God is using everyone's Masonic ties for good, just as he uses the evil intents of ten Israelis for good (Gen. 50:20). And yes, I count credible evidence that a person has taken a secret oath as a "strike" meaning a grain of salt to be taken as seasoning in their presentation. There are some horrid secret oaths out there, but even many legal NDAs that are comparatively innocuous have the same problem. A human should be accountable to swear in public what he has sworn in private, or public swearing becomes jeopardized (like "swearing on a stack of Bibles", which Obama literally did, long story there). And yes, there's evidence that Masons got an influx of power in that period around 1800.

Now the only reason I brought that up was that if I get two of my red flags right next to each other, it's only fair for me to let you know I find those two a significant (not necessarily probative) part of the evidence, even if you disagree with my holding. The research itself stands or falls on its own, and since I've already given many objections to it separately I was trying a different method in this thread and seeing what I could affirm; but I thought it necessary to give you fair warning of what I saw. For that reason I'm not going to go into the evidence about events over 6,000 years ago, because it's not a matter of likes but of objective analysis that I've already published. I just said that Washington and Carlson and Muhammad should be judged on the whole of what they did, and if the judgment is that one made one mistake and another made many mistakes then that's not a double standard, because it's based on the whole of the evidence.

Nor did I associate any of this with you except for light allusion to your credulity, which is your own decision and not someone else's.

TLDR: Good sources are determined by the whole of their testimony in word and action, as any conspiracist should agree.

To return, I think the point ought to be that there's no problem with regarding God's symbol of bull, ram, fish, man (and the others) as significant primary indicators, nor with regarding his earth-shaking events as aligning with beginning of Taurus, end of Taurus, and beginning of Aquarius (garden, flood, tribulation rapture). This might inform why Carlson wants to see in the selected data other conjunctions with eight cardinal points in the precession cycle. But I reserve the right to say "Lincoln's secretary wasn't Kennedy" when the joke goes too far. And when we get to predictive power, I should have said the model predicts either extinction of civilization and perhaps life, or nothing happening different, or mass awakening to greater reality. And that's like the doctor who predicts the disease will either get worse, stay the same, or get better. So I seek models with the greatest explanatory and predictive power ....

Thanks for the tip. Since you banned me from there, this is not a "core religious principle" at all, this is just a rando rabbi who recognizes that Rebecca was strong enough to water many camels and mature enough to give informed consent to an arranged marriage (see the text), but who also believes the strand of tradition that says she was three (other Jewish traditions say 13 or older) and doesn't want to abandon that. Note that it would be understood by all the original audience in Near East culture that arranged marriage is only a betrothal, to be consummated sometime after maturity. The rabbi also acknowledges, without elaboration, that the standards are different today.

We cannot infer that everyone who talks about the history of arranged marriage (including me, when I try to be objective about the past) automatically is promoting pedophilia. If there were a pointer to something creepy going on that would distinguish this case from the ordinary historian trying to speak objectively about marital customs (like Westermarck), that would be different. The account framing says "tries to justify ... sex with a 3 year old girl", but every historian knows that's a false framing. In fact, since there was a tradition that barrenness should not be judged until the 10-year mark, and Isaac wasn't concerned about barrenness until the 20-year mark, that is taken as evidence that he had no relations with her for 10 years (and may inform the 3-year-old tradition too). So if there's anything creepy it's the person who posted it and misinterpreted it prematurely. The person who jumps to pedophilia whenever any old Near East arranged marriage is being discussed objectively poisons the well to forestall us from punishing real pedophiles who abuse and kill their victims.

Also there is no list of 109 countries and no objective methodology on how many expulsions there were; when objective methodology is used, there are only 12 modern countries, regions of 10 others, and a handful of other regions that vary by count but don't reach 109; and the expulsions overall become similar to those of Christians, Roma, and Muslims.

Sincere question: If the Orthodox were the true church because the Pope excommunicated Patriarch Michael I in 1066 1054, why wouldn't the Greek Melkites be the true church after the Patriarch excommunicated Patriarch Cyril IV in 1724? Or more generally how do we know one branch is favored over another or whether both are favored differently?

Do you have a special revelation from the Spirit of Jesus Christ that a whole class of living Homo sapiens has sinned unto death irrevocably? Even if so, John doesn't say to stop praying for them, he only says that he gives no advice about that special case. But first you'd need to have evidence your judgment is a true special case and not just a knee jerk.

There is much archived on this, many tangents, so I appreciate your direct answer to the question I asked.

Nope, Jesus didn't hate "the Jews" because he was Jewish and saved millions of Jews who called on him, and it wasn't "the Jews" collectively that repurposed the temple but individual merchants who were rejected by the populace who championed Jesus's work. I guess we could say they had made it a "cursed bank" since it became a public treasury of corban overseen by a clan of Zadokites (Sadducees). Capitalism and free market were not the problem, statist central control was the problem.

Yeah, I have thalidomide in my extended family, there's a perfect conspiracy that became fact after the briefest of theory cycles.

