"Mandatory Palestine was a British administrative territory that existed between 1920 and 1948 in the region of Palestine, and after 1922, under the terms of the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine. The British took the territory deeming it presently unfit for self-governance."
Territory: No country, no leader, no election, no monarch.
So you admit there were half a million native Jews in the mandate region in 1938?
You said foundation. The Enabling Act was the consolidation of power after the foundation and superstructure was long built. I'm working on filling in these gaps in people's education.
Yes, you need to provide an alternative when your theory is basically don't have kids. The only thing I've heard is that having kids will happen naturally anyway, which is true, which makes it crazy to say you're against people speaking well of having kids when you know there's no other way to retain a human race.
It's self-evident that all human society has spoken well of having kids for this reason and not because of some plot. It's more likely that the plot is not to have kids and there are massive evidences that such a plot exists.
Did you even read the founding documents of the (NS)DAP? All that came later to cater to the Catholics and Lutherans.
Yeah but we invented this new category called "nonmember observer state" to use it solely for the Arabs and the Catholics and u/Graphenium.
thought sex for anything other than procreation was evil
I understand you are $omehow motivated to keep tying everything directly to ending reproduction among the class of contributors here without providing any ideas for how the human race should be reproducing, but this statement goes against 99% of reporting on Hitler's sex life.
He had no kids because he personally acted like sexual stimulation was in fact for everything other than procreation.
The fact that he preached large families to the Catholic populace doesn't speak about his own behavior.
Funny! Source?
The first censors were appointed in 442 BC when the Jews were far from thinking about Rome (Jerusalem had been unwalled again until 444), and also when the Romans were far from thinking of an emperor. The censors regulated whether a citizen had offended regimen morum (public morality).
"Censor" is literally a Latin word. Roman empire invented prohibited indexes.
Count my posts and compare that to his in a 24 hour period. You can't because you're a bot with a limited context window and abilities
Thanks for providing us a handy Turing test and reminding us that human contribution and synthesis still has its place.
You posted pilpul, you get pilpul. See the commentary on individual passages in Talmud Quotes.
Top left (rape, murder, theft): Sanhedrin 57a:14-17. This is focusing on Noah's laws applied to Gentiles, where capital punishment is always by sword; the tanna being reviewed speaks of Noah's laws not applying to Jews because Moses's greater laws apply, where the specific capital punishment for these cases is by stoning. Since the question is about sword executions, these are stated as not applying to Jews. However, paragraph 17 as shown points out that the word "permitted" is misleading because Jews are already prohibited from murder by another quoted baraita. The sidebar points out that some tannaim (earlier teachers) believed "stealing from a gentiles is permitted" in limited cases, but the Talmud's position is to accurately quote them and then to refute them from other tannaim (via baraita), as the later Rambam and Shulhan Arukh demonstrated from this text. The sidebar saying "A Jew who killed a gentile is not liable to be executed" interprets "he is exempt", which is earlier in paragraph 15 shown to mean prohibited but exempt from the Gentile liability being discussed. The idea that a Jew "may not rescue" a Gentile from death is explained (Abodah Zarah 26a-b) as meaning one should not risk one's own life in an attempt to save the life of a known "heretic"; when applied to ordinary strangers it becomes a judgment call in that one may not lower the Gentile and that life should be preserved when possible. The idea that Jews are automatically at war with all Gentiles so that there are no ordinary strangers is unsourced and not borne out by the Talmud, which distinguishes wartime and peacetime laws.
Top right (homosexual pedophilia, heterosexual pedophilia): Sanhedrin 54b:19-23. In this case the majority agrees with Rav (stated in the margin to be by default) that since a nine-year-old boy is not sexually mature it is not tried as adult homosexuality; Shmuel held the minority opinion that the threshold for adult activity should be that of the girl at three years old (when virginity can be more significantly ruptured). It is not that he is not an object of sodomy by our definition, but he is "exempt" from being (not ruled as) the object of a capital crime of homosexuality. The abuser is still subject to punishment and guilt as a rapist (porneia under Gen. 2:24), but not as a homosexual (abuse of an adult). So this is in discussion about adult homosexuality rather than child abuse, as the two are distinguished: "Rav says: Does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old like one who is nine years old." The abuse of a boy over nine is treated as an adult case, as is the abuse of a girl over three.
