The "Canaanite" phenotype is actually that of the Habiru or Hapiru (i.e. Hebrew) nomads who lived among the Canaanites. That is, other Semites than Abraham's family, who were notable in the Egyptian records and later among the Hyksos.

The intermixing is valid to a point, but so is the right to retain the identity. There was not significant Edomite intermixing until the 2nd century BC, but Edom is gone now. A lot of Egyptian, and a little Hittite, Canaanite, Ishmaelite, and later Babylonian was allowed if people converted fully (and there were pushbacks, as with Nehemiah, to dismiss immigrants en masse if they didn't convert). Hittites, Canaanites, and Babylonians are no more (Ishmaelites are Arabs). Getting Babylon out of order, and then mixing in the Huns, is very telling, because I don't know of Hun intermarriage at all; but Huns and Khazarians are no more. If two nations merge the nation gets to determine which new name it will take. Oddly, when Israel and Judah merged they took the name of the smaller people, Judah, because so much of Israel was lost to history that Judah had outstripped it.

But the idea that outsiders get to decide who are "true Judahites" is as ridiculous as letting outsiders decide that you're not a "true American" but the immigrants they sent you are "true Americans".

The religion of the Jews remained Torah observance despite their presence in Babylon. Everything in Judaism can be derived from the Torah, even if it's misinterpreted; so it's not Babylonian in origin.

All historians know that Jews didn't have power of capital offenses, which is why the thieves were in Roman custody rather than Jewish custody.

Jesus's adoptive father was sufficiently well-known due to his connections to the Levite caste via Elizabeth and so there was not doubt that Joseph claimed to confer Jesus's legal status as a Jewish son, only about the legitimacy of the claim (as shown by the hostile witnesses saying they were not bastards and hinting that Jesus was).

Jesus's followers were all Jews up to over 30,000 Torah-observant followers in Jerusalem alone (Acts 21:20).

This poorly scanned copy of some unindicated document shows only that whoever argued it believed in a Jesus wholly different from the one worshipped in Christianity, not that there is any religious or historical validity to the view.

Hans Kerrl full quote, 1937 speech: "The party ... stands on a basis of Positive Christianity, and Positive Christianity is National Socialism .... National Socialism is the doing of God's will .... God’s will reveals itself in German Blood .... Dr. Zoellner and Count Galen, Bishop of Muenster (Catholic), in similar words have tried to make clear to me that Christianity consists in faith in Christ as the Son of God. That makes me laugh. No, the main thing is deeds. Christianity is not dependent upon the Apostles' Creed .... True Christianity is represented by the party, and the German Volk are now called by the party and especially the Fuehrer to a real Christianity .... The church has not been able to generate the faith that moves mountains. But the Fuehrer has! The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation." (Herman 1943 pp. 157-158)

1920 DAP platform point 24: "We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence nor offend the moral feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest."

I'm really not interested in the analysis of your old gripes: if I were the mod I'd tell you to state what you want done and then to give you a ruling and explanation and be done with it. If you're saying you saw a comment deleted by scoredinternal and a copy of the comment was not deleted, that even more indicates admin involvement. I learned early here that when admin is involved you pay attention to what they say and don't say, because they are after all lords of the manor. You don't seem to have learned that so you get the concrete backups instead like losses of privileges.

Obviously I meant in this forum only. I also said in the last 3 months only (your comment target is 4 months ago). The rules of c/Funny are different and you broke them so it's no surprise that u/scoredinternal is acting differently there. What's the surprise is that it's protecting your free speech here more than anyone's.

Add: There were 3 deletions by scoredinternal in the last 3 months, here, here, and here. Two of these are removals of death threats made against YOU. Sounds like if anything admin is being more favoritist toward you than toward anyone else! And you go on defaming them. Kind of like how God lets people live who hate him because they may yet be drawn to him in time. You'll learn gratitude for God's grace one of these days, one of these ways.

Well, I'm happy to have been wrong. It looks like the admin really are keeping watch and using the scoredinternal account as a human-operated mod when it's called for and not when it isn't. That restores my faith in them: scoredinternal passes the Turing test for now. That kinda says something about all your pings to that account getting no response .... (And it also says something about their deliberate inaction as to the community's failure to generate consensus about path.)