Oh, I'll be happy to go there, especially in Conspiracies. The founding fathers who were Masons had some secret goals that are included in our Great Seal and that continue Masonic purposes. Judging by their acts (the same way I judge Trump), they accomplished much good and God used them in spite of their religious issues. Plus, the actual oaths taken had not acquired the much deeper character that evidences Masonic oaths today, but that's ultimately irrelevant. George Washington cannot be accorded 100% approval because of this blot; but he did so many things well (unlike other secret swearers) that we recognize God's hand in putting him there in spite of himself.

If I were to spin the conspiracy theory, we have (1) America was founded not just to become a model republic but also to have backdoors to allow the actual satanists to "build" (masonry) in the misleading name of "religious liberty", as shown in their neo-Greek statuary including Washington as Zeus, and the apotheosis of Washington among 13 virgins in the capital dome art; (2) These backdoors allowed the two Banks of the United States, which by God's grace Andrew Jackson won against but which diverted their resources into overpowering influence in the 1850s; (3) Many Masons, and many Jews, and some others such as bankers worked closely together to create the Civil War conditions such that South Carolina would be tempted into following the example of Lexington and Concord except that it would backfire on them that time (evidence in Chiniquy, and in public Masonic codebooks, and in anti-Mason literature to the degree its facts can be verified); (4) Skipping the Fed and WWI-II, it's clear that many Masons and others have exploited liberty to create the world's largest-ever trafficking network (including abortion) and that the government has never restrained it, Rev. 18; (5) It's not clear that MAGA necessarily will succeed in dismantling the satanic work utterly as opposed to ripping off expired superstructures as satan is always prepared to do (his new sacrificial virgins), which is why I've said before Trump arrived that the current beast will eventually (always) be replaced by a worse beast until our Lord comes. The question is how much true believers can get done during their respite before the next crisis, which is why I operate here.

I appreciate your pointing out perceived double standards, it keeps me sharp! (I would also appreciate, and remind myself, that we both want to work on collegiality as students comparing notes. I suppose my view on cyclic catastrophes has made it hard for me to do that lately.)

Jesus completed the work of suffering in our place, and has not completed the work of preparing our eternal habitation. Judaism does teach that Messiah has been prepared from eternity, which in some readings indicates eternal existence, and it does teach that Messiah may be someone already born (which is why Schneersohn was revered) and maybe even someone who already died who would need to rise from the dead (I can look up that quote if you like). Judaism even has official known strands of Suffering Messiah theology and Is. 53 interpretation, which it naturally suppresses as if by "bad conscience". It doesn't mean that they teach Jesus was not Messiah, it means Maimonides finessed the question for a very long time by pointing out that Jesus hasn't completed the full work of Messiah yet, with which we agree in his terms (no Messianic Age yet). In that official finesse they are agnostic about whether Jesus's crosswork is actually part of the Messiah's work or not; it's unrevealed to them. And that's where they need to see themselves to be able to receive our good news, and where many secular Jews are when they accept the good news and become Messianics (Christians).

I'm not trying to get smart, I'm giving my accurate view after a long consideration and after working in Hebrew roots. I do believe as a covenantalist that Christianity benefits by a full understanding of the OT context, and I do accept that others have subverted Hebrew roots to divert church members into legalism and I warn against that and accept the confusion about my motives; but aside from promoting my local Christian distinctives like everyone else does because they're local to me, I have no agenda and will happily do Jesus's work alongside any brother. I appreciate your continuing to extend me good faith to the degree you're able. If the Church's view on Jewish evangelism should take some other tack, then because I work for Jewish evangelism I'll support that tack.

So, yeah, I didn't intend to exclude by my statement, I would also accept an official teaching that Jesus is not God if there was one. To try to avoid by saying "no mere man can be God" doesn't help them because they know we teach Jesus was no mere man. There are enough hints in official Judaism that God has some aspect of plurality in him, and that there are certain manifestations of his energies (notably the Torah) that have Deity in them in some sense, that we might be able to build with them on it. It's not that the rabbis agree Jesus is God, it's that they avoid the question entirely, and when they discuss God's manifestation they use the complexity of Ezekiel 1 et al. to defer the question of what it looks like when God manifests "as a man". They simply refuse to develop the theology, knowing the risk to them of deigning to investigate in any way beyond their safe boundaries.

Jew tells rabbi "My son went to Israel and came back a Christian". Rabbi says "Funny you say that, my son did the same, I'll ask the chief rabbi". Chief rabbi says "Funny you say that, my son did the same, I'll ask God." God says "Funny you say that ...."

(And my joke about taxpayer money is: I'm getting paid twice as much for this comment, twice nothing is nothing. I'm public as a volunteer for Scott Lively's SwampRangers.com for 5 years, we have a very orthodox confession there.)

So for Jews the continuity of their existence is very really tied up with the avoidance of the question, and Messianics get disowned and have a double challenge of not being counted Jews and often not being counted Christians. After centuries of being persecuted when their constituents insult Jesus, they cannot afford to make a halakhic ruling against Jesus or even for him in any way! That's the only way I can explain the lack of evidence. It's mystifying and so I totally understand if it's confusing at first; very few churches major in Jewish evangelism and it's always a culture shock. But at any rate I'm thankful for your presence here and your seeking to understand, and in Christ we know that we will get to the same page on it someday (I take that literally from Eph. 4:13).

