Why did Jesus, Paul, and many others who didn't come from the Judea region call themselves Ioudaios?
Do you recognize that there were seven subparties among the Pharisees, such as the parties of "love of God" and "fear of God" Pharisees? Do you recognize that Hillel, Nicodemus, Joseph, Paul, and Gamaliel, among others, were all Pharisees who approved of Jesus? Do you recognize the Talmudists admit they came only from the Yochanan ben Zakkai wing of the Pharisees and not from any other wings?
Why do you say the Jews started calling their religion Judaism medievally when it was called Ioudaismos in the Bible?
When did the Jews claim they were all the tribes of Israel and abandon the idea that ten lost tribes still had continuity somewhere in the world?
Aside from intramural quibbles, how did the First Temple Hebrewism of e.g. Daniel differ from the post-Cyrus Zugoth balance between Nasi and Abbethdin factions along with smaller parties, that in the late Second Temple had become Pharisees and Sadducees, alongside parties of Essenes, Zealots, Herodians, Freedmen, Swordsmen (Sicarii), and Messianics?
Don't a majority of self-identified Jews today describe themselves as secular, i.e. Talmud-agnostic?
What was Jesus's name in the common Aramaic he spoke (as opposed to Hebrew or Galilean dialect)?
(Fine point that people don't agree with me on, you are right here, but he used "jew" as the derogation, and "Jew" might have been less so. That's how dictionaries rule on it, biased as they may be.)
disproves your entire idea that j EVVs and J ews (Heb rews!) are the same
Haven't read everything yet, but have you explained why you reject the rights conferred by holders of the continuous chain of transmission of the name Jew, previously Ju in French, previously Judaeus in Latin, previously Ioudaios in Greek? Even when a people-group merges in another under its continuous polity, it retains the right to the former name. Or do we have the right to name them while they don't?
Lack of temple was compensated for by two different groups of Jews, Messianics (who became Christians) and Pharisees (who became Talmudists). Both claim continuity in different ways with the original covenant polity headquartered among the Israelites. So lack of temple doesn't disqualify either group from retaining its rights to names.
The exact same is true for how the Hebrew Scriptures are followed, both claim continuity.
Thank you for calling out Frank and Loomer.
It was in effect from when people offered sacrifices and observed 613 laws to after Jesus rose.
This too is brought forward to say the Jewish religion changed irreconcilably. However, sacrifice before and after the cross was identical while the temple stood. Following Mosaic law for the Jewish-born people and Noachite law for the Gentile-born people was the agreed practice of both Christians and Jews alike. The refinement of the meaning of Mosaic law until its derivation was tied to exactly 613 separate passages of the Torah was an organic process. So there's not a point at which Jews lost title to the name "Jews" that I can see.
With all the horrendous outcomes that influential jEVVs produce, how can you possibly believe they are Heb rews?
Because they are accepted as Hebrews by those who continue to have rights in the genetic identification as Jews. Christians long recognized and admitted they had only adoptive (spiritual) identification as sons of Judah, not genetic identification. To prove rabbinical Jews are not Hebrews would require some robust theory of total replacement without continuity, and the two primary candidates for this replacement (Edomite and Khazar) don't do the job historically. Proof by behavior doesn't complete the proof: even in John 8 Jesus admits the Jewish objectors were Abraham's seed and Abraham was their father, but said their behavior as children of the devil would belie that identification. But removing them from being Jewish is a formal process of anathematization that he didn't engage. So, your reasoning for taking the process upon yourself as judge, jury, and executioner?
impostors
If you exterminated the jews and left the other groups helping them, the problems would go away.
From 3993 BC Creation to 1797 BC birth of Judah, there were no Jews. Why did the problems not go away during those 2,196 years? It's the satanists.
Paul was aware of the oral tradition now encoded in the Talmud, and it can be fairly said, at least as a general rule, that anything from the Mishna portions would have been upheld by him, even though he might not have agreed with every single majority opinion. In his day, this counts as contemporary belief in the "talmud" (not "Talmud").
