He says half-breeds don't count as Israel, but then David wouldn't count as Israel either, nor would Americans count as Americans.

If Americans have the right to say Jews aren't Jews, then Jews have the right to say Americans aren't Americans.

Judaism is not a continuation of the religion of the Hebrews.

I could see many ways this summary might be affirmed or denied, would you care to explain the logic? Rabbinic Judaism dates from after the breakup of the Pharisees and has strands from other sects, so it's not just the Pharisees. But the point of discontinuity, if any, should be clearly stated.

Interesting redefinition of "nephilim". I think there's a better ancient word for your concept but for now "NPC" will have to do.

I can see the Revolutionary War being included.

I can see the Wars of the Reformation being included, starting with the Knights' War and the Peasants' War neither of which had to do with religion.

I can see the Crusades being included.

I can see Muslim-Quraysh War being included.

We might not include Roman wars, but I'm open to suggestions as to including them.

Oh I agree about white replacement generally, in Eva V. style. But the person I'm speaking of can't even be bothered to cite her name or any name to defend his wild propositions (some of which are admitted futurist fiction). So it's ironic that one of the biggest claimants to be whitist is doing so little for advancement, and so much for dooming and shill assistance. And it was exceptionally ironic that the one time he went and listed a dozen sources, most of them didn't prove anything he was arguing, and the three that did all relied on Bar-Ilan University.

And Origen and Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa engaged in exercises in justifying cheating non-Christians ("heathens") by a lot of church fathers. Glad there is some opposition, but the point stands that this is very much a part of Christianity. And the proof is in the pudding, it's clearly manifested at scale among organized Jesuitry.

We don't judge religions by their extremists.

First, the fact there are these dialogues at all of Jewish rabbis trying to justify ways to deceive and steal from non-Jews is an indictment in and of itself.

Yes! And that should be the charge, not that Judaism teaches this, but that Judaism thinks it important to retain the words of extremists among its thousands of teachers, which is a much more comparable charge to Islam or Christianity.

Secondly please state where it declares the majority view

The majority view is demonstrated by late position and by not having a contrary argument follow it. In the first pair 113a:21 the later statement is Akiba, "One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." The next paragraph accepts Akiba's authority but nitpicks (as you noted) that maybe we can declare whether or not God's name is at stake and cheat that way, and that is rejected (with rhetorical question "But is robbery a gentile permitted?") based on Lev. 25:47-50, with the majority conclusion "Be precise with purchaser" ending 133b:1 (the gloss makes the meaning of this conclusion explicit for those who don't nowadays follow, "This indicates that it is prohibited to steal from a gentile."). The next paragraph accepts the prohibition but builds on it the other objection from Yosef that it doesn't refer to all Gentiles, which is rejected by the words of Abaye to Yosef, "Aren’t both of them written next to each other?": a rhetorical question proving that the distinction he makes between classes of Gentiles isn't borne out by the text. In the KJV we see that Lev. 25:47 first has "sojourner or stranger" (two categories), but then the Hebrew makes them one as indicated by the italics in the second phrase "stranger or sojourner". So the argument is that the Hebrew makes all Gentiles one in this respect, and that Abaye is trumping Yosef. This conclusion is stated in the words "Not to a stranger, but to a ger toshav", meaning that everyone deserves to be treated as a righteous son of Noah (no exceptions). It's not as you say, "They can be cheated if they aren't submissive to Jews", but it's using the textual variation in Lev. 25:47 to say all Gentiles are treated as submissive (amenable) by default and therefore worthy of basic humanity.

It's a cumulative set of conclusions. However, it's understandable if the give and take doesn't make clear who is being put forth as in the right and who isn't.

You then cite 133b:7 for Beivai and Hasida, but their justification for their point doesn't appear until 133b:8, where they cite Deut. 22:3 (restoration "with all lost thing of thy brother's", KJV). It's understandable if one would read "brother" and affirm it teaches responsibility for one's own people and not for what is lost by foreigners. This is undone by a clear statement of majority opinion ("But say"): "But say this applies where has not yet come into hand", that one is not responsible for things one hasn't come across or in the verse's language what "thou hast found".

This is consistent with the general arc of Judaism seeing themselves as the rightful masters of Gentiles.

Seems to me that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe themselves as more blessed than infidels, and as having better systems that infidels should rightfully adopt. It's called triumphalism, and I affirm it.

their catalog of respected rabbinical teachings to be pulled from by modern Jews to justify what they wish

No, they don't pull as they wish, they respect the flow of the text that is straightforward enough once you know the method (exactly like reading Aquinas, a wiki backpage, or the US Code). That's why they merely laugh if someone quotes the text without even attempting to understand the flow like any good historiographer would. The church fathers say all kinds of ridiculous things if you get to know them, most Christians don't care because we remember them primarily for the good things they say, and yet Christian patristics collections contain all the ridiculous no matter how banal because we believe in preserving everything we have. Comparative.

The dialogue you're reading isn't much different from early bishops arguing hotly over the nature of God. We all have a Nicene confession but they didn't and so they tried to form accurate statements and butted heads over it.

