You forgot to mention Mikhail Borodin, jew. Adding u/Hey11
Mikhail Borodin born Mikhail Markovich Gruzenberg arrived in China in 1923 and reorganized the Kuomintang (KMT) along Leninist lines, transforming it from a loose coalition into a centralized, disciplined party structure.
Adding to u/TallestSkil comment, Mikhail Borodin, a jew born Mikhail Markovich Gruzenberg from Yanovichi, Belarus, arrived in China in 1923 and reorganized the Kuomintang (KMT) along Leninist lines, transforming it from a loose coalition into a centralized, disciplined party structure.
Mikhail Borodin founder of Mexico, Spain and China’s communist movements, was Jewish.
Grok: Yes, Mikhail Borodin (born Mikhail Markovich Gruzenberg) came from a Jewish family in Yanovichi, Belarus. He joined the General Jewish Labour Bund at 16 before switching to the Bolsheviks in 1903, later acting as a key Comintern agent in Mexico, Spain and China.
It’s the jews.
They may control most of the money, but that doesn't mean they run the World. At least not by themselves. If that was the case we would read in Genesis 3:15 something like this: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between the jews and her offspring...”. But, it's not what it says. IMO, not all serpent offspring are jews, but all jews are the offspring of the serpent.
Who rules the World? IMO, the 13 satanic bloodlines. But, they rule the World on behalf of their masters, The Fallen.
It has to be blood. It goes all the way back to Genesis 6
Maybe the royal bloodlines aren't fully human after all? and that could be the real reason they're called "satanic bloodlines".
Scott Jennings said he had 17 minutes conversation with Mitch McConnell
I've heard of someone having an hour long conversation with a vegetable. That happened right before he was carried away to a mental hospital.
IMO, it's not something new and novel, goes back to Elohim and DNA manipulation on humans.
Jews were the descendants of Abraham
Of course Jews aren't children of Abraham, because there is no such historical person. Just like there was no Moses. These are just made up stories and fictitious characters.
Our stories about Abraham and Moses developed as late as the Hellenistic period. The dating of the Hebrew Bible is a topic that remains unresolved. Many traditions and myths found among its pages are old indeed, but the text itself did not reach its final form until the Hellenistic period. If this claim is false it should not be hard to disprove. A single manuscript find could change everything, but I'm not holding my breath. Dr. Gad Barnea a historian at the University of Haifa, after examining every surviving Jewish document from the Persian period, recently stated that there is literally zero evidence for any knowledge of, and any familiarity with the Bible at that time. We may not know how far back the stories of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Esther, Daniel and other Bible heroes go. All we can say is that no one seems to have written anything down about them until after Alexander the Great and his Empire introduced Greek literature philosophy and culture to the near East.
"Scholars are divided on the existence of many of the great figures of Israel. I myself don’t believe there was a historical Abraham, Moses, or Joshua, for example (or if they did exist they were basically nothing like the figures described in the Hebrew Bible)." - Bart Ehrman, October 24, 2013
bomb a girls school twice to double sure they are dead
Maybe they bombed the girls school, waited 40 minutes so some parents show up looking for their daughters, then bomb again. To make sure parents get killed as well. 🤔
There is no such "folio 56-D"
My only point was about the number, commonly known as 2800 slaves. OP stated 3000. I think you, as a Jewish apologetic, missed my whole point. In my opinion Jews control the whole world through domination of Hollywood, Sports, Nobel Prizes, Medicine, media, politics, hi-tech & internet companies, television, radio, music and almost every other endeavor. And of course Jews completely dominate banking, this how they print money out of thin air, then lend it with usury to non-jews. That allows them to control everything else I just mentioned. Jews believe by the time their Messiah comes the Jews will be so rich and powerful they can all afford 2800 slaves, of course they call them "house servants".
those who don't convert to the Jewish God will go to hellfire, which is exactly the Christian position too
I was tempted to say two wrongs don't make it right, but I don't think you're correct. Judaism does not promote conversion but does, on the other hand, believe that the Jewish people have the duty to help establish the Noahide Laws. Jews believe they are the chosen people, the Noahide Laws extends God's protection outside the realm of Judaism so that non-Jews will also have a share, a small part that is, in the world to come. But, only if they follow the Noahide Laws.
give each Jew 3000 Gentile Slaves
“When the Messiah comes, every Jew will have 2800 slaves.” (Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D). So, the Talmud claims that every Jew will have 2800 (gentile) slaves.
