Because six or seven names were proposed by community members and admin selected from among them. Several community votes were held but there was more nonparticipation than participation. Anyone can post relevant vote questions at any time, but since she was modded not a soul has proposed a new one. Would you like to try yet another community vote on a simple binary question to see if another option has more traction? You can do that right now. But for the sake of making it a round table discussion, I voted you up anyway, even though the answer appears in the first sentence. Perhaps you want to clarify more specifically exactly what you think there is to discuss.

Very sneaky of you

No, it's what Paul does, because tribe is as genetic as gender.

God created all nations and he chose the jews for His covenant, just like He did with Noah and Abraham before them. He chose them to fulfil His plan for the salvation of man. They have done their part, just like Noah and Abraham before them, and then the torch was passed to the Apostles and the Church which will see the end of times and the second advent.

Nice narrative, it's almost covenantal. I guess I'll try to spell it out again. The spiritual covenant for whomever will did indeed pass through Noah, Abraham, many Jews often a majority, and the apostles and all professing, believing Christians. There are also national covenants for many nations (and in fact covenantal male-female roles too), and Israel's national covenant includes things like its restoration in this day and its hope (like many nations) that it will become a majority Christian nation thus completing its original Jewish covenant. Some nations are guaranteed to be destroyed by the end; some nations are guaranteed to be preserved through the end; nations are given various blessings and cursings often in combination. Since both types of covenant flow together they can be distinguished (even though for 1500 years they mostly related to the same people). As long as you don't see the national covenants like other national covenants but spiritualize them away, you act like the part of physical Israel is done. Should I say that all the nations being destroyed that were prophesied to be, and all the nations remaining today that were prophesied to be, are all just flukes and all such texts are to be read only spiritually? No, the Church routinely takes those prophecies literally, but denies them as to Israel. Ezekiel 36 (cf. 37) is particularly important here, because it promises that Israel will return to the land in unbelief before its heart is awakened to God. You don't spiritualize that away into some application to the Church, do you? The first half literally happened to Israel.

Masonry is heavily influenced by Talmudic Judaism and Kabbalism.

And by Jesuitry and by Islam. They work together is my point.

I already told you that what was appropriate in the OT (categorizing people as jews and gentiles in relation to God) is no longer appropriate after Christ

Then that would apply to male-female and you're no longer a man. But the fact is that this Scripture doesn't preclude people from still having social roles as men, women, Jews, Americans, etc.

Obviously Epstein uses "goy" differently, which is why I point him to the correct meaning from his own professed religion. We'd agree the religion shouldn't be countenancing definition change and can be criticized when it does.

Again you're tempting discussion to go into a number of other matters, and I respect you enough not to rehash those between us when we don't have good agreement on definitions as shown by the main issue I commented on, i.e. Masonry is a judgment upon Jew and Gentile alike, as the verse suggests. If you think Masonry benefits Jews above Gentiles in some endemic way rather than benefiting satanism above any racial class, that's what I was going after and you haven't "gotten that" yet.

If you were referring to American diaspora it'd make sense but you said "Europe will receive millions". Pew has European Jews shrinking from 9.5 million to 1.4 million, 1939-2010. I wouldn't have a problem saying the trend might reverse but I don't see 2 million new immigrant Jews in Europe anytime soon, i.e. coming from Israel and America to Europe. So we can agree "Europe will receive millions" is a bit inaccurate and more accurately stated by your adjusted text e.g. "the West may receive another million"?

if I say what the Epstein elites deserve, I shall be persecuted

You're an anon, is anything that happens in this virtual reality a "persecution"? Speak, fren, and enter.

Europe will receive millions of also incompatible Jews

You mean at least 30% of the Jewish population of Israel of 7 million? Sounds exaggerated, unlike you.

If there are no Jews or Gentiles, then from the perspective in Christ it's not a "goy" because it's not "Israel" either. From the perspective outside of Christ it's still both.

You say you're familiar so I'll only allude to the fact that Israel has two applications, national Israel gets national blessings and responsibilities, and spiritual Israel gets spiritual blessings and responsibilities.

As to Sabbath I'll let my words and others' suffice for now.