Freemasons take secret oaths. Taking a secret oath is a deliberate individual judgeable act, and not guilt by association. This forum is pretty hard-set against secret oaths (with the Muslims getting the brunt lately, but Kol Nidre comes up a lot too). They have the same problem whomever takes them. I told you I could hold out, do you want me to find a third strike or something? I suspended judgment, so if you think it's a double standard because I refer to something every member knowingly does (as opposed to attributing some fault of the leadership of a system to every innocent person in the system), then we can discuss that further if need be.

The other charge, that he lied, I accepted your statement on being a likely sour-grapes onetime associate. However it's odd that the second person we find that actually supports this theory calls the first person a liar. Almost like it's revelation of method, but I suspended judgment on that too.

From a broad search I selected only those people that I personally know have given much Christian fruit in my experience. To be able to judge your experience versus mine we'd need to establish agreed standards of judgment. "Did you want to establish how you can be sure a birth Jew has fully embraced his confession of Jesus Christ as God and Lord so that we can make it a more formal debate?" Is it impossible for a birth Jew, or is there a standard the church can use to be sure they are not subverters? Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Great summary and thanks for letting the thoughts simmer as I am continuing to think through yours. That does crystallize the question such that I would only make the distinction that many individual Jews regard Jesus as a false messiah but Judaism as a system does not have an official position on his messiahship. (The official position is that the Sanhedrin did offer him all rights during his trial, and that nobody has completed all the works of Messiah yet, but it says nothing about his power to complete them.)

So I give indivdual Jews credit unless they enunciate their disregard for Jesus: I do not charge them with being in a system where disregard for Jesus is tolerated and not yet officially acted on, in exactly the same way I do not charge any church members with being in a system where sexual sin is tolerated and not sufficiently officially acted on. (Pick which group of Christians you think has the highest per capita sex offender rate among clergy, I don't know which, and compare that situation.) Because I don't entertain individual accusations against elders (even in Jewish or secular organizations), I extend them trust that they're working on it, with what help they may accept from us, as long as no official statement is made.

My challenge to everyone stands: Find a congregational rabbi or rabbinical org that teaches that Judaism requires rejection of Jesus as Messiah. I tried, and others have tried, but it hasn't come up. Tovia Singer was brought up, he's an antimissionary (there are a couple other notable ones) who takes the title "rabbi" but he does not have a congregation or a right to determine collective Jewish halakhah AFAIK. The fact that antimissionaries believe Judaism should take the position you describe indicates that it doesn't actually take that position formally. So at the same time as I understand your attributing the position to Judaism, I patiently decline to judge that case when no evidence has been presented by anyone despite search.

Turns out the debate trailed off suddenly after I asked some questions and proposed some agreements.

My short list of Messianic Jews also went unanswered.

tone policing ... my language doesn't capitalize nouns

Touche! My bad. All the same you're in a forum and platform where very many use collectivist language like "the Jews did" to mean a charge against every man, woman, and child. So I'll be happy to trust that you're not intending that, and not worry about it unless some other intent manifests clearly.

What Jesus meant in the plain sense in Rev. 2:9, 3:9 was clearly historically defined by the very interesting letters of Ignatius (which I anticipate Orthodoxy reveres). Ignatius described exactly those two cities as hosting a group of Gentiles who talk about Judaism and not Jesus Christ (Philadelphians 6:1). This was about 12 years after Jesus prophesied concerning them, and we can infer from Ignatius that they did literally worship at his feet in repentance just as Jesus prophesied. (What Ignatius literally said was that they received his personal preaching and need no further criticism, indicating repentance, 6:3; and that they thought his Spirit-revealed information was humanly orchestrated in relation to their schism, indicating their being shocked by the miraculous revelation, 7:2.) I'd been praying for decades to know what happened in those two churches that Jesus was prophesying about, and then suddenly he revealed it to me and I wrote that summary.

Now those who care little for Ignatius or history have for some time used "synagogue of satan" in a very different sense that is very little related to Jesus's words or primary intent, even though he knew this twist of language would happen. I don't think he wants me to countenance letting the language slip when the history is so clear, so I point out the reality to people. There is very truly a broad work of satan to infiltrate many, and to poison the Jews in very special ways, and in the article I indicated the seed of discerning seven different works of satan warned against in Rev. 2-3, among which the infiltration in Rabbinical Judaism is a single hydra head. Analytically I warned that those Jews who are satanists are more likely best categorized as a "dwelling of satan" because they reflect Pergamum syncretization. That part may be semantic, but I find it necessary to direct people away from collectivism.

The whole point of being jewish is "othering" non-jews aka gentiles.