Unfortunately Kabbalah teaches all non-israelites are slated to be exterminated, they have no place in the world to come. So, the Jews are commanded to exterminate all non-Jews.
will easily surpass 200k this year
Then what's stopping you from buying. Today bitcoin price is around $67K. You could more than triple your profits if you buy now.
the deep state want to exploit all these conflicts as much as possible
Of course they want to exploit them. Why else would they create conflicts? psyops before and during a war are very common. This is how you get a neutral state to join the war, and this is how you keep them in the game.
In other words worse than a jew.
What is “white privilege”? how do you define it? do you consider being "hated by jews" a privilege? if so, than note that's called Loxism.
Trump's policy is the same as Biden's, Obama's or Bush's policy. And many US presidents before them, all the way back to 1948. Maybe with the exception of JFK. That policy is Israel First.
Until that changes I'll look at US military as nothing more than an extension of IDF.
Yup, that would do it to you. So would skin bleaching.
Jesus didn't.
Maybe your Jesus didn't. Never mind Jesus that most people know (and that includes many Christians) never once claimed to be god. But, hey... you could easily take something out of context to "prove" that he did.
I know you don't consider anything I say to you worthwhile, and I'll leave you with this thought. If it's worth pointing out the issues with your god and your Jesus, how about risking your entire evangelical plan off mainly a group of teenagers that followed you around? well, this is the story of your Jesus and his disciples. Or the risk of not telling them the very same information that supposedly you're going to tell Paul a few years later causing insane division confusion that trickles down to this day between the Christian sects and denominations who can't figure out the difference between being saved by works and grace. You know what was a gamble Paul relying on half of your New Testament to come from one man that never met you physically and then choose to have his letters that he writes in very different moods to very different specific Church groups and call that doctrine for all? There are many, many issues with Paul and yet this is God's singular bet for Gentile conversion which is the vast majority of everyone that will ever live. It's laughable. Well, your Jesus is not my Jesus.
Heavens declare
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." - Psalm 19
I didn't know you were into flat earth. Nothing wrong with that, we don't have to accept everything we're being told. But, as a Christian apologetic, which is what you are, I bet you don't even think there's anything wrong with taking things out of context. As long as it serves your purpose/objective, promote your god and belief system. I just gave you a couple of examples from OT which proves Yahweh of the Bible is not a true god or carer, any father could confirm that. But, I can give you 30 more examples and still talk only about the OT. However, if you're willing to use "god is going to know the outcome of every scenario", because he has perfect knowledge and knows every outcome, and if you want to go with that, that's fine, but that produces way more problems.
Then the creator has the decision of how to structure the world so that freewill creatures will choose good and so that evil will be limited
I assume the Creator to you is the God of the Old Testament. You call him Yahweh, but feel free to correct me. This god by the way shows to have omniscience as he is constantly, at least in the OT, surprised, regretful and angered all of a sudden. So, this God of the Bible who is supposed to be the example of the good father I see so many problems to the degree of which I have to say this God is simply willing to gamble with his creation his children's well-being their lives and worse their souls. This god Yahweh is not limiting evil, he's amplifying evil throughout the entire OT. I think allowing the serpent adds kind of unnecessary gamble. And all of this leads to which is the problem of evil God allows a world of evil and suffering to exist and still hopes that people can find their way to believing that he is a good god which is necessary for people to believe in, to worship him and follow him and put trust in him. Many people myself included are more than willing to accept that there could be a god out there. And many people like myself immediately remove this God, Yahweh, from the possibility of that because he is either not the good god he says he is, thus refuting his claims in the Bible and making himself falsifiable, or he's straight up evil and not worthy of my worship or not trustworthy of my devotion.
But when we start saying we know better both how many people are unsaved in this universe and how many people should have been unsaved in a more perfect universe, we're playing God
I'm not saying that. People have different opinions of what means to be saved, I think that's obvious. To me it makes no sense for a good father to decide he's going to flood the whole world. Why? because things got away from him he regretted the creation that he made. Even though it was made exactly how he intended it to be with his perfect form knowledge. If we're going to again attribute these things to God that's problematic in and of itself but the bet is that the world would be better that Humanity 2.0 would somehow get it right and he lost that bet immediately in the sense that Noah sinned almost as soon as you could sin. As well as his sons and from there it simply did not get any better. So all that genocide all that murder all that suffering all those animals all those babies all those women all those people who were collectively not horrible and evil paid an awfully hefty price for God's 2.0 gamble that failed as soon the flood receded. If you still don't see a problem with this god, wait for the next one, and we're only in Genesis.
