/dup/ - btfo

>>165504
Not at all what my post was saying. Are you a genuine downie?

>>165507
>Mother of Usury, I've been found out!
Just come up with a new lie about Christianity, kike. It's in your blood.

>>165576
Stop being retarded. We don't live the Abrahamic narrative or except it, we don't believe that Yaweh is god or that the Jews were ever Chosen. Accusing not-christcucks of being Jews is retarded.

The fact that you are clearly from a more Jewish Sect of Christianity since you are sending links to the King James Bible says everything I need to know about (you).

>>165578
>Stop being retarded.
Lead by example, kike. The claim was made that the earliest Christians adhered to Jewish law and when I proved that that isn't true using only a single excerpt, here you come with your Jewish forked tongue.

>the King James Bible
What version should I use to prove you're a lying kike, then? Or should I give you more time to find something to lie about? I'll wait.

>>165579
Are you just being retarded? No one here but you believes in biblical crap. None of us believe in this except you. You can't argue in biblical terminology if none of us believe in it.

There is nothing to argue about because none of it matters, none of it true. What matters is if these stories are actually good and have done good for our people as a whole. Will they continue to do good? The answer is no.

The earliest Christians in the Bible did actually practice circumcision but eventually (((Paul))) decided that Gentile converts didn't have to do this to prove they were true Christniggers. Christianity is Jewish law in the sense that Rabbi Jesus is the fulfillment of all old Testament Prophecies.

>>165580
Me use small sentence for you. Me see wrong claim. Me show claim wrong. Me call you kike for lying. You get mad.

Got that, faggot? There's the good story you were looking for all along.

>The earliest Christians in the Bible did actually practice circumcision
Those with Jewish backgrounds did, same as if you told a mudslime to quit banging his goat and it takes him a second to adjust. Meanwhile, Gentiles, who by definition are not Jewish, were not circumcising themselves or anyone else, and if that wasn't enough, we have this funny little passage from the fifteenth chapter of Acts:

23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

Here we can see that not only weren't the earliest Christians following Jewish law, but they were warned that doing so is subversive to the soul. Got any more lies up your nose, kike? I know you have plenty of room in there.

>>165581
So are you playing a character you retarded subhuman? I am outside of your retarded Jewish Story and I've had enough of hearing your dribble.

165582
>can't disprove anything in my post
That or you're a speed reader with nothing to say. Makes no difference to me, you can suck my dick and die all the same. It was a displeasure speaking to you, kike!

>>165583
Christianity is a Jewish Religion.

>>165576
Your citation of that verse ignores the fact that Rabbi Yeshua isn't promoting rejection of the Torah. He's only emphasizing what he considers the proper interpretation of it. Even your fellow Christfags can acknowledge this:
https://biblehub.com/q/why_is_grain-picking_on_sabbath_blameless.htm
>How do you plan on celebrating Hannukah, rabbi
Speaking of Hanukkah, do you know that the Bible says it was celebrated by the King of the Jews himself? It's mentioned in John 10:
>22 It was the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem; 23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Feast+of+the+Dedication
Cool, huh?
>>165577
You're in damage control mode because you're entire argument is "NUH-UH NO U" without anything to back it up. You can't accept that you worship a magic Jew with a fucked-up value system.
>>165579
>and when I proved that that isn't true using only a single excerpt
>using only a single excerpt
You said it yourself: using a single excerpt. And completely misinterpreted, no less. If we're going off single verses, then Matthew 5:17 demolished that one.

>>165592
>isn't promoting rejection of the Torah
Unfortunately for you, Jesus fulfilled the law and thus there is no point in following strict rules kikes were subjected to thousands of years ago. You can shout from the rooftops how Christianity is Jewish all you want, the scriptures still call the Jewish law subversive to the soul.

Salvation comes from being baptized (full submersion), receiving the Holy Ghost and living a holy life. Not cutting your dick and avoiding shellfish. Not abstaining from pork and celebrating the Passover. Not respecting the sabbath day.

>your fellow Christfags
I have nothing to do with those faggots and I'm not going to bother clicking on that link. Nice try, though.

>Speaking of Hanukka, Jesus celebrated it!
Great! I… don't care. You can be a Christian and never say the word Hanukkah, let alone observe it.