I don't think so; Moses repeatedly said love the stranger as yourself and have the same law for the stranger and yourself. Othering is imposing collectivism on outsiders. "Gentiles" is the ordinary word for nations, which I showed applies to the nation of Israel too. There are many cases in the Bible and Talmud where Jews or Gentiles insult other people-groups; Jesus is accused of doing it by parabolically comparing the Syro-Phoenician to a dog, and by calling Pharisees vipers. I believe direct accusation like that is only justified by reference to immediate evidence at hand and not to an unstated narrative (racism); and it should never include the innocent (e.g. children) with the guilty. So we shouldn't tell Jews they're not Jews, and Jews shouldn't tell whites that Jews count as white and not as white as convenient.

many of them are probably not descendent from the tribes of Jacob

I've asked for evidence of that and it doesn't come from either Khazaria or Edom (which were intermarriage mergers) so I don't think there is any.

Yeah right. They never expressed anti-Christian sentiments

I didn't say that; I said that anti-Christian sentiments were never made a point of Jewish theology, even though they circulated among the people. The closest we have is the "blessing" against the "minim", which doesn't mean Christian but any separatist, sectarian, or apostate. Though some would have used it conscientiously against Christians, that would be an individual judgment of the speaker separating himself from Christianity, and we don't have historical showing that that's what was intended. What we do have is a debate of "minim" with Rabbi Simlai, in which the minim are not proto-trinitarians at all but are indistinguishable from gnostic tritheists! Well of course we agree with cursing tritheists!

they are wary of being caught in the act

Absolutely! And on this point we should not judge formally without catching them in the act; that's the same credit the Church gave heretics. But I don't know an anathema against Jews, only (mostly Roman) restrictions.

many jews who converted admit blaspheming Christ is a usual occurrence in their gatherings

I respect that testimony. Individuals will be judged, but judging the system is about judging what it does directly by delegation, not by what people do in it individually.

They're known to spit at the sound of our Lord's name.

Yes, some believe in the nonverbal demonstration of purity from alleged idolatry. The individual who judges a Christian will be judged; but the rabbis distance themselves from the individual's judgment. I suppose if we caught the rabbi defending the judgment of Christianity as idolatry, that might meet my standard, but they generally don't.

Maybe I'm wrong to give them this much credit based on the fact that their Scriptures and traditions should point them to Jesus the Messiah and the goal of sharing good news by allowing them the environment to discover it for real. But as long as they toe a minimum standard, one which has kept Jewish-Christian relations from spilling over against them, I don't believe in more belligerence.

Don't conflate the Abrahamic hebrew tradition (which is Christianity) with the sect of Judaism.

All the faithful Israelites believed in Messiah's coming and can indeed be called Christian. And Rabbinical Judaism can indeed be called a sectarian, but the two sides split in the fog of war (primarily in 68 when Messianic Jews fled Jerusalem and Temple Jews stayed, as Jesus prophesied) so I wouldn't put schism on either at that point. But (as Catholics and Orthodox claim the same church history) Jews and Christians claim the same covenant history. It seems to me enough Catholics are doing right to keep the name alive (you might disagree), and it's unlikely enough Rabbinical Jews are openly doing right to keep their name alive (but about a million Messianic Jews are doing right), but the dilemma is very similar. So even as I grant them access to the same tomb of Abraham as myself, I'm aware not to conflate.

No Christian has a duty to respect judaizers who misinterpret Scripture and twist the truth.

Correct, Judaizers meaning legalists of any kind, but not Judaism when it should mean the true original faith of the Jews. When Rabbinical Judaism misrepresents and twists, we can politely criticize, and be heard if we have their willingness to listen.

They apostatized and rejected their own Messiah (I'm talking about the ones that did aka rabbinical Judaism)

But see, after hundreds of the rabble repented to Peter and became charter Orthodox Christians, the perpetuation of the Pharisaic system into Rabbinical Judaism never took a side against Jesus. In fact, Hillel the Pharisee ruled as Sanhedrin president (nasi) on behalf of all Jews that Judaism's official position is Wait And See. (And Maimonides respected that for all his talk about Jesus.) The Pharisees who became Christians merged into the polity of the Christianity of all nations; the Pharisees who didn't tried to preserve Hillel's stance and maintain a temple-less system under great provocation, and God by his grace let them have a flickering flame to do so. For the praise of his glory in revealing the truth in this generation, BTW. So I should probably frame it that way: the official Jewish position has never departed from Wait And See, even as individual later rabbis (I only know of one for sure, Ulla c. 300) did personally reject Jesus directly.

I never said anything about liberty.

Granted, that was Paul. So you mean a transformation (fulfillment) from symbol to actualization in Jesus. Now, I ask people to consider Jesus's other clause, nonabolition ....

Temple worship was appropriate until the Church was established.

