The Ashkenazi have admitted that they arose from intermarriage of converts, which affects the gene pool. The question is whether they are the same people, and that is answered by the fact that peacefully merging into the same agreed polity as someone else makes you the same people. I've asked for proof that they are not the same people and none has come forth. In tenth century France, Ju was the short form and Judaeus was the long form of the same term for the same people.
If we Americans may tell Jews they're not true Jews and we know who are true Jews, Jews may tell us Americans that we're not true Americans and they know who are true Americans. Those who are othering Jews by calling them non-Jews are doing what they accuse Jews of doing.
if a man comes to kill your friend you actually have a duty to lie to him and save your friend (supposing fighting is not an option).
Many have weighed in differently on the issue, which is why I gave the note. Perhaps you have a magisterial citation about my duty to tell lies as if one man can compel another man's testimony. I appeal to Is. 54:16-17 that no entrapment to lie can succeed:
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
Further, no command can contradict another, so if you are faced with an apparent contradiction it is your own failure of discernment, Matt. 22:39-40:
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
You and I denounce Origen, and yet the introduction into Christianity of the thought that Christians have a "right of reserve" to not tell the whole truth is Origenism.
I respect your other comments and you seem wise enough to take direction from a few simple indicators.
Yet the jews crucified him
Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus .... and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! ... And they crucified him (Matt. 27:27, 29, 35). Roman soldiers.
For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets (1 Th. 2:14-15). Not "crucified". "The Jews" here excludes Thessalonian Jews and Christian Jews.
When Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel .... The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied .... And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead .... And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers .... Many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand (Acts 3:12, 13, 15, 17, 4:4). Hundreds of Israelites who delivered Jesus were of the first 5,000 Christians.
and didn't recognize him as savior.
The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead (Acts 10:36-41).
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16).
And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law (Acts 21:20). Greek, literally "many myriads", i.e. over 30,000 Torah-observant Messianic Jews in Jerusalem alone.
A jewish person who doesn't recognize Jesus as saviour is still a jew and a child of the devil.
Yes, like any Gentile, except the English Bible capitalizes "Jewish" and "Jew".
One who converts to Christianity is no longer a jew, but a christian.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). So, only in the sense that one is "no longer" a man or woman. Further:
Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew (Acts 21:39). While a Christian.
He is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Rom. 2:29).
That's what the bible says.
Yes, in case you didn't see me saying it the last 20 times, Jesus Christ is my Lord, Savior, and King. He also prophesied twice that the Jews would welcome him in the Father's Name (Luke 13:35, Matt. 23:39). Paul expands on this prophecy (Rom. 11). So, for the sake of Jesus Christ, my Lord, Savior, and King, I preach the good news of the death of Christ for my sin and the resurrection of Christ for my glorification to everyone, Jew first and Gentile also. On occasion that includes straightening out the Gentiles about who the Jews are.
I've also denounced the Talmud here repeatedly for its superstitious spiritism, its casuistic unawareness, and its stifling isolationism. However, I cannot denounce the Talmud on things it doesn't say, and there's a lot of other denunciation floating around for that reason. For instance, I've denounced Rabbi Ulla for saying the Jesus who was hung on a tree at Passover was an inciter; but I cannot denounce the Talmud for accurately reporting that Ulla said that as an outlier view and the majority ruled differently.
Did you recant your statement that "King of the jews" (your lowercase) was not an actual title, or do you "pathetic"ally "rewrite" Matt. 2:2?
Lying can be virtuous if you do it to save someone from the gestapo.
Nota bene: Corrie ten Boom didn't lie to the gestapo when they asked if there were any Jews in her house, she said "Search for yourself". Athanasius didn't lie to the government when they asked if he had seen Athanasius, he said "He's very near, you can still catch him."
So you do need a course in linguistics because you don't know the difference between convergent homonyms and etymologically pedigreed variants. Do you want the links?
Lin Wood has credible evidence Epstein is alive.
As to this one (note my reply might be delayed if you don't reply to me directly or ping me with the string "u/SwampRangers"), I just told you the evidence is in Kenyon's extensive field notes. I've also just linked you evidence from many hostile witnesses that Yeshua's life was marked by a reputation for performing inexplicable works ("wonders"). Eyewitness evidence is actually the best testimony, but the miracle (inexplicable event) that 25% of the known world regards Yeshua as God the Son is a pretty good subsidiary evidence that there must be something there.