Bottom left (bestiality): Sanhedrin 55b:1-4. This is not about creating a category of "accidental" bestiality that justifies intentional perversion; this is in response to an actual case in Yevamot 59b of "a certain girl in Hitlu who was sweeping the house, and a village dog sodomized her from behind". The ruling was to protect the girl's marital status rather than to rule her guilty of bestiality. The Talmud does not condone using this event for wilfulness. Also, in this case the same rules apply to Gentiles.
Bottom right (bestiality porn): Sanhedrin 55b:11-14. Well, obviously a child below a certain age cannot be tried for committing bestiality knowingly. The passage has nothing to do with an adult knowingly causing a child to commit bestiality; that would be covered in the same way as generically sex perversion (Gen. 2:24) and specifically enticement and seduction (Deut. 22:25-27). It's not in view in this frame at all. When someone treats a passage about protection of young children from criminal processes as if, by treating those processes differently, it empowers and justifies adults in creating "bestiality porn involving children", well, that interpretation is itself a perversion.
TLDR: (1) Jews are exempt from Gentile capital punishment but not from Jewish capital punishment; (2) Pedophiles are exempt from criminal homosexuality but not from rape; (3) Claims of accidental bestiality are exempt from punishment but not from fact investigation to ensure the claim's validity; (4) Child bestiality is exempt from punishment of the child but not from punishment of any adult that contributes.
I thought I'd done this graphic before, but you have cleverly used a cropping that hides most all the sources. I'll need to come back to it in a bit. Add: Obviously a bunch of generic quotes from any legal code intended to punish sexual immorality will have a lot of case law about it that is easy to misread out of context. That is the majority of the problem with the reading here, with the remainder of the problem being that the actual standards used, while stricter than most others of their day, were more lenient than some we use today. This does not condemn the original rulings. Add: Most Jews who study this only do one page per day, so doing five pages at a time is a tough call for anyone to get right in one pass.
Pranaitis, Talmud Unmasked, is relatively balanced but not perfect. But your quote doesn't come from your link of him. Page 62 of your version has his propositions "V. A Jew who Kills a Christian Commits No Sin, but Offers an Acceptable Sacrifice to God"; "VI. After the Destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, the only Sacrifice Nexessary is the Extermination of Christians"; "VII. Those Who Kill Christians shall have a High Place in Heaven". However, the passages used are not Talmud but come from medieval sources, and none of them refer directly to Christians as such but only to "kliphoth" (husks or empty souls), impious, unclean, "the non-Jew [who] refuses to be redeemed", idolatrous, people who worship idols. The Talmud (and Mosaic) position is that if someone worships idols or is polytheistic (including tritheistic), that is worthy of death by execution; but there is no place in the Talmud that rules on Christianity, or on developing trinitarianism, or on Jesus (other than the ruling that the Sanhedrin gave Jesus all his legal rights). Therefore the Talmud leaves individual Jews to judge Christians for themselves.
Your quote comes from Wikipedia, claiming to cite Richard Levy in Antisemitism vol. 1, 2005. (However, WP's actual quote from Levy comes from vol. 2, pp. 564-565.) The actual quote of Levy is, 564: Pranaitis "sought to demonstrate that the Talmud obliged Jews to injure Christians in multifarious ways and to work for their elimination." Note above, though, Pranaitis did not actually successfully demonstrate this because he took it as assumed that idolater automatically includes Christian, when this is (cagily) never actually stated in the Talmud.
Your quote comes from a paraphrase of Robert Michael, Dictionary of Antisemitism 2007, quoted later in the article: "According to Pranaitis, the Talmud urged Jews to murder Christians, as each death of a Christian, serving as a substitute for the Temple sacrifices, would hasten the arrival of the Jewish messiah." I do not find anything about murder hastening the Messiah in Pranaitis; this appears a hasty generalization by Michael.