I find no evidence that it was inappropriate afterward either, or that non-temple traditions were inappropriate, if people accepted them willingly, from the heart, and with gratitude for what God had revealed and trust in what was yet to be revealed. If Jesus was revealed to a person who knowingly rejected the revelation, that's not trust in God; but many Jews today stand in the same position as remote unreached peoples in that their culture has insulated them against getting any meaningful revelation about the good news of Jesus, and so they have not provably consciously rejected him. Paul says someday they will get it, the light will come on en masse, and the day of resurrection will be at hand; and I can participate in that process.

why don't we observe it as the jews do

Because the Law is received voluntarily: all Noah's family received his laws for their people (everyone), and all Moses's family received his laws for their people (the Jews). As the Recabites show, as well as Romans 14, anyone who volunteers to take on a higher law is welcome to do so on the same terms of having (receiving) a regenerated heart seeking God. Jesus came to volunteer to keep the highest law and then to take the penalty for those who broke the simplest law. I asked God about this for decades and finally realized that the Torah was never a "have to" situation for anyone; all keeping of any law, simple or complex, is because we "get to" (that's Christian liberty, unto law).

worshipped according to the NT, not the Torah

Torah practices remained an open question in the church for about 300 years; Quartodecimans and Ebionites and others tried to work out the harmony, though some went overboard. The bishop of Rome tried once to impose a Gentile Easter, but blessed Irenaeus stopped him and counseled diversity in nonessentials. In the fourth century the bishop of Rome tried again and succeeded in quelling most all Jewish-related rituals, suspending the discussion of proper harmony by fiat, which is one reason the other four pentarchs started making the case against him as you're familiar. So "not the Torah" was not a testimony of the primitive church, only the Constantinian Roman faction, which was tolerated by the East until a time it could be settled.

I'm from Eastern Europe and slaughtering and eating lamb is an well known Pascha tradition.

God bless, and more power to you! Now, surprise, I reveal to you something unknown but that doesn't conflict with your tradition. By continuing Jesus's symbol of eating an innocent lamb and symbolizing our innocence in union with him, you are in fact doing just what Moses described as sacrifice. I'm unfamiliar with whether your region also uses bitter herbs as Moses said; I presume you use unleavened bread for the Divine Liturgy; and the exact dating has long been a quibble; but you're offering an animal to God and communally partaking of the symbol of innocence, which was his point. And, Levitically, it's the one cookout that is permitted to be done in the absence of a temple. So it would be an affront to do it in a church, but in a home it's something that can be given to God and prayed over and received. When Abel and Jesus and Paul had animal sacrifices offered, it was not an affront, because it was by faith; God always says the affront is when it's not by faith, but to seek personal merit and self-righteousness.

the world was made anew so everything changed.

That's a theory of law; when I looked into it I found several NT passages indicating a different theory, that the change was not about what we gratefully respond to God with, but it was in the fact that the perfect life of righteousness had been completed. What had been prophesied for our righteousness was now made certain by the revelation of the event. And when it happened nobody changed their practice of law immediately; they kept doing the same things they had done before. (The most salient thing they kept doing that took on new meaning was the havdalah meeting that Jews had kept for centuries before Christ, on what we call Saturday night, closing the Sabbath. Acts makes clear that this meeting, particularly at Troas, is what was transformed into the Sunday morning service over a few decades. That is no real change at all to a tradition inspired by the Mosaic Sabbath, it is only a movement from nonregulation to regulation.)

There were other changes, like the harrowing of hell that improved the status of those righteous in sheol, and the suddenness of the new church's growth. The pre-fallen human nature, made certain by Christ's death and resurrection, appears to be something that was always available to the righteous in the OT too: it's the regenerated spirit. There is a change of language associated with that; often but not always the OT has the Spirit "with" or "on" and the NT has the Spirit "in" the believer. But it appears the new heart is the same in Moses (Deut. 30) as it is in the NT.

The jews of Acts 15 were part of the Church and they were allowed to continue OT worship but that was provisional and circumstantial and only applied to the very early days of the Church.

Paul agreed with that ruling; it was the first Orthodox Council; and for 300 years it was used by all of the Hebrew-roots groups of Christians. And its removal via Rome was sus. So I'm not confident that Scripture or tradition reveals that it was provisional, circumstantial, and temporary. The text literally says they can learn Moses any Sabbath, even though many (I did too) read it as implying they can't learn anything more from Moses any Sabbath.

We all share the same faith, rituals and sacraments.

Except that the Church cuts deals with various subgroups to give them different cultural traditions (the 17 autocephalous Orthodox churches); or when it differentiates Byzantine from Western Rite. When I realized that both the Orthodox and the Catholics did that, and made distinctions among themselves, I felt a lot better about both the Protestants and the Hebrew-roots Christians.

the physical was fulfilled and transcended in Christ and the spiritual was left.

And I say the physical is also left to us despite the transcendence also appearing alongside it. We are to make the best physical we know, and I believe that learning what Jesus himself practiced is the best practice for being ready to serve his pleasure both now and at this return. The idea floating around that there is no physical left, or that the physical is discontinuous with the past physical, is a theory added to Scripture, and to tradition. Thank you again for your deep consideration.

I'm getting paid twice as much for this comment, because twice nothing is nothing.

I'm very transparent and approachable about how I do things and I made my communities accessible to everyone. If you think there's anything I can correct, let me know.

A few people have tried to broach this to the admins to get living mods put back into place, at least.

Did you want to take a formal position on the question?

Well, I did say it was two strikes, but that count can hold for a little while. It's disappointing that here of all places you refer to a person who has credibly and personally taken a secret oath as being guilty by the work of others when the secret oath is itself the real issue; but we don't have to review taqiyya for now.