Specifically, there wasn't anything in Moses saying explicitly you must return the lost item of a Gentile, and in most cases one doesn't need to post a sign saying "not responsible for lost items". So they asked the question of each other. It's not a hard moral fault when one side says we need to be responsible for our own people more than for others. But since they insisted on going to the OT as ultimate settlement (even if that sometimes meant taking an esoteric argument), now that you've had me review it in more detail I can explain to people that the change in wording within Lev. 25:47 is taken as Mosaic approval that all Gentiles have the same positive rights even if they have not registered as ger toshav. [We might translate the first as "alien or resident" and the second as "resident alien", indicating that all aliens get counted by Moses as having the rights of residents.]

Now, does having this tremendous body of law tempt Jews to pick and choose, making a wax nose of their patrimony at whim? Yes it does, in exactly the same way the vast body of Christian or Muslim law tempts the same. It's straightforward that out of millions of Jews and billions of Christians and Muslims, many crazy things have been justified, and some by decently-sized groups rather than just individuals. The religion goes on nevertheless, despite the extremists pulling it in one direction, because the consensus pulls away from the extremists and reveals them as such. If someone makes a self-serving ruling from a holy book, the question is not whether it's self-serving, the question is whether it's an accurate historical reading or just "special pleading" against the face of consensus. And that question isn't easy and shouldn't be handled by snap misquotes like OP engages.

I'm glad you're taking the time to read the context and try to get a feel for how the Talmud works! It's not easy though, and one thing to keep in mind is that it works like a wiki backpage where anyone can say anything, and everything memorable is preserved whether it's sensible or not.

As I said, 113a:21, which partly appears in your first quote, gives two views, putting the majority view last (do not circumlocute but sanctify the name). Both views affirm vindicating a fellow Jew, but differ on whether circumlocution is permitted, and the majority view is that it isn't. Your third quote is 133a:22, which questions whether a nitpick can be taken from the majority view stated by Akiba (thus putting "apparently" in the gloss to guide the reader that this is an objection to be parried). The parry comes immediately in 133a:23-133b:1, where the original text reads, "One might have thought, deceive him. Therefore, the verse states: 'And he shall reckon with him that bought him', be precise with purchaser." The later gloss then explains, "This indicates that it is prohibited to steal from a gentile." (If you've ever read Aquinas, who is similarly dense, it's sometimes hard to tell that an opposition view is actually presented as opposition to be debunked, just like on this platform sometimes people don't always make clear when they're quoting another person they disagree with.) The position of the arguments, and the last argument not being parried, indicates what the majority view is.

Your second quote is then 133b:2, the opinion of Rav Yosef, saying that Lev. 25:48 permits deception to free a slave, Lev. 25:50 forbids such deception, and therefore they must refer to different types of Gentile. This too is immediately refuted, in 133b:3, "Abaye said to, Aren't both of them written next to each other?" Abaye shows that Lev. 25:47 refers to the "ger toshav" and not just the "goy", indicating that all Gentiles are to be treated by default as responsible.

The fact that individuals were less reasonable in judgment than others, but their opinions were retained so as to be refuted by the majority, is exactly like American case law where many wrong rulings abound but are corrected later by appeal to the same or a different court. Sometimes it's hard to find that a view has been overruled, but the view is still given credit because it was issued formally and is therefore preserved for the instructiveness of its mistake.

Abaye fields another objection in 133b:4-6, thus forbidding abrogation of loans, and then 133b:7-9 covers returning lost property, and again the majority ruling is to return property because of sanctification of the name: "In a case where there is desecration of name, prohibited even lost item." The fact that rabbis are testing loopholes and others are shutting them down is notable, as are the extraordinary haggadoth of 133b:10-12, but these are not the actual case law. If we wanted to argue that there are a number of unscrupulous rabbis, that Ashi and Yishmael were evil for wanting to cheat on their taxes, that would only apply to those individuals and not to the majority laws of the Talmud.

So even if we were to try to give maximal credit to the thumbnail as if it doesn't purport to be a quote (though many take it as such), and it merely summarizes the passage as "Jews may use lies to circumvent a 'Goy'", and it intends to include 133a where the word "circuitous" appears that is not in 133b, it would still be inaccurate because it doesn't indicate this is only the minority view of Ashi and Yishmael and it is immediately contradicted by authoritative context. We don't go around saying Psalm 14 teaches "There is no God" simply because that quote appears in it.

Would love to go into this but not gonna take the time right now. But if you confront a rabbi with false quotes I can understand if you get banned. For instance, as to the thumbnail:

Bava Kamma 113a does not say "Jews may use subterfuges to circumvent a goy." Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." Two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted in Sanhedrin 57a. So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Ashi and Yishmael, but not for the majority view or Jewish practice. Summary attributed also to Yoreh De'ah (generic).

More.

Correct, Washington joining 13 virgin spirits representing the 13 states is unduly Freemasonic. Some other deifications are visible, and in the larger rotunda art there's some appropriation of Native paganism too into the "American" narrative.