No, I'm saying Israel is among the Nations rather than apart from the Nations, and Torah proves it (there are other such passages). I'm also not dispensational; the word translated "dispensation" in the Bible refers only to two eras, which Jesus calls the present age and the coming age, which is not a uniquely dispensational system. HTH.

I don't see new categories as you do, but new blessings. As a covenantalist I see one people throughout history. Jacob gave that people a national aspiration and Christ gave it an organic foundation and a new spiritual unity; at other times the same people has made other quantum leaps into new blessings. The fact that we give semantic terms like "Israelite" and "Petrine" to these experiences, and argue over when the term fully begins to apply, is tangential. As an Orthodox you may see more in the organic foundation event "thou art Peter" than I do, but I trust you won't see something that isn't there.

Was going to say no, but it occurred to me that Zech. 14:12-14 indicates that you're right, even if Israel nukes other cities they will still "fight at Jerusalem" and not be out of the woods even with short-term victories. Zech. 14 and Rev. 6 are the clearest nuclear passages we have. This may precede retaliation by Iran supplied by Russia, ravaging the land of Israel Ezek. 38:19-20.

I fully ejected "Christmas" and "Easter" from my life. Of course I retained Mosaic Firstfruits and also celebrated it as Resurrection Day (which is an internal question among 7th-day resters). Funny thing, 25 years later, I discovered there's enough evidence that the Christian tradition of Julian December 25 might well point to a confused echo that Jesus's annunciation, conception, "epiphany", genesis, and "nativity" might have occurred on 25 Dec of 5 BC, corresponding to his birth on the first of Tabernacles (6 Oct) in 4 BC. One intriguing line is that Haggai 2 prophesies this date as 24 Kislev and Simeon makes about ten references to Haggai 2 suggesting he could've recognized and approved the date.

Therefore one thing we need to do in getting along with those rampant 1st-day resters is to be open to a couple hints in the text that there may be good symbologic significance to some things they day even as they are overcome by evil symbologic significance that has infiltrated their practice unconsciously. There is a way by which everything is pure to the pure. Celebrating Mosaic Firstfruits and a 25 Dec conception nativity can be done without sin. (Technical note: for Gregorian-Julian alignment of 2 days the celebration should begin the evening of 23 Dec, making 25 Dec more of a diaspora date; but getting off work the evening of 23 Dec is what people do nowadays anyway.)

Great points! Was going to say "100%", but you slipped in one overcompensation that 7th-day resters often fall prey to, namely the "Wednesday crucifixion". I looked seriously at it for some time, but there is actually "strong scriptural evidence" that Jesus did in fact die on the sixth day and rose on the eighth day, and that the other timetable is special pleading. What happened was that the 7th-day folks didn't think they had enough ammo as is (but they do), and so they cast about for more, and they came up with the idea that Jesus must have risen on the 7th day even though it's against the plain reading of the text, and then combined that with the idea that the ancients didn't count inclusively just because we generally don't. Then everything else was patched in to support the Wednesday story.

I won't lay out all the lines right now, but suffice that at the same time Moses gave us Sabbath he also set aside a special purpose for "the day after Sabbath". Namely, twice a year it is the beginning of a work season at Firstfruits and at Weeks (Pentecost). For 1500 years Israel celebrated the first day twice a year alongside Sabbath, and these are exactly the two occasions in 33 AD that testify of Jesus rising and the Spirit coming (now called Resurrection Day, or "Easter", and Pentecost). So it'd be a bit silly for Jesus to rise on Saturday when the whole point of Firstfruits in Lev. 23 is that it begins the week and also points to a greater beginning of a week 50 days later, which the Spirit also kept.

I have never seen a 7th-day rester deny that Christian Pentecost fell on the 1st day; they just tend to ignore that, and that's because in the 19th century they found it convenient to continue a church distinction between the Ten Words and all other laws. It's been their bit ever since, and a very good one, to call out the rest of the church for keeping all the Ten Words except the Sabbath. All they need is to take this to its logical extension, and some of the 7th-day people discovered this and rightly called them to greater holiness, like Andrew Dugger. So the witness of the 7th day is only improved by admitting 1st-day Pentecost, and that logically removes the necessity of leaning on a crutch of Wednesday crucifixion.