I understand if you think my suppositions are based on belief. I call myself a skeptic though because I went through doubts and worked out every one of them so that the unevidenced beliefs I had as a child were modified so that my views are now based on all the evidence (facts and logic) available. You might call that "suppositions" if you use the same word for your own hypotheses, but IRL we don't call it a hypothesis or supposition that we ate breakfast this morning. We call it a (sufficiently evidenced) fact. So the actual case is that I have sufficiently evidenced views based on facts and logic that have been tested against all comers, and continue to be. I would hope you aspire to the same.
So, though the Jericho case is very interesting and also involves some conspiracy to control the evidence released, I think it's more tangential and you should focus on what you think happened to Yeshua and his followers when he died, because that's really the hinge on which Yeshua's testimony of other miracles turns. For that I refer you to my separate comment on it.
I never said it changed its meaning, so you changed my meaning. Ju means Judaeus and is the same word as Jew. Would you like a linguistics course? Or would you like to do what nobody here has ever done and explain who the two people-groups are that you imagine existed side by side?
That was written for atheists who are so materialist that they define divine and sacred as anything supernatural (i.e. unexplained by known laws), when they don't realize that all good scientific theories, including the Big Bang in its first Planck instant, admit that unexplained things exist. If the Cosmos is everything that exists, it's also going to be the most divine and sacred of anything, and only the totality of the Cosmos can successfully map itself (any other map is not the territory). So most philosophers cross that pons asinorum pretty early.
I appreciate that you're content with the minimalist god as simply defining it as the greatest of all possibilities. What we find out is that, when we consider all the detailed proposals that have been made to explain it, including all the superstitions (inexplicables) that have been offered throughout history, the goatherders are batting impressively by comparison. Science calls for an inference to the best explanation, and so I choose my inferences based on which concept explains reality the best, and I keep improving my inferences (I trust you do too).
The conclusion of that piece is not only the existence of the messianic (anointed) preacher but also very confident history of the specifics of his teaching. The link had sublinks that detailed these and I added an eighth one here. The historical issue is that the novelty of all these claims together, and the uniqueness of the testimony of wonders (inexplicables) performed by Jesus from both supportive and hostile witnesses, indicates a personality and concept set that is nonpareil in all of history. He had a self-concept that is both unprecedented and transcendent, and he affirmed many historical accounts of the supernatural as true events too. So if the 1st century (so named after him) contains accounts of a man with such world-changing force, then either he really was supernatural, or (if there is no supernatural) belief in the supernatural is still better for the world than the alternative. Descartes said something similar.
I count myself a skeptic, and you obviously count yourself a devil's advocate. I think the path forward is (1) recognize that "supernatural" simply means "unexplained by known law", (2) recognize that all scientific theories by nature leave room for the unexplained, (3) focus on the unexplained aspects of the resurrection evidence, and (4) make an inference to the best (most complete, most sufficient) explanation.
"Jewish" means "being a Jew", how could it mean anything else?
Ioudaios in Latin is Judaeus, which in 900s France was elided to Ju meaning the same thing and referring to the same people, which through many spellings became standardized as Jew.
For there to be a difference between Judeans/Judahites and Jews, there would need to be two different peoples that never merged, but we only see one polity that at times accepted outsiders who converted, were circumcised, and intermarried. There is no historical scenario where there were two different peoples of this description.
The Magi didn't mock Jesus by calling him King of the Jews in Matt. 2:2.
Goyim is plural, we're goyim, you're a goy.
I've been asking for years if anyone has evidence that Jews are not Judeans/Judahites, and nobody has it. It turns out that the first people to say that Ashkenazi did not have 100% Jewish blood were Jews in the first place (Judah Halevi, Abraham ibn Daud, and Isaac Levinsohn from Ukraine). They were hoping that by making that admission they'd get less persecution, but over time it made them more persecuted. You're not perpetuating a narrative written by Ashkenazi Jews, are you?
See, I told you, keep parodizing it and you'll hit the truth sooner or later, Rex. Keep up the good work.
u/LightBringerFlex openly sources the Sadlers' Urantia Book.
