Are You With Family This Christmas? NAME THE JEW YOU FUCKING COWARD!!!
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
Any Christian who can't reconcile that with their Nationalist views will never be taken seriously outside of their little echo chambers.
The disciples and Jesus hid, and did not speak openly of Jesus, for fear of THE JEWS. A people apart from their own. An adversarial group. A group they were not a part of. They hid for fear of THE JEWS, not of their own kin.
> 2 Samuel 2:4: "Then the men of Judah came to Hebron, and there they anointed David king over the tribe of Judah."
> Matthew 1:1-2: "This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob..."
> Hebrews 7:14
"For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah..."
"Muh Israelites." Yeah, there *were* twelve tribes of Israel, which were apparently distinct groups, but the tribe of Judah is the one specifically from which we get ethnic Jews, literally in the name. Jesus is explicitly stated to trace his genealogy through this line.
> Luke 2:21: "On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus..."
> Luke 2:41-42: "Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom."
He was circumcised and celebrated Passover.
> John 4:22: "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."
Jesus himself identifying with the Jewish ethnic group.
> 1. John 1:38
"Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, 'What do you want?' They said, 'Rabbi' (which means Teacher), 'where are you staying?'"
> 2. John 1:49
"Then Nathanael declared, 'Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.'"
> 3. John 3:2
"He came to Jesus at night and said, 'Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.'"
> 4. Mark 11:21
"Peter remembered and said to Jesus, 'Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!'"
> 5. John 9:2
"His disciples asked Him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?'"
Rabbi.
> John 4:9
"The Samaritan woman said to Him, ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?’"
Presented without comment.
It's all right there, bro. I'm not the schizo for believing what the text plainly says to your face.
However, they rarely elaborate this point to people who express your understandable confusion, instead laughing you off in scorn for not knowing their little inside joke.
This is why I always point out the very specific tidbit of Jesus being an *ethnic* Jew, which he was.
Recommend listening to the Stone Choir: Hebrews, Israelites, and Jews series. It's made for a Christian audience upfront, but still a digestible deep dive on the topic which is where I learned the most about it.
Notably, even they don't deny Jesus being a racial Jew, but still reconcile that with their case.
Which is the only thing I'm advocating for here, because trying to say Jesus wasn't a racial Jew is utter nonsense.
https://files.catbox.moe/ykfrf8.png
The kikes were *there* in Jesus' time, and they had done what kikes always do. Subverted their way to the top (pharisees et al.) and were corrupting all the common people below. The reversal of which was literally Jesus' entire mission here on earth. But they were very markedly a *different group of people* than everybody else.
So you're saying the group of people in biblical times referred to as Jews who practiced circumcision, followed the levitical law, and subverted their way up through society don't have so much as a chromosome in common with the group of people referred to as Jews who practice circumcision, follow the levitical law, and subvert their way up through society today?
In a stroke of cunning, are the so called "Jews" of current year only *playing* at having an obsession with genital mutilation, in an attempt to better connect themselves to the story of 1 Samuel 18, wherein King Saul has David bring him the foreskins of 200 slaughtered Philistines in exchange for his daughter?
How did they have circumcision wrong in the Old Testament? I literally just read through the passage in Genesis where God orders Abraham, his children, and his servants to be circumcised in the flesh of their foreskin as a sign of the covenant. Further, how do we know that this practice is "radically different" today?
> Like I said, the kike element was always there (their leaders such as david the adulterer and bloodthirsty warmongerer, and solomon the moloch worshipper are examples of this) but they did not make of the entirety of the jewish ethnic group until all the other "good jews" up and bailed.
Do you mean to say David was not one of the "good jews?" He is described as a man after God's own heart, and credited as the author of the Psalms.
>How did they have circumcision wrong in the Old Testament?
>He speaks moreover concerning our ears, how He hath circumcised both them and our heart. The Lord saith in the prophet, "In the hearing of the ear they obeyed me."(10) And again He saith, "By hearing, those shall hear who are afar off; they shall know what I have done."(11) And, "Be ye circumcised in your hearts, saith the Lord."(12) And again He says, "Hear, O lsrael, for these things saith the Lord thy God."(13) And once more the Spirit of the Lord proclaims, "Who is he that wishes to live forever? By hearing let him hear the voice of my servant."(14) And again He saith, "Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth, for God(15) hath spoken."(16) These are in proof.(17) And again He saith, "Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of this people."(18) And again He saith, "Hear, ye children, the voice of one crying in the wilderness."(19) Therefore He hath circumcised our ears, that we might hear His word and believe, for the circumcision in which they trusted is abolished.(20) For He declared that circumcision was not of the flesh, but they transgressed because an evil angel deluded them.
A brief excerpt from Ch. 9 of the Epistle of Barnabas. I would heavily suggest you read the whole thing, as well as the entire Epistle. It is very eye-opening, which is why it has been heavily suppressed over the centuries.
>I literally just read through the passage in Genesis where God orders Abraham, his children, and his servants to be circumcised in the flesh of their foreskin as a sign of the covenant
One thing you need to keep in mind whenever reading the OT was that more often than not, kike hands wrote it, not jews'. The book of esther from front to back is the penultimate example of this. Meaning that whatever words are written will be written in typical kike fashion; making them look the best and their enemies look the worst regardless of the truth. Constantly backing up every last thing they say and do regardless of the truth. Always portraying them in the right and everyone else in the wrong. Again, see the book of esther. Once you become proficient in recognizing this behavior in modern jewry you can see it all laid out countless times in the OT. Is the entire OT bad? No, but you have to be *really* careful with it and cross-reference everything therein with a complete record of the *actual* truth about them that we know in the modern day. This is a long way to say that the kikes/jews got the original direction from God wrong. Which was a common thing for them to do, that I can provide plenty of additional examples of. To add one final example, at the end of Galatians it says that if you are circumcised than "Christ will be of no use to you". Does it make sense for God to have instituted such a practice only to "change His mind" and declare the exact opposite later? Many times do we see this scenario between the OT and the NT. It's not because God "changed His mind", its because the kikes got it wrong in the first place.
> Further, how do we know that this practice is "radically different" today?
Ironically, the best and most informative anti-circumcision piece ever created was made by a jewish man named Eric Clopper and was delivered as a lecture at Harvard, where he was a research professor. He was immediately fired by (the also jewish) president of Harvard the day after giving it. Again, I would highly recommend you watch the whole thing in its entirety, but I'll summarize because I don't mind holding your hand here. Prior to the destruction of the temple in 70AD, the jewish practice of circumcision only removed about a third of the foreskin, and was considerably less damaging than the current practice, which is to remove all of it. And the kikes will sometimes go at it with their teeth and fingernails too, as I'm sure you're already aware. None of that was done prior to judaism being mutated into its current form.
>He is described as a man after God's own heart
Remember what I said about kike hands writing the OT. Of *course* they're going to say that. But what are the facts, the real record of truth? David himself was an unapologetic adulterer. Did you see any of the Apostles going out and doing things like that? Some say that is merely the human condition, but I say it goes further than that. You didn't see the most important Christian leaders ever going out and living lives of debauchery.
>and credited as the author of the Psalms
I *like* the Psalms, they're pretty good. Bad people can still do good things. All I'm saying is that we just need to keep everything in mind when it comes to what we're dealing with, or when it comes to scriptural study.