Yeah I do see you point for sure. I suppose it’s the problem with specific literal interpretations as opposed to allegorical. I’m a non denominational, and would I say ‘liberal’ Christian, that abhors religion in a spiritual sense, but find it very interesting in a traditional sense. Yeah, make what you will of that haha.
I’m going to go on a bit of a rant here, and will try to paint a picture of how it may have worked (correct me if I am incorrect)
These ancient sects were bound by “the law” which initially started out as the 10 commandments. Which I think we can all agree are good standards to live by.
The tribe of Judah were the priests and officiators of the law. To more “perfectly” live the law, they created 600+ other laws over time (a few hundred years).
These laws were what all the other tribes of Israel were subject to and were bound to the consequences of breaking those laws. Breaking these laws resulted in various levels of punishment. The breaking of the worst laws was destruction of those “to the third and fourth generation” meaning, fathers, children, and children’s children.
The supposed etymology of amalek is “those that lick blood”, whether that means the blood of animals, sacrifices or humans is not mentioned, but the eating of blood was strictly Prohibited under the law “and whosoever eats it will be cut off”. In So doing this they are subject to the consequences of the law as stated above.
Super fast forward to Jesus, he came to fulfil their laws, and gave his own life and spilled his own blood so that none of the consequences under the old law further apply and imho anyone trying to enforce those consequences is in violation of this fulfilment. Since modern Judaism doesn’t accept Jesus and instead wanted to cling to their old laws instead of this fulfilment, they are breaking their own laws...
And so if this guy says it’s Germans that are amalek and they are trying to enforce a consequence that no longer applies, then he is a fucking retarded faggot.
Yeah I do see you point for sure. I suppose it’s the problem with specific literal interpretations as opposed to allegorical. I’m a non denominational, and would I say ‘liberal’ Christian, that abhors religion in a spiritual sense, but find it very interesting in a traditional sense. Yeah, make what you will of that haha.
I’m going to go on a bit of a rant here, and will try to paint a picture of how it may have worked (correct me if I am incorrect)
These ancient sects were bound by “the law” which initially started out as the 10 commandments. Which I think we can all agree are good standards to live by.
The tribe of Judah were the priests and officiators of the law. To more “perfectly” live the law, they created 600+ other laws over time (a few hundred years).
These laws were what all the other tribes of Israel were subject to and were bound to the consequences of breaking those laws. Breaking these laws resulted in various levels of punishment. The breaking of the worst laws was destruction of those “to the third and fourth generation” meaning, fathers, children, and children’s children.
The supposed etymology of amalek is “those that lick blood”, whether that means the blood of animals, sacrifices or humans is not mentioned, but the eating of blood was strictly Prohibited under the law “and whosoever eats it will be cut off”. In So doing this they are subject to the consequences of the law as stated above.
Super fast forward to Jesus, he came to fulfil their laws, and gave his own life and spilled his own blood so that none of the consequences under the old law further apply and imho anyone trying to enforce those consequences is in violation of this fulfilment. Since modern Judaism doesn’t accept Jesus and instead wanted to cling to their old laws instead of this fulfilment, they are breaking their own laws...
And so if this guy says it’s Germans that are amalek and they are trying to enforce a consequence that no longer applies, then he is a fucking retarded faggot.