Yes except they are not ancestors but analogues. You don't think abiogenesis only happened once, do you? It's so mathematically impossible to happen once (literal probability zero) that it's equally likely that it happened may times, just as Gen. 1 says.
now I’m a lot closer to Yeshu. He told me, I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes. He also told me to come close to him near the fire, so I can be close to the kingdom.
u/Graphenium and I have found that there's enough bridge between Thomas and those other gospels that your other statement is immoderate:
Christianity as practiced today all over the World is absolutely false. 100% deception.
What would be absolutely true in your opinion? You have an experience, it seems, how can another person objectively test your experience to see if its source is absolutely true?
The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge and hidden them. The prison is your mind, the lack of knowledge. That’s why THEY erase all your memory before you are born into this world. So you don’t know who you are and where you came from. And when you die the deception takes over, that’s why THEY work so hard to brainwash you in this life. So you’ll have no chance to make the right choice when it comes to the next life, e.g. “What’s next?”. And you think it's destiny, or karma, or something like that. It's not.
Pharisees are memory erasers now? This is too hastily said. The "memory loss" you describe is the result of a divine thought being compressed into a sparked zygote, it's not a true loss but a severe fractal compression that creates a new Self-Other paradigm. Without getting your terminology sufficiently exact you won't have hope to get it right in this life, and you may have some difficulty rightly interpreting the next too.
The first reference to gnosis is when Paul warns us against pseudognosis. It all flows from those two kinds and it's essential to know the difference.
The Bible says Jesus was Jewish and King of the Jews.
The way their tech works is that humans only see some of the pixels that appear in reality but we are evolving to a point where we can see more.
Interesting theory. I would think many such pixels extend into the fifth or higher dimensions and that is the method by which the ancients recognized infiltrators (the skill isn't "evolved" so much as rediscovered). The fact that all of the subjects we're discussing are interfertile Homo sapiens means that the reptilian manifestation detectable most easily by EEG is not a literal separate DNA-barcode species but should be treated like a subspecies.
the age of their species is much older than humans.
No; even if there had been successful GMO before, the older DNA is only one day off in dynamic time, but it's true that in quantum time you could pack a lot more into a day then than you can now.
a shapeshifting Reptilian that shifts from Reptile to man in a tuxedo.
Polymorph tech is well-described by Ovid: as you point out, it's most often used by "demons", who make free use of that extradimensional space from which to select DNA-frame bodyplans. This doesn't create a new stable specimen, of course, only an ephemeral image for comms purposes, so it doesn't really count as any kind of species, which is why it so freely shifts. Getting a stable physical specimen to metamorph is quite the undertaking and requires such intense concentration, alignment, and harmony that it's rare that either the subject or the observer can see the pixelation changes; much easier for humans to do it in dreams instead, where there is less dimensional drag.
Reptilians are also able to shift into the 2nd dimension of hell
Different meaning of "dimension", I pedantically observe. "Layer" or "depth" might be intended. The similarity to spatial dimensions is insignificant, as in human affairs all 2D operations are shadows of 3D operations.
There was a great 5 planet war 500 million years ago between many ETI vs Reptilians.
Again your dating and sourcing is suspect, Sadler couldn't be bothered to get numbers right. I'm looking into what planets may have been involved, but the timeframe has been corrupted by radioactive decay, the Doppler redshift puts it at a more recent date.
Even Satan appeared as a Reptilian to Adam and Eve whose story I tracked was slightly different than the Bible.
Question everything, including questioning everything. It'd be better to hash out the differences and agree to disagree than to insinuate. Your statement about Adam is not technically contrary to the Bible, so I'd focus on points that are.
There is no direct connection between Khazaria and the Pale 800 years later.
There is no evidence that Ashkenazi came from Khazaria and nowhere else, and even if they did it was the decision of the other Jews to allow it because the continuing polity of Judaism remained the same. (Reform and Frankist Jews have done much worse to modify the polity of Judaism than Khazarians did.) DNA evidence indicates a racial mix, not a pure Khazarian strain. So:
If Americans can tell Jews they're not Jews but someone else is, Jews can tell Americans they're not Americans but someone else is.
I asked you honest questions and you don't have the answers. I continue to seek the answers. Maybe I should ask the Jews since they were the ones who first noted that Ashkenazi had mixed heritage including Khazaria (they announced this because they thought it would weaken anti-Semitism but it made it worse).