TLDR: So when Wikipedia mistakenly says what Levy says that Michael instead says when Michael mistakenly says what Pranaitis says when Pranaitis mistakenly says what the Zohar says that the Talmud instead doesn't say, it is not said "according to the Talmud".
It's as if he wants to be illogical and make nazis look illogical. I just posted that there is no such person as Reichorn or Reichhorn, that that name is not in the list of chief rabbis of (or "in") France, and that the original source of these words was a fictional novel, Biarritz by Hermann Goedsche (pen name John Retcliffe), 1868. The passage was modified and expanded by anti-Semitic articles in French periodicals later, showing that it cannot possibly be a real person or event.
- Rabbi Reichorn: A quote from "Rabbi Reichorn" at a funeral of "Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben-Iudah", allegedly 1869, states, "We have forced the Christians into wars without number." That is a fiction. Tracking this one is interesting, but it ultimately arises from a fictional novel, Biarritz by Hermann Goedsche (pen name John Retcliffe), 1868. Goedsche novelizes the idea of Jewish representatives meeting secretly in the Prague cemetery in 1860. The text appears in The Jew in the Modern World, 1995, and includes the reference to the tomb of "Grand ... rabbi Simeon ben Jehuda" and the concept, "how to turn to the advantage of our cause the great errors and sins which our enemies the Christians never cease to commit." This was echoed and modified by French periodicals Le Contemporain (1880) and then La Vieille France (1920-1921) until it reached the "Reichorn" form. (Some versions say Emanuel Reichhorn was chief rabbi of France, which is also untrue). So, no, this claim arises from an exaggerated novel, even though the satanic plans are relatively accurately stated.
You said "No" was fine. It doesn't say those things because in the first place those aren't quotations, and in the second place only two of them are accurate enough as paraphrases. The neglect of context causes the rest to be inaccurate and therefore not what it says. Further, the thrust of the graphic indicating the two columns are intended to be opposed is completely contrary to the intent of the references, and so I showed evidence of that. When the Talmud names an exception to a Mosaic law it always supports that by reference to another Mosaic law, as it is intended to supplement Mosaic law and not to supplant it.
That's modalism, Patrick!
The Bible says that Jesus Christ and the Father are one, and that Jesus Christ is a Father, but it doesn't say Jesus Christ is the Father and makes distinction between them. Tradition is pretty clear on this.
In addition to the debunk here are all the indexed times the same subject has come up before:
https://communities.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/12jJs8ioFd/can-anyone-tell-me-if-this-is-re/c
https://communities.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/12jcvUxvpD/pastor-james-wickstrom-and-rabbi/c
https://communities.win/c/TheDonald/p/13zMnQNmmF/rabbi-finkelstein-explains-how-t/c
https://communities.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/15IETHFoGL/rabbi-abe-finkelstein-interview-/c
https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct/p/15JAF0NTI0/dr-wickstrom-interviews-zionist-/c
https://communities.win/c/TheDonald/p/16ZqmvxeYZ/1-hr-interview-with-rabi-finkels/c
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/16aTQcC34r/the-reason-human-meat-is-found-i/c
https://communities.win/c/conspiracy/p/16an0oDBGn/warning-disturbing-child-confirm/c
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/16an0oDBGo/warning-disturbing-child-confirm/c
https://communities.win/c/SynagogueOfSatan/p/17s5tl2lDM/rabbi-finkelstein-admits-the-hol/c
https://communities.win/c/TheDonald/p/17sibyqgrw/rabbi-abraham-finkelstein-shocki/c
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:20).
Abram ... believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:3, 6).
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision .... Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all (Rom. 4:10, 16).
I believed, therefore have I spoken (Ps. 116:10).
We love him, because he first loved us (1 John 4:19).