How about the Tower of Babel risk? Yahweh who claims himself to be not the author of confusion purposely confused people creating new languages and scattering them around the earth and what's the gamble here? these people will still be able to find him even though he's not going to appear to most of the places on Earth for a very very long time, if at all. And that he's only going to give his holy scriptures in three of the many thousands of languages relying on humans to be able to translate them and spread them around this large Earth. He didn't provide for anything that would be necessary to overcome these odds. We didn't get the printing press for millennia nor did we cross the oceans. There was simply no hope for the vast majority of all people who have ever lived because of this decision, this bet from God. I hope that by now you're seeing failure after failure after failure. And the best thing you can do especially if you're parent is just compare yourself, really compare yourself, with God. I don't care how bad of a parent you think you are I can almost guarantee you you are miles above this God.
If you know so much about right and wrong, propose a moral law yourself and go about doing right and getting right done, instead of criticizing those of us who are doing it
I'm only proposing people use common sense. If you had just two children and they were going to be 100% dependent off of you for their survival and their eternal fate would you raise them each with their own language so that they could not communicate or work together? and then would you provide them the instructions for how to live life and find you in a different language than those two with simply no way to access it? because that's what this God did.
You're talking about moral law, how about this. And I'm willing to be wrong on that, if you can show me something different, I will correct myself. But my understanding is that Lot's oldest daughter convinced the younger daughter to join her in an incestuous relationship with their father to perpetuate the family lineage. Both daughters conceived sons by their father by getting him drunk. So, Lot's eldest daughter with Lot has a son named Moab the ancestor of the Moabites. Where we get Ruth and Ruth and Boaz are the great grandparents of King David. And we know through King David we get the lineage of Jesus. So if I'm understanding everything correctly, Jesus is 100% a descendant from this ancestral rape again bringing forth the literal nature of these stories instead of some metaphorical moral truth.
I'm not criticizing anyone, just point out the facts. I'm not even sure what you mean by "criticizing those of us who are doing it". What exactly are you doing?
Why does anybody have to be perfect, if we supposedly have free will? why would this God you're talking about, think that his creation would still find him to be a perfect Creator despite his very flawed creation? that's a pretty big risk. And for many of us it has been a huge swing and a miss, we could look at the free will experiment again. People often just put God in a box and say he had to give us free will because he didn't want robots. Well, Heaven already messes that idea up but let's not forget this is an all powerful God he can do whatever he wants and he chose to create a system with free will. This is truly probably the the biggest bet that God is going to place risking that his children will have the option to choose sin and death, and Hell supposedly, and kind of in between these first two with the Eden setup. This is going to be a huge gamble for us where God places a literal test for the first two beings that he creates, Adam & Eve. Everything is perfect that's how God supposedly wants it and he's going to give them the opportunity to fail. But he didn't just allow this one test to exist, he stacked the odds by allowing whatever the serpent is supposed to be something there to further the temptation, the ease of access to this tree the labelled the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Why so easy access to death? and is knowledge so wrong? even the fact that he didn't give them the knowledge of good and evil before, thus eliminating their actual awareness of what was at stake, there's a thousand other ways that God could have tested his creation without creating the fall of man.
It's so obviously just a mythological story and I don't think you fall for it. But if you're going to take it as literal truth then its implications for today is that we are still broken creatures in need of a Savior, the perfect Jesus Christ, as you allude to. However, you first have to answer for why would this God risk so much, but keep in mind there's been about 120 billion Homo sapiens that have existed. If we believe that each of them are imbued with the soul and each of them was born with this sinful nature damning them to Hell from birth unless they properly somehow find and do and believe just the right thing then that first bet with the tree and the garden of Eden becomes the most disgusting gamble and risk for any God of all time.
Salvation
Salvation is this weird concept, to believe that human beings are evil by nature and need to be saved. How about convince people that human beings are not evil by nature? because the viciousness of this concept is followed by they create the Problem, they Agitate the masses, then they Propose the solution. So, is that the salvation of mankind must be the destruction of mankind. So they have Christians and to a lesser extent most Jews who are atheists, so they're not involved in. But to a lesser extent the Cabalists and the Islamic faith all working towards the destruction of humanity based upon the myth that Humanity must be killed to be saved.