Hitler was no Catholic, he rejected the Catholic creed, Catholic revelation, and the Son of God:

In 1937, Hans Kerrl, the Reich Minister for Church Affairs, explained that "Positive Christianity" was not "dependent upon the Apostle's Creed", nor was it dependent on "faith in Christ as the son of God", upon which Christianity relied; rather, it was represented by the Nazi Party: "The Führer is the herald of a new revelation", he said. [Shirer 1960]

Adolf Hitler used the term in point 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform, stating: "the Party as such represents the viewpoint of Positive Christianity without binding itself to any particular denomination".

Hi Joe, here's a test string:

"Kill yourself."

Automod should predictably immediately delete and log.

God says we should avoid the appearance of evil

That's right. Now online people are free to invent any claim of what you appear to them at all, so we also must use judgment. In 2022 the Scored namespace opened up and many people seized various names immediately, often just to prevent others from using a name for purposed believed to be woke. So I watched this happen, prayed about it, and then decided to claim a handful of names myself as others were doing and to offer them to the Scored community for neutral discussion (on all sides of the issues). In the cases being discussed here, hardly anything happened, except for there being more discussion about the community than in the community. I respected that people wouldn't understand, but I think overall it's been a good decision and not one that constitutes appearance of evil any more than Psalm 14 in context saying "There is no God" constitutes appearance of evil.

I am quite aware of the actual original meaning of Semite, but when OP uses the word in its narrower sense I reserve the right to use that context. But my words are not contrary to the broader sense, and do not necessitate the conclusion I use the word only in support of Jews. That's reading comprehension again.

It obviously doesn’t show Israel on the map but Palestine.

This is a total fail, dude. There was never a nation Palestine unless you count Philistia, but the Philistines are dead. The name Palaestina was given to the region by Rome to spite the Jews they had ejected, but the remaining people living in the land were not "Palestinian" (which would have meant Philistine) but were Samaritan, Arab, and a number of holdout Jews and Christians in various cities. Over time these got to be called, as I said, Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews, after the region that kept changing hands. As I said, by a sketchy agreement with the British it got named Mandatory Palestine. When the British left, the Israelis declared self-government, and the Arabs told their people to leave and declared war with no self-government, and we're following the consequences of that. So, as I said, without going into long history, "Palestine" has never ever been "some Semitic entity that has some rightful ownership of some land".

Jesus was a Palestinian.

Totally false, the name Palaestina came 100 years after his death. He was an Israelite Jew (Judean and Judahite), as the Bible constantly says.

Israel and jews are killing Palestinians and have been for a long time.

I'm not making judgments about war deaths, the UN is investigating charges of genocide on that right now so we'll see what happens when the smoke is fully clear. Yes, Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs have been killing each other a long time, and the Jews thought it better to stop calling themselves Palestinians as they had formerly when it wasn't misunderstood, but that doesn't create a Semitic nation Palestine.

Again, a dismissive tone towards Christian persecution. “A little”, give me a break.

I just alluded to the myriads of Christian deaths in dozens of Arab counties with extreme sympathy. I understand that perhaps dozens of Christians have been killed by Jews recently, which is indeed a little by comparison. Total 20th-century victims of statism is estimated at a quarter-billion, with the largest percentage of those being abortions, so I keep perspective. If you had an actual bloody shirt to wave I could condemn it. I heard that two Christian ladies in the LPJ were killed as a result of IDF fire (they say by ricochet), and they are on the fast track to martyrdom I understand, and I don't discount them at all. But my Lord answered whataboutism exactly the same way: he said it wasn't any worse than any other tragedy and unless you repent you will likewise perish.

Yup, you link three deaths that I heard about in July, which Israel apologized for; and you link Al-Jazeera on the two ladies I just mentioned, and a strike from the first month of the war, and the Hamas death numbers (which are as reliable as the covid death numbers). So, without having read the links, I anticipated them precisely. Every Christian who dies in the Israeli war zone is a tragedy; now, as Jesus indicated, let's take the tragedy as an encouragement for ourselves to serve God ever better. It's not like I can change anyone else's behavior except by example from changing my own.

Talmudic Judaism is anti-Christian and should be condemned by all Christians worldwide.

