I wish you well, peace, and shalom too! Good to get to know you better.
It appears that u/harzkp813 intended to see how well I "J-pill" you to see if he thinks I'm anti-Semitic enough. But I treat Jews like everyone else, criticizing wherever it's deserved. You seem to have the right balance for the most part and we negotiated the Marx issue, the dispensation issue, and other issues quite amicably. If he's disappointed that I don't beat up enough on one group of the many satanist tentacles we fight, that's on him to deal with.
I have total respect for people who simply follow Yeshua and the Scriptures but decline identifications like Christian or Messianic or creedal. My general category for such followers of Yeshua is just "Bible students", among whom I find some United Church of God (UCGIA) folks. Most of them are passable at getting the doctrine of Yeshua God accurate enough for me, but then some people think I'm too tolerant of antitrinitarians when I meet them. There are other such movements and individuals and clusters. So I tossed you a few upvotes and am looking forward to your contributions wherever you see fit. But, as a final plug, I think Conspiracies is fertile for your input.
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love (Eph. 4:11-16).
Thanks. u/TallestSkil:
Exposing Protocols isn't writing Protocols.
I can never fail through Christ. Contingency planning isn't inevitability dooming.
This type dies with inattention. IMHO.
Thanks for admitting the evildoers were not genetic Jews for millennia before Judah and (elsewhere) that genetic Jews cease to be evildoers by accepting Christ, both of which thereby prove that racial extermination doesn't solve the problem.
A white person can figure this out without asking.
A white person wouldn't promote a fanfic where Jews eliminate all white nations and then get their chronology supernaturally validated, while those few whites that remain must resort to such inbreeding as to suggest to a reader (who stated it publicly) that the fanfic's author sounds like he has an incest fetish.
Visualizing your own doom to such degree as you constantly do has not been held to be an effective technique for victory.
That's why I say I didn't follow it. You express disinterest in my following you, which is also neither white nor Christian.
Let me also add at this part of the conversation the quote from u/TallestSkil that I said I'd save for such occasions:
Let's agree for now to call the evildoers prior to the birth of Judah the "synagogue of satan" and, presumably, the "satanists". (Of course that would work for me because the synagogue of satan is defined as not Jews.) Let's dismiss your aside suggesting that LaVey gets to define "satanists" for us seeing as many others self-identify as such without connecting to him.
Your assertion is essentially that exterminating Jews makes problems go away and exterminating Gentile satanists doesn't. But this is belied by the idea that a synagogue of satan before there were any Jews was the source of the problems. So your implication that the problem is totally limited to the Jewish race today is logically unlikely because the problem existed when there was no Jewish race to exterminate.
You imply there is a synagogue of satan (or other nameable group of satanists) prior to Judah. Why don't you just use a word that people understand for all evildoers over time instead of implying that only after the emergence of a Jewish race can it be possible for extermination of one race to solve all problems? You're so close to describing the problem accurately!
Because he is not a jew who is one outwardly; he is a jew who is one inwardly.
Thanks for clarifying. What I didn't "succeed" at was understanding you. I am not as pessimistic as you are about my ability to do so in time. Your willingness to answer questions is a big contribution, but if you don't want me to understand you know well the power of not replying (and of not replying substantively).
Was Jesus Judahite, a descendant of Judah through Mary, and also by adoption through Joseph?
Did some Judahites exist who were not accounted as Ioudaios by default?
Was Jesus born king of the Ioudaios if he was not then Ioudaios?
Paul being Benjamite, why was he considered Ioudaios by the Pharisees prior to his conversion if he wasn't an inward follower of Jesus?
Oh, very good then, many Messianics reject "Christian" language, I've worked with many. I follow Yeshua and the Scriptures. Would you be willing to let me know if there is any problem with the Apostles', Nicene, or Athanasian creeds, since that's the only definition we use for "Christianity" there? If you have objections about the 4th century, e.g., it's best to get those stated clearly. I do greatly appreciate your taking time to address the Conspiracies regulars and you seem to have a good presence at PDW.
I can.
Would you please?
The website clearly costs something to host. There’s always a price.
Yes, we can thank Scott Lively for his public commitment to defraying costs, in this case ranging into the tens of dollars, as I said 5 years ago when we were founded.
Fascinating how you choose to answer nothing and support nothing. But there's always hope.
Bravo!
Catholics are heavily infiltrated, as we all are. Catholics have the job of purifying themselves, as we all do.
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.
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".
Hey David, since you're deciding to stalk me, actually my family's all from white Western European countries before they became Americans, as is my wife's. But I'm willing to suffer alongside any people-group, like Jesus and Paul were. Funny how you categorize me as if I were a self-identifying Jew just to deny my being a Jew and affirm my being a Turk-Mongol.
But does my being white get me any credit from you, or do you judge what people are by what they say without any effort needed to analyze the truth of what they say?
I'm the guy who Names The Jew For Real. Jeffrey Epstein MMN Stolofsky and Ghislaine Maxwell (daugher of Robert Maxwell MMMN Slomowitz, second cousin of Elie Wiesel) committed many crimes for some of which they were convicted. You may be mistaking me for someone else.