Nobody abused chickens, as Jewish ritual slaughter has always been recognized as designed to prevent abuse. Paul did pay for animal sacrifices long after his conversion, Acts 20. The modern waving of chickens is likely similar to the waving of breast meat, Lev. 7, so would not be regarded as abusive, unless one wishes to say the practice has gone beyond its original limits and become emotionalist and excessive.
Name the coin-clippers. The first listed coin debaser was Nero by 5% in 64 AD. The first actual clippers listed were Thomas and Anne Rogers, 1690.
Paul didn't bow to Moloch or Baal, and Judaism has always condemned this even as Jews of various generations fell into it. Since it's a serious crime, it should not be charged lightly, and joining modern efforts to detect it accurately is welcome.
Paul didn't know the hexagram, which was introduced in Israel ca. 300 AD (Gershon Scholem). Incidentally, he also didn't support the star of Remphan/Chiun, which was known to Amos is the 700s BC and therefore couldn't be the hexagram (I'll spare you my dissertation on what it was). The predominant Jewish symbols then were the menorah, the olive tree, the prayer shawl, the lion, etc. Paul probably wore the prayer shawl as Jesus did (with tassels and perhaps blue stripes), and probably at times had worn phylacteries containing Bible verses (which Jesus didn't reject if they weren't ostentatious). At that time of course there was no negative symbolism associated with black cubes so the symbol was untainted.
Paul did share with other prophets (and with those with a high moral sense) a strong sensitivity to injustices against himself, but he modeled turning those into occasions to demonstrate submission to Christ. Feel free to name individuals who use victimization to imbalance justice against unnoticed victims.
In Greece, Paul upheld national boundaries and rights of self-determination for all nations (Acts 17:24-28). So he'd likely oppose the imposition of immigration onto nations as it was regularly deprecated in the OT. There is a line of argument by which Jews agreed with Cyrus's remigration of them into Judah when Samaritans lived there already (some of which might have had earlier native roots), so this view of Paul might be debatable.
Paul would have agreed with Jesus that three classes of "eunuchs" could not receive all the Jewish commands relating to marriage, indicating some leeway dealing with those struggling with sexual identity. There was no tolerance for deliberate active or passive sodomy itself. Paul would've agreed with Ezekiel (23:13-17) that staring at pornographic images to incite lust was also not to be tolerated.
The Torah position that there is to be no miscegenation without full conversion to the covenant people and polity would have been upheld, as would its position that one may not exact usury from a fellow citizen. The Torah position that the law should be the same for Jew and Gentile was largely upheld in his day. Over successive centuries, some Jews took the position that it was not their job to help Gentiles write inspired laws for themselves against miscegenation and usury, and that it was ethical to take advantage of the more lenient laws of the Gentiles when it could be done to advantage. This is a valid criticism against those Jews who adopted this stance, when they could have easily said that since Jews criminalize miscegenation and usury among themselves they should not promote them among others, and indeed this alternate stance was taken by many Jews who regarded it as essential for the sanctification of God's name. Such criticism is similar to criticism of Americans who take advantage of foreign laws to engage in activities that are criminal in America.
I leave it to you to Name The Jew For Real. Aside, I greatly appreciate your apparent remaining moderate in tone as I requested; you come across like Vlad the Impaler on one of his gentle days. However, Scored is a bit of an "elite research board" and if you remain in the character of indirection rather than firmness I believe your influence will lessen.
Welcome Agent Smart, I apologize for not welcoming you previously. As you've probably "noticed", some of the folks here use words in fascinatingly novel ways and it takes some time to find out their true concerns because they don't take efforts to remove that language barrier. In particular u/TallestSkil uses "libel" to describe my depiction of his past character, for instance. Sticking to the text "religiously", and in particular Romans 11 literally, keeps us in Yeshua's counsel.