It's anti-idolatry and has permitted much anti-Christianity but it also has recognized that Judaism should not make anti-Christianity a tenet or platform plank. And so it doesn't. Rabbi Ulla, c. 300 AD, charged Jesus with being an inciter, so I condemn Rabbi Ulla for that (that's called Name The Jew For Real). The Talmud makes his statement the minority view and not binding on Jews, so I can't condemn the Talmud for accurately reporting his view. And, when I do comparative religion and consider the invective that early Christians and early Muslims had for other religions, I find exactly the same sort of individual condemnations that were never meant as tenets of the religion simply because notable proponents held the views tentatively.

So I can't conclude Talmudism is automatically anti-Christian. For 4 years or so I've asked all comers to provide a single clear English statement that condemning Jesus is essential to Judaism from any congregational rabbi or rabbinical organization. So far I've got Rabbi Ulla in the Talmud, one obscure rabbi in Hebrew (Eitan Baghdadi) in a clip whose original is unfindable, and one antimissionary who does not appear to be a congregational rabbi (Tovia Singer). They do not speak for the tenets of Judaism, but for themselves. So my conclusion is that Talmudism is deliberately still pre-Christian and deliberately and studiously agnostic on the key questions.

I’m afraid my interpretation of John’s Revelations are more in line with reality.

There's gigantic work of satan, it involves many Jews, but why should you discount the many more Gentiles doing gigantic work of satan as well as the principles of sound exegesis? The only reason I can see that people do that is that they're precommitted to a racist proposition that judges the innocent along with the guilty. If they were merely speaking of predilection and demographics their language would be wholly different (more like the earlier clause of your sentence, which I didn't quote) and I'd have no issue.

But you're "afraid" when Jesus says have no fear; and I'm confident and triumphalist because I know all synagogues of satan will worship at my feet (just as history indicates Onkelos worshipped at Ignatius's feet) and they are destined to serve me in exactly the same way you charge them with wanting others to serve them. Only one triumphalism will win, only one group will become the "masters", and I've made my choice by going with the group that makes itself the servants of all. Because I know my destiny and am assured it by Jesus, I can squarely face everything he says about the works of satan instead of wresting two verses out of the context of seven letters that all speak to the subject of the church and its wrestling with enemy infiltration. I have a much clearer picture of the enemy than you have with your lists of influencers and their attempts to slap gold stars on everyone according to shifting-goalpost standards. I've always approved lists of manipulators and attempts at identification, but I've pointed out that they miss the point entirely, and are actually harmful, if they fail objective methodology and merely cherry-pick and invent categories of Jewish relationship so as to shift the narrative from satanism to a particular group. I humorously made a list of "It's the Germans" companies and influencers just to show how ridiculous the concept is, and sure enough there are so many Germans and German-influenced people in all these same institutions that it must be the Germans every single time, meaning that it's not the Germans at all. But people are free to go on with their illogic, I'll just keep shining the light on it and sitting secure in my confidence that I'm doing what the Lord shows me to do.

TLDR: Your interpretation that Jesus means "Jews" when he says "not Jews" remains an eisegetic failure that creates doubt that you intend to interpret the Bible by the Holy Spirit at all. Your evidence about the cabal should be couched in language that rejects collectivism and judgment of the innocent if you care to fight them honestly at all. Plus, since we have a call to give good news to Jews if they will accept it, we should not get in the way of creative evangelism by continuing a cycle of abuse to people who need good news.

Logic, fren. If Hitler emphasizes his Jesus being a man, not so much a sufferer, and commits himself to the faith that being the Son of God and being in accord with the historic creed is nonessential, then he hasn't expressed faith in Jesus the Son of God but only in the construct that he believed Jesus to be. That's called "another Jesus" and is an eternal curse (anathema), by Paul's inspired decision.

So before the flood then, when the racial distribution was different. And before God got involved in announcing future real estate distribution and construction.

Side point: Jews were never bound by Levitical law either. By faith Abel and all the rest offered their sacrifices (Heb. 11): not by binding or duress.

Correct as to history. Sir Robert Anderson of Scotland Yard (a model for the character of Sherlock Holmes, and also the author of Daniel in the Critics' Den) correctly determined that Jack the Ripper was Aaron Kosminski while he could still be apprehended, but could not proceed because Jews refused to testify against Kosminski with what they knew. Shortly after, Kosminski was committed to an asylum and the murders stopped.