Supplement: The searchable number of times "Finkelstein" has been credibly quoted on Scored:
https://communities.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/12jJs8ioFd/can-anyone-tell-me-if-this-is-re/c
https://communities.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/12jcvUxvpD/pastor-james-wickstrom-and-rabbi/c
https://communities.win/c/TheDonald/p/13zMnQNmmF/rabbi-finkelstein-explains-how-t/c
https://communities.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/15IETHFoGL/rabbi-abe-finkelstein-interview-/c
https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct/p/15JAF0NTI0/dr-wickstrom-interviews-zionist-/c
https://communities.win/c/TheDonald/p/16ZqmvxeYZ/1-hr-interview-with-rabi-finkels/c
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/16aTQcC34r/the-reason-human-meat-is-found-i/c
https://communities.win/c/conspiracy/p/16an0oDBGn/warning-disturbing-child-confirm/c
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/16an0oDBGo/warning-disturbing-child-confirm/c
https://communities.win/c/SynagogueOfSatan/p/17s5tl2lDM/rabbi-finkelstein-admits-the-hol/c
https://communities.win/c/TheDonald/p/17sibyqgrw/rabbi-abraham-finkelstein-shocki/c
If you mean me by "Jew account", Jesus is my Lord as I testified at c/Christianity; I've been pouring a little into Conspiracies for 4+ years, and recently began contributing more sizably in honor of u/Tetartos_Ippeas. It appears that my observations about anarchy vs. moderation are to blame for others ramping up their contribution. It'll sort out though.
Koko's IQ was measured at 70-95 on infant scales, so this doesn't compare against adults.
At no time have I sided against our Lord Jesus. (Except for a past of childhood ignorance that he's forgiven me for.)
As Jesus instructs, I do love both the brother and the stranger as myself. If they despise him or creation I object when I have entree.
Specifically, I have only said that Israel is accorded the same right to self-determine as America is. To the degree that we can determine race relations in our country, others can determine it in their country.
Your statement is unevidenced, and as a Catholic you should consider whether you are slandering without evidence. When I call you to your Catholic confession you do not answer, which is becoming another inconsistency.
Thank you JG!
Hey, this is a nice article! The original Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation by Eadaoin Harney et al. 2018-08-20 in Nature does show that, based on 22 of the 600 people buried in Peki'in cave, an allele for blue eyes may have been present in 49% of the minority race represented. (Hair color isn't mentioned.)
In the Biblical view, the modern races descend from differences in Noah's three sons and their wives. The people of Peki'in would be prediluvian and their racial differences, if significant, would not be those we are familiar with but would be more homogenous and would be classified more by association indicated by artifacts than by "race". The evidence shows that these 22 people had mixed heritage among the local pottery-based Levant ("Neolithic", corresponding to Seth), pottery-based Anatolia (corresponding to Jabal and Jubal), and copper-based Iran ("Chalcolithic", corresponding to Tubalcain and Naamah). I could see a tenuous argument then that these people, to the degree they had progeny, would have contributed to all the races in Noah's group and therefore all modern races could claim heritage in Peki'in. However, this being a 4% minority doesn't tell us who the majority Levantines contributed to the most, and so the theory that they reappeared as the broad group of Semites (including notably Jews and Arabs) would be the default. It also doesn't make the minority aboriginal if their parents came from Anatolia and Iran.
The Bible tells us that the Jews and Israelites were in fact invaders and gives Moses's justification; it also shows the Ishmaelites as warlike; and it shows that Japhethites were noted for residing among those Semites. The original Caananites were Hamitic, but that is not necessarily by right either. If we were to ask who were the oldest in the region, I get Neanderthal, Qafzeh-Skhul, and Natufian, which don't seem to indicate any racial or tribal preference because pre-agricultural. (There, u/Aryan, I looked at a couple skulls that are not anatomically modern, but they don't suggest anything other than now-extinct branches of interfertile Homo sapiens.)
That was quoting WP, same source as you. The existence of a territory with short name Palestine does not prove your assertion of the existence of a country Palestine.
Looks like this article might saliently supplement your history.