Chronology link.

Not exactly. Unless you remember that Israel is a goy too (Gen. 25:23).

Nice job.

The "three mysterious letters" from right to left are just "yuh yee ya". Probably a code I've seen before, if it comes to mind I'll let you know.

"Bind" from "bhendh-" unity in bend, band, bond, bund.

What of binding without sides or conflict?

What of treating God as present?

Of course I don't use this card with you or real anti-Semites here, Skil, because you have a pattern of getting your facts and sources mostly right. I picked on you once for facts and sources as to extinction, and again as to young earth, and you responded very rationally. The trump card is reserved for people who refuse to listen to reason; when that happens I find that their unreason is totally blown apart by my accusing them of being Jews larping against themselves. Read again: there are "insane anti-Semites" and sane ones.

Irrational "anti-Semite" accounts always in my experience refuse to deal with the fact that they harm anti-Semitism. Irrational "monotheist" accounts always in my experience refuse to confirm or deny being Muslim, because I believe it's impossible for a Muslim to deny being Muslim in good conscience. OTOH, once I realized that I was getting accused myself, I told people I'm going to stop denying being Jewish and instead (being all things to all men) agree to suffer alongside the Jews, as Jesus did. (And that card also always works, because people can't make hay out of my identification because it proves that they're acting on no evidence and that it wouldn't matter to them if I were Jewish or not.) So the refusal to deal with an identity question is 100% a tell of larping, while at the same time I discovered that if I lean into dealing with the identity question by identifying with the accused class that is the best evidence I can give for being sincere and transparent.

My post history proves you wrong.

In this comment you make a couple generic swipes against "Jews" but decline to cite specifics such as saying Brooklyn rabbis like Yechiel Brauner and Yoel Malik "rape children institutionally"; but it takes 30 seconds to construct such a sentence. You also decline to note my regular statement that I worship exactly one Jew because you dismiss Jesus from being King of the Jews, IIRC (nor the recognition that the Angel of the LORD calls himself a satan, which is necessary context to statements about it). So while you do occasionally call out individuals, your post history trends toward the generic that doesn't build the case.

Yeah, we do that literally every single day. Citations and sources. Direct quotes. You have nothing.

In my experience 85%-90% of Talmud references here are not on its own terms but are failures of interpretation. I've contextualized those. When people get it right I often say nothing. I don't recall you being outside this trend.

The things I always call out when I see them, you mean?

I don't know what you mean by that. I meant the person who is listed repeatedly in the most recent position here. Nothing to do with you or your style. If you were unwilling to listen to the reason of this statement, you might indicate a desire to trend toward that, though.

1. Yes, no contradiction, all kinds of things are unities in one sense and pluralities in another sense, so it would be natural for God to be so too.

2. Some use the debt metaphor but it's not the most straightforward and not the clearest thing to be drawn from the Bible. If someone gave you this somewhat sloppily, I apologize. The fact is that in our own lives we've made mistakes (without needing to blame Adam), and that Jesus agreed to suffer the consequences of our mistakes so that we wouldn't have to (e.g. consequences like everyone else's anger at the things you failed them in), and that the Father accepted this substitution so that everyone who demands anything from you for your mistakes can be pointed to Jesus who promises to make it right for them too. (He also gives us all the blessings he earned by his righteous life.) As the good Samaritan says, whatever debts the sick man accrues, charge me with them instead. It's simpler to understand that way.

3. The Bible doesn't say you've failed if you don't convert people in some number, that's indeed a pressure tactic and again I apologize if you got that impression from people. It actually says we can't convert people, none can be converted unless the Father does the work of drawing them. Our responsibility is not to force change but just to share truth and let the Spirit work where he wills. There's a key text in Ezekiel, if God tells you to warn a person and you don't, you're responsible; but don't let a lying spirit or attitude make you think you have to warn everybody when you can't, because that's not its point. Christianity is not about "must"! It's about what we joyfully get to do after someone else (Jesus) did what he must.