Hitler didn't speak that about Jesus Christ the Son of God, as Jesus identified himself, but about some concept of Jesus that Hitler made up:

In 1937, Hans Kerrl, the Reich Minister for Church Affairs, explained that "Positive Christianity" was not "dependent upon the Apostle's Creed", nor was it dependent on "faith in Christ as the son of God", upon which Christianity relied; rather, it was represented by the Nazi Party: "The Führer is the herald of a new revelation", he said. [Shirer 1960]

Adolf Hitler used the term in point 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform, stating: "the Party as such represents the viewpoint of Positive Christianity without binding itself to any particular denomination".

Great! So how can we tell a true religion apart from a cult that despises essence if the nature of true religion involves losing yourself to find yourself? Sounds like cults that despise essence would be easily mistaken for the truth because of their virtue signaling.

For you to argue with me on this is silly

Correct, I'm not arguing. But you have seemed to have a blind spot about the difference between naming "a Jew" (for real) and naming "the Jew" (without naming). Do you want me to contact the mods? I was tempted to even without knowing whether you wanted it, just because I'm interested in answers.

I see that in Aug you wrote, "IMPAL_ J_WS .... Trump is one of them. c/TheZOGnald". You were banned for rules 1-3 (here for Trump, high energy, no racism), unbanned, and then banned for rule 1. I'm pretty confident the mods don't want Zognald linked because (like your OP) it's not "just presenting evidence and research". (By my own standards, I might give that a pass as not being full bannable racism if nobody complains, but if my rule was support Trump and be high energy you'd fail both those.)

"Evidence and research" is something like: "[Ivanka] Trump converted to Orthodox Judaism in July 2009 after studying with Elie Weinstock of the Ramaz School". "Ramaz was founded in 1937 and is affiliated with Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun ... and its rabbi, Joseph Lookstein" (past president of RCA and Bar-Ilan).

We've discussed this question before when I was the "offending mod". Maybe it's easier when I'm not? The question is whether you understand how to follow "rules" as one sovereign deigning to accept the protocol of another sovereign's domain?

You are a pursuer of truth at all costs? If what you say is true, what do you propose we do about it? Yes, I tell people that I worship exactly one Jew, Jesus Christ, and I'm kinda locked in to that proposal. Also, he's the best king ever and I am king alongside him, so it kinda works for me. Anything I can do for you with my coregency?

When people propose different hypotheses as explanations for the world they observe, they infer that the best explanation is in fact the true hypothesis. The Biblical worldview meets that test of better explaining the world we observe objectively than any other worldview (see the link).

Jesus's statement about lost sheep was modified in that passage by his grace and healilng power to the Syro-Phoenician, and in John 12 as I just showed separately.

Jesus also told Paul to minister to the Gentiles, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't believe in Paul either. Why don't you stop raising silly objections to the Bible and instead propose a standard of truth that you think is the best explanation so that we can infer whichever one is truly best? I'm willing to drop anything I believe that's false, because I'm a pursuer of truth at all costs. Are you?

He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work (Job 37:7).

Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? (Jer. 32:27).

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me (John 12:32, spoken to Greeks, verse 20).

Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all) (Acts 10:36).

I tested every proposition everyone has ever thrown at me and found that the Biblical worldview is an inference to the best explanation. Pick where you want to find a better interpretation.

So you're a goalpost-mover too. You don't read the Bible as it was written, you read somebody who lies about the Bible. Jesus says whomever comes to him he will in no wise cast out, and he has made us kings and priests. "If you can find a better offer, take it!" (Ann Coulter).

In 1937, Hans Kerrl, the Reich Minister for Church Affairs, explained that "Positive Christianity" was not "dependent upon the Apostle's Creed", nor was it dependent on "faith in Christ as the son of God", upon which Christianity relied; rather, it was represented by the Nazi Party: "The Führer is the herald of a new revelation", he said. [Shirer 1960]

Adolf Hitler used the term in point 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform, stating: "the Party as such represents the viewpoint of Positive Christianity without binding itself to any particular denomination".

Are you an Apostles' Creed Son-of-God Christian, or a "Positive Christian"?

That's much more convoluted than the last attempt at expositing this passage, which has a totally different historical setting.

Since your handle is literally named after Jacob-Israel, why don't you step back a bit and tell us what positive belief you hold rather than nitpick (often mistakenly) at Christianity? This is an elite research forum, not a rumpus room.

"I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac" is the first that comes to mind. "God of Shem" and "God of Nahor" also come up. Nice try, thanks for playing.