If I may, a big difficulty here is Gentiles believing they and not Jews get to define "Jews". To that, my retort has always trumped what they're doing: If Americans can tell Jews they're not Jews, then Jews can tell Americans they're not Americans. There is a second difficulty, of course, the "Jewish problem" of "What is a Jew?", which they have a bit of disagreement among themselves upon. Generally rabbinical Jews hold informally that conversion to Yeshua means one is not a halakhic Jew but is still an aliyah Jew assuming lineage; but messianic Jews (the ones Lifeway counts at a million) hold that one loses no halakhic Jewish rights upon conversion and thus they set up their own messianic halakhic courts. Ironically, this becomes a second trump card of lower value: namely, our interlocutors agree with the Orthodox Jews they hate when they tell self-identified Messianic Jews they can't identify as Jews, leading to the Messianic complaint that they are rejected by many Jews and many Christians alike.
I recommend you check out c/Christianity, the original Christian forum here, your work there would be welcomed.
Why would you write a narrative as if you believe the universe is (now) 5,786 years old when you don't believe that? What other impression should one take from your narrative?
How old is the universe in your opinion? Can you point to some clear statement where you took a position on it without equivocation anywhere else?
Do you object to my very consistently saying the universe is (now) 6,018 years old but I recognize that many young-earth proponents use a larger number, up to the range of perhaps a million, and in any case they are united against a number in the billions range? Did I say something to vitiate my own beliefs when I'm engaging the debate against the science mainstream but not the intramural debate among the young earthers?
What is your evidence that I'm doing anything here but volunteering my personal time for SwampRangers.com? Are you making guesses about how I provide for my family?
Are you merely judging that my position proves I must be inorganic? Did you want to debate a binary proposition so we could resolve the status of my position?
Do you object to my characterizing our interactions briefly with evidence? Do you object when I step in after you repel a newcomer "with a weak reed"?
Why don't you get along with me when I follow Christ alone? Where is your evidence of getting along with fellow believers, as I don't recall you ever speaking of attending church or being in communion with others?
What have I said untruly? Are you committed to truth?
Once the Jekyll Island group, led by Paul Warburg and steered by Edward House, got everything they wanted in the Fed and the personal income tax (founded upon the corporate income tax of 1909), we can infer they informed their European counterparts that the world was ready for war. European secret societies played with fire, not concerned who would be the actual match to light the tinder (which turned out to be Gavrilo Princip). Since the US could set any tax rate (including over 100%), the "income tax" upon the "rich" rapidly rose from 1% to literally 90% to fund the war support effort. Shipping war material upon the passenger ship Lusitania, after Germany warned us they would bomb it and even successfully took out newspaper ads warning potential US passengers of this stance, was the last straw. Lord Mersey said the Lusitania coverup was a damnably dirty business; the event was investigated by then Lord Admiral of the Navy, Winston Churchill.
One of the fastest ways to get more downvotes here is to complain about a single downvote. I gave you a downvote, but my primary reason was that you didn't provide a cognizable conspiracy.
Another user just noted how much there is today of people complaining Jews censor all criticism of them, oblivious to how they are complaining uncensored. I affirmed him by noting "It's the satanists". I thought you were of the same kind when you implied "It's the Catholics and Jews", which is close enough to negotiate.
All countries censor war footage.
There were a couple people here regularly calling for death of Nazis, the new mod dealt with them swiftly at the same time and in the same way as those calling for death of Jews.
Why don't you name the Jew for real (Henry Kissinger contributed to JFK's death, Jonathan Goldblatt lobbies for legislation against anti-Semitism)? People might get the idea that you are fearful, while you are criticizing those who are fearful. They might get the idea that you are a fed shill (a glowie) because you're seeking to get others to be specific where you're being generic.
Just tips if you want to fit in. You won't get banned for content here, but you might get banned for attacking people without evidence if you do it often enough.
Because the West forgot the Hebrew text it was built on in which miracles and wands were amoral and could be used for good or for ill. Since they could be used for ill, puritans (lowercase) rejected all such displays, giving way to materialists. Restoring mages (magi) to the Western church is an ongoing effort.