When two others raised the question, I offered my services, and as soon as there was uncertainty from others about my offer I stopped pressing it. I do make my goals clear, I support the orthodox creeds, I ask people to follow local forum rules, I propose transparent, accountable, deliberative moderation. I don't generally complain about posts of crimes by individual named Jews, and I've spoken broadly in favor of unbiased compilations of criminals, only emphasizing that we not neglect the whole problem of satanism by focusing on a subset of it.

Now, I found your answer on the "good Jews" question and will come to it, thanks!

SwampRangers is an agent who tries to shut down anti-Zionist speak

Thanks for the ping attempt. I'm all for civil criticism of the state of Israel, and have participated. When I have facts suggesting that the criticism is moving toward uncivil, inaccurate, or biased, I contextualize, just as I do in many other fields where I have a little background that might be helpful.

Like others, I prayerfully claimed a few domain names, it's not "squatting" unless someone else has a claim on them. Most of my domains have the proviso that if a community develops there then all charter contributors get a voice in how it goes.

If you think I do something against "supreme White Christian men" beyond suggest honor codes and contextual facts, lay it out, we can debate under any ruleset. Looking forward to your thoughts on the other issue you raised, which I haven't seen yet. With no mod we make our own debate rules, how would you like to proceed?

when I was a kid I loved saying 144 233 377 610

See my separate comment in the other thread where you ask this.

Ah, now I recall we did have a bit of "debate" over that first point, IIRC I listed eight Messianic Jews and you said they weren't Christians at all, and I left you your right to apostatize yourself from them. Did you want to establish how you can be sure a birth Jew has fully embraced his confession of Jesus Christ as God and Lord so that we can make it a more formal debate?

I didn't say to tolerate any evil people. I've agreed with you that we don't have moral obligation to lax immigration. I've agreed with demographic discrimination, it's more than "okay" (but not charging any innocent man, woman, or child with the crime of another). I've agreed with nationalism and promoting one's local family and network first. So I apologize if my friendly offer to help with spiritual warfare brought out something that led you to these other subjects so boldly.

I said and implied nothing for or against that proposition.

Language regarded by dictionaries as offensive. I recognize that there are several views on it, so I state mine verbum sat.

I don't believe in censorship of content, I believe in enforcement against bad behavior. Your content is not dependent on using offensive words.

You state your opinion about me, but as soon as there was question raised about whether I should mod, I said no more about it.

However, I respect your debate skill, for instance I upvoted your last two statements directly above because I agreed generally. I would love for a moderator to establish baselines for objective debate and to analyze validity and illogic. We two have rarely had serious disagreement and certainly not formal debate, I've mostly suggested you self-moderate your tone (as above) and you've usually politely declined.

In this thread I had little I disagreed with so there's little for us to debate (except maybe over whether you need to speak belligerently with me). In fact I named Magnus Hirschfeld in relation to OP, as well as Americans and French who used the word "racist" in an older proud sense. You may be thinking of someone else. I merely meant to give a nudge to a friendly comment I noticed in the feed, so it wasn't directed to the context or to you personally. If you'd like to propose and define a binary proposition about OP where you think I disagree, and to join intellectual debate toward seeking truth about it, I'm on record as happy to participate, and you don't even need a moderator to facilitate.

Blurbs usually come late in the book's development.

Your film link begins inauspiciously by accusing Carlson of lying completely about the filmmaker, Camron Wiltshire, and taking credit for Wiltshire's work. Bit of tar pit there to avoid.

Second strike, it says Carlson is a 32nd-degree Freemason. Well, there.

Yeah, numbers create patterns available to anyone, and particular numbers encoded in the mass and orbit of the earth are for signs and seasons, such that nearly 30 days and nearly 360 days are governed by moon and sun, as a testimony. In the 22nd minute he doesn't say much to add to that. Synchronies and number patterns are great, they just don't go very far, because the Bible indicates their primary use is to encapsulate something already taught openly, not to disclose something untaught. Numbers can be twisted in any direction, so they are not to supplant good teaching, they supplement it. Will keep this one open for a little while too.

(You have a lot of development there so I've written a lot, I trust your patience and discernment as you review it.)

I never said all jews crucified and rejected Him.

Great! But you think that Jew, a proper noun, should be lowercase, even though lowercasing is registered in dictionaries as offensive? And would lowercase Judaism not be just grammatically improper? (It's literally a proper noun.) And would you use other racial terms judged offensive? Obviously it's common on this forum, but I bring it up since I'm talking about stumbling blocks.

But, more to the point, let's practice parsing to illustrate how I receive your words.

Rabbinical judaism is the tradition of the Pharisees and the Sadducees developed after the destruction of the Temple .... Do you know why they pray at the Western Wall? .... the Messiah already came and they rejected Him and crucified Him

The first "they" could have antecedent as "Rabbinical [J]udaism". The second "they" cannot, so it must be either "the Pharisees and the Sadducees" or a generic reference, but you imply it's not a generic. And it's wasn't "the Pharisees" or "the Sadducees" as a collective who did it, but some of them, seeing as many Pharisees became Christians or were sympathetic (Hillel, Gamaliel, Nicodemus, Joseph, Paul, Acts 21:20). When the Bible uses a collective like this it's clear in context that it means some, but in English a collective like "the Pharisees crucified Messiah" is easily mistaken as being a delegated group activity attributable to all members rather than an activity of individuals. So, since you affirm you don't want to say it was all Jews, I suggest continuing sensitivity to whether your words might be mistaken that way.

