your first assumption. That there was such thing as a brown skinned Jew in year 0. There wasn't. You had black Hebrews. Like all the Egyptian slaves, you think they are tan brown, right? All historians agree, right. Wrong. The Jews stole the Hebrew identity and inserted themselves in history. The entire middle east race of light brown people was created by white slaves and black power, then by black slaves and white power. Just because the majority of historians agree with something doesn't mean it's true or even more likely. It's a belief system that has more followers, that's all. Do you know what a logical fallacy is? There are many different ones, believing the experts is call "appealing to authority.". It unscientific human nature. Try and see that and you can grow into your next mind. Looks like it's coming for you anyway, you're on to it.
How can this be true? Well, first read "from Hebrews to negroes" if you want to argue what I've regurgitated from when I read that book. The book will not make you question your faith in Jesus, so don't worry about that
.
The jews stole the Hebrew identity and inserted themselves in history.
a) Identical implies "same"; being implies different from one another. What if a jew tricks gentiles to hold onto identity, thereby behave alike, while ignoring to be differentiated from one another?
Wouldn't that permit a jew to change likeness at will aka switching in-between identities aka shape-shifting?
b) Where is his-story stored? What if a jew suggests a story to tempt consenting gentiles to store it within mind/memory, while ignoring that nature moves and cannot be recollected?
c) If he-brew the same (identity), then what different ingredients does he use?
d) If HE BREW HIS STORY within a gentiles mind, then that implies cook/coquere - "turn over in the mind"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/cook
What if steering the pot (circular vessel) implies the use of suggested information to misguide the course of circular logic?
e) What if a chosen one cannot insert self into others without ones choice inviting in? Consenting to a suggestion sounds like an invite...
your first assumption. That there was such thing as a brown skinned Jew in year 0. There wasn't. You had black Hebrews. Like all the Egyptian slaves, you think they are tan brown, right? All historians agree, right. Wrong. The Jews stole the Hebrew identity and inserted themselves in history. The entire middle east race of light brown people was created by white slaves and black power, then by black slaves and white power. Just because the majority of historians agree with something doesn't mean it's true or even more likely. It's a belief system that has more followers, that's all. Do you know what a logical fallacy is? There are many different ones, believing the experts is call "appealing to authority.". It unscientific human nature. Try and see that and you can grow into your next mind. Looks like it's coming for you anyway, you're on to it.
How can this be true? Well, first read "from Hebrews to negroes" if you want to argue what I've regurgitated from when I read that book. The book will not make you question your faith in Jesus, so don't worry about that .
a) Identical implies "same"; being implies different from one another. What if a jew tricks gentiles to hold onto identity, thereby behave alike, while ignoring to be differentiated from one another?
Wouldn't that permit a jew to change likeness at will aka switching in-between identities aka shape-shifting?
b) Where is his-story stored? What if a jew suggests a story to tempt consenting gentiles to store it within mind/memory, while ignoring that nature moves and cannot be recollected?
c) If he-brew the same (identity), then what different ingredients does he use?
d) If HE BREW HIS STORY within a gentiles mind, then that implies cook/coquere - "turn over in the mind"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/cook
What if steering the pot (circular vessel) implies the use of suggested information to misguide the course of circular logic?
e) What if a chosen one cannot insert self into others without ones choice inviting in? Consenting to a suggestion sounds like an invite...
So you agree?
aGREED or disaGREED implies ones desire to possess, which corrupts ones potential to express.
Should I speak in Spanish so you don't over analyze my words?