You mention "telekinesis or telecognition or remote viewing and other psychic phenomenon". "Telekinesis" usually is not movement by mind but almost always coordination of mind with some other spirit that does the movement; this can be done openly (walls of Jericho, or Dathan sinkhole), or by deception. Telecognition is mind-reading, anyone can do that. Remote viewing is vision and dream, anyone can do that. Fortune-telling is prophecy; that can be done by the spirit of the Creator who knows the future, or by other spirits who cannot know it perfectly, so that one allows for deception again.
Therefore the correct means of harnessing superpowers attributed to qi (physical effect at a distance, mind-reading, vision and dream, prophecy) is alignment with the Creator, which I believe is best done by getting to know Jesus. Paul calls these respectively miracles, discerning, knowledge and wisdom, and prophecy, among other effects (1 Cor. 12). An important instruction is to stir up (or fan into flame) the spirit within you. This is done by being around people who flow in the Holy Spirit and practicing the same in the way they do, in particular submitting your spirit and acting out what flows. (For all their flaws, evangelicals who focus on tongues have an effective entree to learning the flow, which is introduced by those with experience via encouragement of practice in just the way I describe.)
Was there a particular effect you wanted to produce? Something the Christians here could pray for? Because the materialists have partly ruined the West, and Christians are only rediscovering their mage heritage lately.
Almost entirely correct! I always just say "it's the satanists". That covers all the conspiracies you describe. Don't forget to pepper in a few Jesuits and Bilderbergers.
Okay, I randomly replied to u/Agent_86. (Using "u/" informs him where we're talking about him.)
Since you're new, I'll give you credit for not searching "Lifeway survey that suggests 1 million Jews accept Jesus as Messiah", which immediately returned the result. Note of course this is racially Jewish rather than halakhically Jewish. We do like to encourage everyone to do their own searches here when "not seeing any evidence".
defend the people who criticize jEWs
I'm equal opportunity. I affirm balanced criticism of Jews, and I give context to imbalanced criticism of Jews because its imbalance harms the stated intent of providing balanced criticism. People say I defend Jews because I attempted to pursue the mission of elite research board, i.e. getting things right. But I'll criticize anyone who deserves it.
debate them openly where everyone can see
All for it. Pick an objective thesis and start a new post and I'll tell you what I think.
are you afraid
Of nothing. People who project fear to speak may be shilling to get others to say certain words without saying them themselves.
where they nitpick to defend goys or Christians or nazis
Correct, it's not often and when so it's often colorable as self-serving. A lot of folks here don't believe the Lifeway survey that suggests 1 million Jews accept Jesus as Messiah, but since I know a couple such folks I can characterize them. When you speak of rabbinically accepted Jews who defend Christians, most of what Netanyahu says on the subject is self-serving and that is indeed representative.
The children figure? Would be 90% or higher, the brainwashing that little jEWs undergo is like that of an islamic country or North Korea.
I know the various indoctrinations including the Christian one. So (and pardon me for any hiccups in our conversation), when you speak of "the jEWs" as acting problematically, such as by tossing Trump around, that would be a case where the collective inclusion would be read to apply. Now it's not 90% of Jewish kids that are pushing Trump around, it's the Kushners and Witkoff and Netanyahu and other nameable individuals. So, as per my initial comment, I'd counsel you to watch when you use collective language and actually mean nameable individuals and organizations.
Like jEW sockpuppets
The sockpuppets we've had don't claim to be Jewish, they just rabble-rouse like community organizers and fail to contribute meaningfully. So, not really, but if people act like they're shilling for Jews then I ask if they're Jewish and they generally don't answer.
To repeat what I often say elsewhere, the Bible uses the root expression, kath holes ("all-throughout"), to refer to the church throughout all the world. I would also call it "cataholistic" if that were understandable.
enumerated voting citizenry
To prevent sockpuppets from manipulating a binding vote count, one would need to determine who is on the approved list of contributors enabled to be counted in binding votes. Nobody here seems to like that level of control, we can hardly even get a consensus on anything except accidentally.
