to you before, but if there's one thing I've ever told you that you heed, it's that you really need to read the book *The Sword of Christ* by Giles Corey. He is jew pilled, he is race pilled, and wrote his book accordingly. I promise you, your outlook on things will not be the same after reading that book. I'm almost finished with it myself, and it has vastly exceeded my expectations.
>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 really don't think they do. Well, excluding the modern aberration of course. That book I mentioned contains some of the writings of soldiers and religious figures at the time of the First Crusade, and to them there was no separation of race and religion and the pertinent worldviews thereof.
>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.
Yeah, I feel that. I do wish we could get along a lot better internally too, instead of chimping out at each other all the time. Which is why I have always tried my best to connect with people like you that may not see eye-to-eye with me, because I'm a very firm believer in being the change you want to see in the world.
>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 ;)
I would very much enjoy that; I really would. My biggest regret is that I'll never get to meet all the niggerfaggots around here IRL. Unfortunately, I just do not see any conceivable reality in which I survive the inevitable forthcoming conflict, if I even make it to then. I am convinced that we will win, just that I won't be around to enjoy it. But I do greatly value all the time I've spent with everyone around here over the last few years.