So, typical Hegelian dialectic. Thesis: human beings are evil by nature. Antithesis: without God, Yahweh or Allah humans go straight to Hell. Solution: save mankind through the destruction of mankind (Armageddon/nuclear holocaust). Worship (accept/believe) Jesus, Mohamed, Yahweh and obey us (Church, Mosque, Synagogue) or be condemned.
you're citing PBS and Nova as if they're "contrary to the establishment's narrative"
🤔.... I didn't think you would have any issues with PBS and Nova. Okay, feel free to take it apart.
You're also upholding Islam
I'm not sure what gave you that impression, but if I'd agree with you then we'd both be wrong.
I told you Manetho mentions the name Moses
I'm sure you're aware none of Manetho’s original texts have survived; they are lost literary works, known only from fragments transmitted by later authors. What I said, the historical context of Moses in the Bible is that he is considered a legendary figure, although some scholars believe that a Moses-like person may have existed in the southern Transjordan in the mid-to-late 13th century BCE.
you are running so many contrary stories at once
What? I'm not running any stories. I'm just stating the facts, no contemporary Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of the Exodus, and no archaeological evidence has been found in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure. The institution of the law in ancient Israel has turned up nothing. The assumption that Moses is the founder of a nation is sorely lacking in evidence. Ancient records are silent about Moses inscriptions. Seals and other texts from ancient Israel and Judah never mention Moses or any of the other Israelite patriarchs. Records from the Babylonian and Persian periods say nothing, the ancient coinage from the province of Judah/Judaea says nothing. The Elephantine Papyri from the Persian era Judeans and Israelites in Egypt show zero awareness of Moses and the Torah. The same goes for the Hermopolis Aramaic letters, Papyrus Amherst 63, the Padua Aramaic papyri and so on.
It appears you are not someone interested in pursuing the truth at all costs, but only in popularizing narratives that advance a reactionary agenda (denigration of Christianity, also Judaism)
Why? because I'm daring to suggest that Moses was not a historical individual? I realize that today it is daring to suggest that our stories about Moses developed as late as the Hellenistic period. The dating of the Hebrew Bible is a topic that remains unresolved. Many traditions and myths found among its pages are old indeed, but the text itself did not reach its final form until the Hellenistic period. If this claim is false it should not be hard to disprove. A single manuscript find could change everything, but I'm not holding my breath. Dr. Gad Barnea a historian at the University of Haifa, after examining every surviving Jewish document from the Persian period, recently stated that there is literally zero evidence for any knowledge of, and any familiarity with the Bible at that time. We may not know how far back the stories of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Esther, Daniel and other Bible heroes go. All we can say is that no one seems to have written anything down about them until after Alexander the Great and his Empire introduced Greek literature philosophy and culture to the near East. So what about Moses? we mainly know of Moses from the books of the Pentateuch. The book of Deuteronomy is thought to tell the oldest version of his story with Exodus Leviticus and Numbers being later accretions. The story they tell is filled with improbable and fantastic elements not to mention historical anachronisms and internal contradictions that indicate a work of creative literature.
That's about halfway through so I'll leave it there
I'm not sure why you're doing this, but, you're welcome to finish it whenever you feel like.
If your purpose is to debunk Judaism (and perhaps Christianity)
I'm not trying to debunk anything. I'm just stating a fact; there is no direct archaeological or written evidence outside the Bible that confirms the existence of Abraham and Moses.
- Abraham: No direct archaeological proof of his existence has been found, although some scholars suggest that an Abraham-like figure might have existed around 1800 B.C.E. If we are to hypothetically say Abraham existed, then Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian. But he was a monotheist, a Muslim. So this is what Muhammad is saying. A Muslim is someone who believes in God as the only true God. And that includes Jews and Christians.
- Moses: No texts or artifacts in Egypt or the Sinai have been found that directly connect to Moses.
I wanted to link Carol Meyer's interview, but looks like it has been scrubbed. Anything that people might find believable and that is contrary to the establishment's narrative is being pulled off in no time at all. Same goes for the program "Bible's Buried Secrets", no longer streamable: "(This program is no longer available for online streaming.)". However, the landmark two-hour special NOVA's scientific journey titled "The Bible's Buried Secrets. An archeological detective story traces the origins of the Hebrew Bible" is still available for viewing on YouTube.
Have you heard of Mikhail Borodin who played a crucial role in organizing both the early Guomindang and Chinese Communist Party?
Mikhail Borodin, a jew born Mikhail Markovich Gruzenberg, arrived in China in 1923 and reorganized the Kuomintang (KMT) along Leninist lines, transforming it from a loose coalition into a centralized, disciplined party structure.