By "them" I'm referring to the pharisees and the sadducees who later consolidated the hebrew sect that we now call Judaism.

See, there you refer both to people in 33 and literally to the same people consolidating much later, even if we propose that the Yavneh meetings started in 70. There are very few people who were active in both events, but by collective language you're speaking not only of both connected groups but also of all the connections of Rabbinical Judaism. That's a technical solecism, I'm confident you don't mean it, which is why I say there are more adequacies and contexts out there to glean.

As far as the Church goes, those people are heretics and don't worship the same God as Christians do.

And that would literally mean a very few people, but has the risk of painting a very broad brush. About the only historical person who I know might have contributed to both events is Yohanan ben Zakkai and since I don't know that he did I can't count him as a heretic. Now, we might point to anathemata that relate to Judaizing (none relate to Judaism as we now use the terms), but those are generic and not directed at any people-group but at individual behavior. So you leave the door open to the idea that all Rabbinical Jews today are special heretics for collectively crucifying Jesus and consolidating Judaism. But this is not a valid anathema (and we've discussed individual authority to make ecclesiastic proclamations). All non-Christians are generic heretics for not having come to Christ, and all non-Christians "crucified Christ" in the same sense I did; but that is not what people mean when they make Rabbinical Jews a special case. They mean that Judaism is itself as a system opposed to Jesus Christ, and the facts I've observed on the ground is that Judaism as a system tries very hard to take no position for or against Jesus Christ and to avoid taking such a position at great lengths. Even the separate allusion to Jews not wanting to mark with an "X" out of conscience is an avoidance of a position out of developed conscience and not an opposition. So, it's true the Rabbinical Jews are "heretics" in the same sense that all men are without Christ, but the fact that their Scriptures describe the true God in great detail indicates that we shouldn't preclude the idea that they might find the true God who is in Jesus by following the same Scriptures we use.

what Scripture calls false jews

"False Jews" is not the text. Perhaps you've fallen into a trap laid for some by intending to mean Jesus's words "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie". Since Jesus says they're not Jews, they're not Jews. That leads to people objecting that many Rabbinical Jews are not Jews at all. In their own self-authoritative opinion. But Jesus always upheld the right of the Jewish nation to decide who was a Jew, and in general people-groups have the right to self-identify and to determine who is and who isn't a member (to say otherwise would be to say Americans can't enforce their border). So we don't get the right to "other" the Ashkenazi Jews, for instance, and say they're not Jews. Today's Ashkenazi have both Semitic and external (probably Khazarian) lineage, and the Jewish polity at large accepts this, and we don't get to say they made an error 1,000 years ago because that would be one nation (us) warring against another.

They are rightly in charge of their own genealogical records, and throughout the Old Testament we are shown how they operated this right, and when they took in foreigners (notably Rahab and Ruth, Jesus's grandmas) as being full Jews by naturalization. King David himself was accepted nationwide despite being known as 1/8 Moabite; he was chosen not because of blood but because of Ruth's citizenship vow (after being dissuaded three times) being held as normative in all court proceedings. So all the quibbling about a discovery a thousand years old is exceedingly disrespectful, as much as when today's "full-blood" Americans are being accused of being abusive slaveowners.

So I say all that from the standpoint that the Church must evangelize Jews and that Scored has a few common stumbling blocks that are easy to contribute to, but that the Church should logically reject. And I've said these things 5 years and not had any valid refutal. I say nothing against the Gentiles being grafted in, but I do say we are upheld by the root (Jesus) and the covenant people were largely Jewish/Israelite for almost the entire OT. So we don't get to diss the modern Jews when we remember how many OT Jews are saints in heaven watching us right now; instead we wait to point out our criticisms until we have established entree to speak where we will be heard and understood. That is done by demonstrating our ability to respect all Jewish history and treat the Jewish nation considerately: in fact, tongue in cheek, to treat them as considerately as any other goy (nation, Gen. 25:23).

Now, I see the side issue is also interesting to you. I don't see the Torah laws "transformed" from legalism to liberty. The fact is that the covenant people (excluding the idolatrous mixed multitude with them) could only ever have approached God via Christian liberty and not via legalism. That is why it's said Abel offered the first recorded sacrifice by faith. I was shocked when I realized my church had, by lapse, led me to believe that all the OT animal sacrifices were under a legalist system as if people earned something thereby. No, the ones who wanted to earn (like Cain) were excluded, God's soul hated their sacrifices; sacrifices could only, like any other work, be offered in gratitude for what God had already done and in faith for what he would do next. Jesus was circumcised, and had pigeons sacrificed for him (Luke 2), to fulfill righteousness, namely to demonstrate that according to the highest standard of the highest law he was scrupulous. And that law includes the right heart and cannot be kept without it (Deut. 30).

