Templar crosses. An expression of papal loyalty.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (177)
sorted by:
Dear Handshake HARZKP814
You quoted me all over the place but you still did not deal with the actual text.
You claim Romans 11 is only about “Hebrews” and not applicable now.
That is false.
Paul the Apostle wrote Romans after Yeshua, to Gentile believers, warning them in real time.
Romans 11:17–18 (Amplified Bible) “But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive [shoot], were grafted in among them… do not boast against the branches… it is not you who supports the root, but the root that supports you.”
That is not Old Testament. That is not “ancient Hebrews only.” That is a direct warning to Gentiles in the Messianic age.
So your claim collapses immediately. Then you twist it into “so nobody can criticize Jews ever.”
No. That is you building a strawman because you cannot deal with what the text actually says.
The warning is about arrogance and replacement, not banning criticism. And here is the part you keep avoiding. Romans 11:1 (Amplified Bible) “For I too am an Israelite…” Paul believed Yeshua is the Messiah and still identifies as Israelite. IMAGINE THAT.
So your whole framework of “Hebrews back then vs fake Jews now” does not come from the text. It comes from you forcing the text to fit your narrative. Which means you're a liar.
You quoted everything. You just did not understand what you quoted. Bbfn
No, I'm saying 'some of the branches' are Hebrews. Not the European ashkeNAZI people that arrived on a boat. And the Root is Jesus, is it not?
That's what you implied, yeah. Thanks for expanding your position.
What about when it says the jews are "contrary to all men" ?
Speaking of arrogance, most modern jews are very arrogant, such as thinking they can outsmart God.
Matthew 3:9
Ok.
Israelite. So the Temple was around?
Yes, he BELIEVED IN YESHUA. Not the talMUD, not secular.
It comes from seeing their actions today and John 8:39. Also Paul was being a true Jew (Hebrew) by belief in God's Son. Which modern jEWs do the exact opposite of.
Projection, there is nothing about the ashkeNAZIs in the verses you mentioned.
HARZKP814 Before I respond, I need you to fully understand something.
What you’re doing follows a pattern. I call it the Lucifer phases of deception. They’re simple see below.
PHASE 4: REDEFINING CORE TERMS
You said “these are Hebrews, not modern Jews” Show me where Romans 11 makes that distinction. It doesn’t.
You inserted a new definition into the text. Then you argued from that definition as if it came from Scripture. That’s not reading the Bible. You're rewriting it.
LUCIFER’S DECEPTION PHASE 2: STRAWMAN CONSTRUCTION
I said “do not boast against the branches” You turned it into “so nobody can criticize Jews ever” That’s not what I said.
You replaced my statement with a weaker version so you could attack it. That is not an argument sir, that is substitution.
LUCIFER’S DECEPTION PHASE 6: BOUNDARY OVERRIDE
This is where your argument actually breaks. You are merging two things Scripture keeps separate. Ethnic identity Spiritual condition
You are saying if they don’t believe, they stop being Jews entirely. Then explain this. IN Romans 11:1 “I too am an Israelite…” Paul believes Yeshua is the Messiah and still says “I AM an Israelite” PRESENT TENSE.
So answer this. Did Paul stop being an Israelite when he believed?
Yes or no.
LUCIFERS DECEPTION PHASE 1: FORCED CATEGORIZATION
You split everything into two boxes. “real Hebrews back then” “fake Jews now” Again, show that split in the text. Not your interpretation. The text. You can’t and you know it. Because it’s not there.
Last but not least.
You are not pulling meaning from Scripture. You are inserting meaning into it. You changed definitions. You replaced what was said. You merged categories. That is the pattern. That is how deception works. Now you’ve seen it. Good day.
I just showed you HOW Lucifer has you doing his work for him. Yes you are currently right now being manipulated by a demon. Bummer right?
If we were to be very gracious and exempt a million Jewish people who believe Jesus is the Messiah, even though they consider themselves Jews and the rest of Judaism does not reject them unless they are judged individually as having "converted" (which isn't the same as merely believing Jesus is the Messiah), that hypothetical definition would only get us so far as to define "Jew" by religion and not ethnicity and would not implicate all such "Jews" (men, women, and children) as being either nonethnic or criminal.
In particular, Ashkenazi Jews have Jewish heritage dating back to Temple Jews (Ioudaioi) even if there was some immixing. If Americans can tell Jews they're not Jews, then Jews can tell Americans they're not Americans (which is exactly what you imply you don't want them doing); so your argument "not Jews" contains seeds of your own destruction at the hands you claim to despise. That is you're arguing exactly as you say a Jew argues.
So the evidence that the Ashkenazi arose at some point in history from a people without any Jewish birth/conversion integration is totally missing. At the same time, simple surname evidence indicates that most all named any form of Cohen (note, Khazarian "Kagan"), Katz (Kohen-Tzedek), Levi, or Sacerdote have heritage back to the Biblical Levi, and several names have heritage back through second temple Judah to the Biblical Judah, such as Abravanel, Berdugo, Charlap, Dayan, Epstein, Horowitz, Luria, Shaltiel, Spira, Yahya. Netanyahu and Schneersohn claim heritage from gaon Elijah Zalman, others from Rashi or Isaac Luria. Obviously many Ashkenazim do not have such extensive genealogies handy, and many with the best surnames don't have the genealogy handy either, but this much would suffice for any nation to claim continuous heritage against the claims of outsiders. DNA evidence agrees.
1 Thess. 2:15 "contrary to all men" is spoken by a Jew to other Jews about a different subset of "the Jews" "in Judaea" (14), not about all Jews, nor even about all unbelieving Jews. Here are some Biblical descriptions that don't and that do apply to all Jews generically.
I appreciate that you are mostly moderate and not stretching the criticism to those who are innocent of it (e.g. children). You are mostly keeping good pace and not falling into traps that others have who deal with this subject. If you were able to offer historical evidence comparable to the above to advance the thesis that one nationality (yours) has the right to deny the nationality of another ("Jews'"), you might get somewhere; but seeing as nobody ever does then it might be wiser to tone it down and stick to actual facts.