Do you need help searching for a post by title? Do you need help finding the TLDR section in what I just linked you? Do you need help comprehending that "caricaturing of Jew haters" and Jews "spreading lies about the Jews" is the same as larping? Perhaps you're quibbling that I didn't directly say you were doing it, though I'm confident I have before? Is there some reason you're denying that I said to you what you responded to?
Here, directly: Your professing ignorance is part of a pattern that appears to be that of a Jew larping as an enemy of the Jews so as to gain sympathy for Jews. Your calling me a Jew conclusively without room for doubt is part of the same pattern. Do you just want me on the record telling you that's the most likely interpretation of your words? Do you remember how many times I've told you or your other account(s) that your inane, rash posturing promotes the Jewish cause and harms the Nazi cause, such as the time you thought "kid" in a medieval text meant a child and not a goat?
Your larping plays best for the Jews. You keep doing what a Jewish larper would do. You've got some flexibility because you modify your position a bit when called on it, and you've notably laid off the spam to some degree. But you don't present claims to be discussed, you present them (such as the "positive Christianity" that is dolfolatry) with the effect that they get ridiculed, and the purpose of a system is what it does. Instead of admitting that your view has been improved as a student of truth would do, you've doubled down with the larp. If there's actually just a human there who just respects Hitler, quit it with the bluster and exaggeration and admit some nuance about your views so that this board can get back to elite research. I write because there still seems to be some human left in you, and maybe we can still reach understanding and reason.
I literally wrote the post, "Hoaxes about Jews indicate significant motivation to defame Jews rashly, which can reflect two contrary trends: thoughtless hatred for Jews, and thoughtless pro-Jewish caricaturing of Jew haters to create thoughtless sympathy for Jews", which I pinged you and which you reported.
I'm glad my new phrasing got your attention this time, maybe you're ready to stop larping as a positive Christian and just be Christian instead.
I tell him that his larping plays best for the Jews and he keeps doing what a Jewish larper would do, though he's got a bit of flexibility.
And how is it that the Ashkenazi were recognized as Jews? By continuous polity with the other Jews, which permitted their intermarriage with other Jews, in addition to conversion of newcomers that compelled them to share the Jewish culture. If some of them came from Khazaria, the record shows that they intermarried with other Jews for hundreds of years before Khazaria was conquered. Where is your evidence that the Ashkenazi were at some point not recognized as Jews by all other Jews?
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/15HbbQEgDL/special-study-1718-apr-2022-phar/c
I can give you a rundown on Kathleen Kenyon's Jericho dig and the 4.2kya event too if you like, but your comment strikes me as somehow antiscientific. Maybe (with your username) you need to start out letting us know your presuppositions, or perhaps contribute to c/satanism.
I love your nondoomer personality, with broey love.
Essentially correct, anyone who rejects Jesus is a servant or child of the devil (slight diff involved), and they should be evangelized like any people. Keep in mind that a Lifeway survey finds there are about a million Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah, out of about 15 million Jews in all, so I usually say Rabbinical Jews to distinguish from Messianic Jews. The only difficulty is that it's uncharitable to relegate any whole to the devil when it is our job to spread the good news winsomely (i.e. not to destroy culture but to work within culture and only destroy what is an obvious sin). Much of what's said about "the Jews" is stated as if it applies to every innocent man, woman, and child, and so that calls for care.
Interestingly, the KJV only uses the phrase "chosen people" once, for a certain select Gentile army.
Correct, you are, and that's not what the Bible does, and it's not what the Messianic Jews (our brothers in Christ) do. The Rabbinical Jews do not have a formal position on Messianic Jews, but the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that they are halakhically children of Jews even though they do not have full rights (being also Christians). Therefore the proposition that "Jews" automatically means deniers of Christ is not a straightforward use of the word and gets in the way of evangelism.
Further, I've asked for years whether any congregational rabbi or rabbinical organization formally rejects Jesus in plain English, and I've come to find they don't. Rabbinical Judaism does not take a formal position on Jesus because they know what kind of blowback they get when their individual congregants do. I explain to everyone, they're too cagey for that. And that is our opportunity to give them the good news of Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures and their own rabbinical sources.