I did ask directly.
Are you asking where shekel-sniffers nitpick? Lots of places, but I don't think that's what you're asking. For instance, the Talmud, where I like to pick on Rabbi Ulla (4th century); Tovia Singer; and Eitan Baghdadi.
Are you answering my question by saying you do mean to include 99% of Jewish children? What crime have they committed if so?
So it's unclear if Skil believes young earth or old earth and speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Another one is the meaning of supersessionism where I haven't found him to enunciate a clear position.
Yes, Skil's rants about being white-genocided without recourse are very reminiscent of those Holocaust exaggerations that have been caught from time to time. I need not remind him of this because it's well-known that I regard an irrational presentation of anti-Semitism as potential evidence of being pro-Semitic (shilling to make one's opponents look bad). The test of the evidence if if the person continues being irrational.
I'm not sure I'd compare his standoffishness to those Jerusalem Jews who called for Jesus's death. He does get along a bit with whitists and with sycophants, and there are probably points where we generally agree; but he is aggressive to root out what he disagrees with and to ridicule it dramatically, possibly for his own psyche's sake.
Incidentally, if you're interested in a number of Biblical points about covenant history, my views are unique and incisive.
Thanks for the Trotsky background. Have you seen the work Edward House did to direct the funding in the 1910s, as in The Creature from Jekyll Island? That would be fun if you had a take on it.
Yup, Americans had an imprinted view that if we let other religions than Christianity run free then they would see the truth and repent. The balance between the validity and the exploitability of this position has been our burden ever since.
The answer and address was "Yes, and irrelevant, because" etc. I do try to respond.
I gave an implied question and you didn't respond to it. Directly: Do you mean to include all (or 99% of) men, women, and children?
Interesting but a bit impractical based on timing, plus we have a regular supply of presumptive sockpuppets. Plus IMHO the regulars aren't enamored of an enumerated voting citizenry. Anyone can propose community questions anytime, so you're free to ask the community to comment more directly on your proposal.
(This implies a narrative where the earth is less than 6,000 years old. Others have called this oft-repeated narrative his fanfic.)
This is just the first one that is easy to reference, let me know if you need more. Now we could claim u/TallestSkil doesn't actually believe his fanfic, but he doesn't deny that he believes it either. He doesn't make clear that he certainly believes in the billions either; so I don't know what he believes. He throws all kinds of garbage out upon us without concern and declines to resolve the issues or commit to a position. He seems to be a Christian but he's not one who easily gets along with others who follow Christ alone.
Anyway, if you haven't been exposed to his unique style, now you have, and you've gotten a fair warning about it. Use good judgment.
Propose changes for the community's review.
Yes, and irrelevant, because lots of folks here nitpick and most don't get accused of being Jews on that account.
What I ask people about, re collectivism, is whether they mean to include all (or 99% of) men, women, and children. One take is "the children are guilty because of their indoctrination", one take is "the children aren't guilty but it's okay to charge 'the Jews' even though that includes the children". I think my approach, Name The Jew For Real, works better than either. It's funny how often people criticize the (imaginary) collective, I respond by criticizing individuals, and the interlocutor refuses to agree or take anything up or change anything. Perhaps you're not that type.
"Free Speech zone"
The rules come from several years back and at least two mods esteemed by all who are now missing and who our present active mod aspires to emulate. They reflect a community desire that personal attacks be rejected across the board. TINAE decided that those few contributors who like to attack and be attacked with equal rights can be accommodated with a warning tag to indicate to the other contributors that the ordinary rules aren't in effect.
Most "free speech zones", however, are laughable exceptions to censorship of topics. No topics are forbidden here.
Correct! I don't believe in seven Biblical dispensations, because I point out to dispensationalists that Paul only mentions two, that of God's grace, and that of fulness of times. I think these are the same as what Jesus calls the present and coming ages. However, in the last century dispensationalists have done hard yeoman's work in rehabilitating their theories to make them a competitive eschatology and many don't recognize that.