So when Jesus teaches on the law he never contradicts Moses (though he contradicts extraneous elder tradition like "hate your enemy"). He strengthens Moses by revealing the hidden heart matters that Moses fully meant but alluded to only indirectly as matters of conscience rather than formal law of human relations. Like every other prophet Jesus restores people to the fullness of righteousness from the heart. Therefore he didn't "transform" it (but many people were so steeped in idolatry that restoration of their original did look like transformation). To the faithful Jews, of which up to a million accepted his message within the generation, he made it safe to keep the original Torah again.

And another thing I was shocked by was that this continued after his resurrection. There are a few Scriptural proofs of this, but let me refer you again to Acts 21, where Paul pays for sacrifices that were offered in the then-standing temple. That's enough to illustrate the general trend: sacrifices could only be offered rightly from a heart that accepted what God had revealed (including the new revelation unique to that generation). The literal myriads (Greek) of Torah-observant worshippers in Jerusalem were offering a lot of sacrifices in that day: Luke's language could not mean less than 30,000 temple-honoring Messianic Jews. Therefore those Messianics, including over a million of the first members of your Orthodox Church who testify from heaven along with the OT saints, were continuing what Hebrews calls sacrifice by faith. Rabbinical Jews slaughtering chickens do not appear to be sacrificing by faith because even if they had the authority to substitute the chickens for themselves they don't demonstrate they have the heart. But Abel and Jesus and Paul did sacrifice animals by faith. (Now, without a temple, there are no authorized sacrifices today, except one, the Passover, which in the Torah was house to house. As a Christian who teaches the Hebrew roots I know Messianics who argue it is proper for Christians to slaughter and eat a lamb for Passover at home (not at the church altar because that is not the law), and, while it would be an affront for someone not in the body of Christ to do so, I can't tell them they're sinning when they in good conscience eat lamb for Passover in exactly the same way Jesus himself did.) Further, Ezekiel 40-48 indicates many future temple sacrifices when Jesus returns, and, although there are several eschatologies and I don't argue them, it's clear that on Jesus's return if he wants animal sacrifices he'll get them. (They may look more like time-honored American cookouts than we expect.)

This leads to the objection: Something changed at the cross, so certain things "good" before are "bad" after. I don't see that being the change. The things that were bad after the cross were bad for not being from the heart, in the same way they were bad before the cross. The change was that the body of Christ was wide-open to Gentiles, and at the first Orthodox Council (Acts 15) it was recognized that Gentiles had the laws of Noah and not of Moses. Both legal systems point to the same God via the same requirement of trusting in the Anointed as God reveals him; they just apply to different nations. The Messianic Jews continued, as I showed, to keep the Torah as perfectly as it could be kept, and the Gentiles continued to honor the generic statement of the Ten Words (given to all nations) that the Council stated, which is one formulation of the Laws of Noah. So when the church's demographic became largely Gentile the operative demonstration of righteousness among them was (as always) the Laws of Noah, or effectively the Ten Words; but in our day the question of operative demonstration of righteousness, via changed heart, is being shifted back to recognizing that Jews are free to keep the Laws of Moses unto Jesus, just as Moses that great saint did.

As I said in the summary, the "bad" was always works righteousness and legalism, it was never bad to strive to keep the law of Moses in liberty and gratitude as Jesus himself did. All NT objections to continuing to keep Jewish traditions were directed at doing so out of legalism ("under the law"). That's why Paul's legal defense in court was that he had not violated the Laws of Moses one whit: because he did so not under the law (but yet under Christ's law of liberty). He did so with full revelation of the fulfillment of the Law and its nonabolition, and its restoration in Christ. Sabbath is another can of worms that took me much longer to resolve: the fact is that the Lord's Day does have significance in pointing to the spiritual rest we have in Christ, but that does not change the significance Sabbath had in the Laws of Moses as kept and taught by Jesus (who spoke of Jews keeping Sabbath many years in the future, Matt. 24). Like circumcision, the physical does not necessarily deny the spiritual, while if there is no circumcision of the heart then both are denied.

TLDR: That's a lot but I'm happy to share what I've gleaned. I'm hopeful that as I've learned from other Orthodox you too will be open to dialogue. Accepting the many millions of Jewish saints in covenant history means right evangelism of the people today, recognizing that nobody was ever saved except by faith in God's Messiah, the promised seed of the woman. It also opens the door to understanding what true legalism really was and what true Christian liberty (including liberty to keep the law) really is. If you find repulsion in these thoughts, please consider that they are my best present understanding after years of studying the covenant, and I am always open to more (I don't know that I'm called to vow to Orthodoxy because I believe I'm called to evangelize Jew and Gentile with the gospel I've received). But I trust in the Spirit that you will see that there are some lines that you may not have been taught, as I was not taught them in my church but had to get them from the Word and the Spirit and in fact the primitive Church; and that we might be able to build bridges strengthening the relation of covenantalism to Orthodoxy (as I hinted with my enfolding of Orthodox theology as it reflects on Calvinism).