So, like I said, I have truths and I enjoy sharing them and people can take them or leave them, and I rejoice when people take them. (And I rejoice when I'm corrected that what I thought was truth wasn't actually complete.) Zero pressure. If it's pressure, I call it churchianity because it's not life in Christ anymore. I've even gotten a bit more liberal as I've aged about the second coming and hell, because rightly understood those are not about pressure either, though they would take a bit longer to explain and you didn't raise a specific question there about them. But I hope that shows that I am confident my news is pretty good.

Remind me again what A-lister they got to portray Melinda Gates?

That's the spirit. Gradual and progressive. Besides, that TPUSA date will be repurposed for, well, it'll be obvious.

What I do know is that whenever you accuse Scored anti-Semites of being shill Semites they never ever deny it. It's always a winning trump. I tell them all you're making the Jews look good and they never ever stop to say, y'know, you're right, since I want the Jews to look bad I should stop acting like an insane anti-Semite and argue rationally. They always double down and act stupider. I'm literally the only one here saying if you want to criticize the Jews do it right, I said that on ConPro five years ago and eventually got banned for it, and never a soul has taken my lead and said, yeah, let's prove how stupid the Talmud is on its own terms instead of our own; every one has continued the strawman. Ooh, I haven't tried this with my most recent Talmud misquoter yet, I should.

A couple people receive my criticism and thank me for the context. But if they don't receive it I whip out my trump card and it's worked every time for five years. This could lead to a new theory: Jews (demographically of course) are so insular that they often fail to read the room to find out what's good for them. It's been noted that as a group they are abysmal at outreach and enfolding with two exceptions, Chabad and Messianics. Maybe some of them actually reason that, since the strategy of larping as anti-Semites always works and is morally acceptable due to a perceived war, we should press harder on it when challenged and act more irrational. But they think it would dishonor the name they want to worship if they were to admit the truth, that either the individual or the group finds it advantageous to larp and divide a larger opponent. As soon as they would admit the truth they would find the doors wide open for them; and I've previously prophesied that this is exactly what Judah discovered when he laid down his life for Benjamin and found he received Joseph and his riches thrown in.

Aside, there are a couple folks that are apparently Muslims larping as Christians. You and u/Mark4-40 may have spotted this trend before I did. They talk very Christian with the exception of the "tell" that every now and then something positive slips in about Islam, Muhammad, Ishmael, or oddly Semitic nontrinitarian monotheism. These folks always fall to the equivalent form of the same trump card, pointing out that they're Muslim (which they can never deny even though true Christians can calmly deny it on first request) and then ridiculing them for trying to make Christians look bad when it actually makes Muslims look bad as soon as they're caught. Looks like not all Abrahamics handle the pursuit of truth the same way. Let's call this the Nehemiah card:

Then I sent unto him, saying, There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart. For they all made us afraid, saying, Their hands shall be weakened from the work, that it be not done. Now therefore, O God, strengthen my hands.

Building 7 fell on time, even without the plane

Looks like they had to go to plan B with a "fire collapse" narrative because that plane or drone was unavailable

spliced from the local fauna

Tree of Life, Yggdrasil

jews

Name the Jew for Real, Henry Kissinger voted yes

Audit the gold[,] they don't have the power they claim to possess

End the Fed

Completely false because it contradicts Valentinian melon theory.

C'mon, man! Everyone who has done (or will do) that gets raided by the authorities who are tasked with keeping the public from knowing the details of time travel at large. When you win the lottery against cabal expectations they find out how and deal with it, even though they usually treat your invention like a Galt engine and let it rust and collect cobwebs. Time travel requires great timeline responsibility and of course patience. There is even one notable instance (not saying past or future) where the guy pays for the winning numbers and then another time traveler sets it so they are the wrong numbers just selecting that draw by coincidence. So it doesn't always work. When you know the future and try to exalt yourself with it then the future fights you (Cassandra problem); you can only advance in knowing the future by submitting to its greater expansive range.

Since you've gotten the mistaken impression that I can't stand up to your truths or that I'm against you thoughtlessly, let me affirm that (aside from the insults in the beginning and end lines) I have no problem with this narrative and affirm your getting it out. It appears true and fills in a gap in my understanding of history because I have some info on the wars to control Freemasonry ca. 1850-1900 and this seems the outgrowth of those as it leans into the Protocols and other invented narratives of the period. Good information to have.