The church teaches theosis, not apotheosis.

The 72 names are no problem, it's that people treat them like names of powers other than God, just like they treat the names of our united states. It's not "synagogue of satan" as if that means Judaism, it's a group of "theist" Masons trying to get people away from Christianity. George probably never gave them what they wanted but he did permit himself to be diplomatic with them, and so they "repay" him by remembering him in ways he wouldn't have approved. Compare the statue of Washington as Zeus (let me know if I need to link that).

u/BlueDrache

Those are occasions long in the past when I was invited by individuals who guided me through what I can now say qualify as Backrooms in a broad sense. The point of Backrooms is that they are "liminal", meaning they don't appear suddenly out of place but they gradually give the impression of connecting to something we'd find out of place IRL; so there's no point at which you say "I'm going in" and crossing a clear threshold. That's why discernment is needed, and I didn't have that much but had enough situational awareness to make it through.

I don't know why the Guidestones, Stonehenge, or similar sculptures were ultimately purposed, but I can guess wildly!

The 1% exaggeration is for me to remain slightly cryptic for this forum, but please feel free to ask anything.

Christians are triumphalists, we believe Jesus will rule everything, and most of us recognize he's of Jewish ethnicity, so "every single time" might become literally true.

Thanks for the sanity. I would say "every single time" if it meant Jesus is in control. Maybe it will.

Gamaliel was the leading Pharisee and he was descended from David (via Hillel the Great) just like Jesus was. That's about 15th-cousin level, but it counted in those days. The Bible makes clear that Iudaea Province continued to have a mix of those with genealogies back to Adam and those leaders recently established.

The idea that there existed some other ethnicity than Jewish among the Judeans is completely foreign to the Bible.

Joseph's descent from David as a kingly line does in that culture transfer fully to Jesus by adoption. Mary's descent from David transfers to her seed. Now that we understand conception better, it's clear that the Holy Spirit used a pure-blood egg cell (the Word took part of flesh and blood) for the incarnation. Adam came from dust inspired the Holy Spirit, and Jesus's humanity did too, while his deity did not. Now, the incarnation is a matter that theologians argue hotly, but to say Jesus didn't inherit flesh and lineage from his mother seems pretty well excluded. After the zygote, all of Jesus's flesh in the womb came from his mother by nutritive processes.

Christianity started as a sect of Judaism. "Judaism" as defined by Paul in Galatians is neutral and can include good and bad practice. Christianity winnows out much of the bad practice (but is still being refined).

You have an ahistorical view of "Jew" as being shiftless and "Judaism" as being rabbinical only, which does not account for the historical meaning of those cognate terms in Jesus's day. Even if "Jews" genetically lost certain physical strengths over time, that's part of a curse upon a people, and can be reversed.

I've referred you to what the Bible actually says about "the Jews" collectively and it's quite different from the modern version due to intervening events. Of the quotes I gave about 2/3 are positive and 1/3 negative. Intervening events don't change the identity of the two.

Jesus is really in power. Oh, and he's Jewish.

Yes, all relations between two Christians are part of "church", but obviously that's not the type of "church" in which women are to be silent because Paul wouldn't be saying they should be silent in all human relations. It refers to regulating orderly church assemblies ("the churches"), and specifically exempts the "church" fellowship that a man has with his wife at home. Learn to exegete. Paul teaches you how to define by the example of the way he defines, it's amazingly instructive.

You also speak of regulation by establishing "quorum". c/Conspiracies is unregulated and the regulars seem to like it that way.

I suppose that watching u/CrusaderPepe on c/catholic might be counted a regulated church, but I haven't conceived of it that way as I would be concerned that not enough regulations are secured in many fora here.

The primary example of Christians discussing faith by the river was women, who were not silenced by Paul (Acts 16:13).

in the churches

in the church

c/Conspiracies is not constituted as a church. You don't go into a building managed by someone else and just declare it's a church because there are two of you and the manager has to remain silent no matter what you do. Go start a church, Christian man.

It says, But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Mark 15:3-6).

I'm rather partial to the name "Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (SPLAJ, 1977-2011).

We had much older words, like those that gave English pederast and catamite, and in Greek arsenokoites and malakos, that work even better. And porneia may be the best of all.

giant bottle of 30 pills

one chip challenge

Literally a bag of potato chip. Only one chip. I also see those .25-oz bags with 8 regular chips. We were commenting that it was Amos's complaint about unequal weights and measures .... and Israelites weren't the only ones doing it.

Yeah, they are more concerned with earth than anywhere, but I'm becoming more enamored of Biblical evidence that they have a little connection to various stars too. Sci-fi has done much to make them look like more physical creatures than they are.

Hebrew4Christians is a good source.

The OP is the complete opposite, pareidolia and apophenia.

Explaining the difference isn't worth it for this graphic.

Yes, and the system is still recognized as incomplete. And for those who want the exact irregular movement of the earth, we've grown a library of when leap seconds have been irregularly inserted into the calendar too, which is another cumulative idiosyncrasy that has no resolution. God intends irrationality that can't be approximated with any simple formula.