>You're in damage control mode
"Hate" in that image does not mean hatred of your parents. Otherwise, why in the New Testament does it say to honor your mother and father? How can you do that if you hate them? Are you beginning to understand now that the way the word was used when it was translated hundreds of years ago isn't the exact same as how it gets used today? Or are you still too retarded to get such a simple concept?

>Matthew 5:17 demolished that one.
Wrong, retard. If the law was still in effect then circumcision would be a prerequisite for salvation. Not only isn't it, but Christians are repeatedly warned against adopting circumcision in the New Testament.

A kike accusing someone else of misinterpretation. It's not often you get to laugh this hard in earnest. For all their faults, at least kikes are pretty funny at the end of the day.

>>165628
>>165628
>I have nothing to do with those faggots

This is always a slippery jew tactic you get when you argue with christniggers. When you BTFO some part of their belief system they will assure you that while there really isn't any counter nor argument against what they're saying, THEY don't personally believe that part. Ever. With everything.

I guess I don't really get the purpose of christianity being an organized thing at all considering they usually don't even agree with themselves, let alone others that have accepted the jew into their hearts and souls. They can't agree on fucking anything about it.

"Yeah, okay so that thing you posted shows basically nobody christian disagrees with your interpritation of scripture BUT BUT BUT! Good news! I don't like those other christians that think that and I don't agree with the other 99.9 percent of my own religion so it doesn't count against me! Checkmate!"

>>165628
>Great! I… don't care.
Like this for example. There's no way to really deny Jesus was the jewishest jew to ever suck circumcision blood. So he doesn't try to deny it, he just says that it's not that big of a deal while implying he doesn't really agree with that interpritation (that literally every single other christian on the planet agrees with, but not him you see).

There's really no arguing any of this. It doesn't matter what you say. They'll slip their way out of it over and over and over by going "yeah every single mainline church system, all of whom claim to be representatives of this ancient jewish belief system from the levant, all agree with you, but I don't so thus christianity is correct".

>>165631
>their belief system
>if someone claims they believe the same thing as you yet their values and behavior do not match at all, that totally means you two are part of the same group!
Sound logic you got there, champ. Very nice.

>>165632
>There's no way to really deny Jesus was the jewishest jew to ever suck circumcision blood.
There's no need for you to project, rabbi. Just because Jesus got circumcised like every other Jew doesn't mean he practiced metzitzah b'peh.

>all of whom claim to be representatives of this ancient jewish belief system from the levant
It doesn't matter what they claim when they literally aren't living it. When you square c*tholic and pr*testant beliefs against the scriptures, they get fundamental concepts wrong and live by zany rules created by mortal men. They are even worse than kikes like you because they do not know their own history, that they are abiding by corrupted doctrines. They blindly accept everything they hear just because someone in a suit or robe said it or because it's what their parents believed.

I don't care if everyone woke up as a devout c*tholic tomorrow morning, everything they hold as truth would still be wrong and they still wouldn't be Christians. You have to follow what Jesus taught to be a Christian. c*tholics and pr*testants don't, and it's not up for debate. Imagine you're a physicist and you're in a room full of people who adamantly deny the existence of gravity and the law of conservation of energy. They then claim they're physicists just like you even though they are completely in the dark as to how anything works. It's the exact same thing.

Also, it has not gone unnoticed how you sidestepped everything I said about the word hate and how Jews warned Gentiles not to follow Jewish laws. I expected something like this to happen since it is completely impossible for you to disprove any of the points I made. As is typical of a kike, you deflect, lie and exaggerate when cornered.

First Christianity is Jewish, and when I disprove that now it's all about how Jesus sucks bloody baby dicks because he… walked into a temple? It's real odd how you kikes operate, that much I can say.

>>165628
>Unfortunately for you, Jesus fulfilled the law
Based on what evidence? The Jewish books that talk about a magic Jew working miracles like walking on water, bringing back the dead, or being resurrected himself? Why should anyone believe these things are anything other than the usual ancient legends? If I turn the TV on and see a giant monster smashing skyscrapers, I'm not going to think I've stumbled across live news coverage. It's most likely just a kaiju flick. That would fit the characteristics of what I'd be seeing. And if I come across ancient stories of a rabbi doing unbelievable things at a time when similar myths were commonplace, it's safe to start from the position that it probably never happened.

It wouldn't be surprising if there was a historical rabbi named Yeshua, but the Bible is filled with one mythical tale after another. What's left of the Jesus character when you get rid of all the myths and literary liberties? It's not like we have a single eyewitness report of such a person in the first place.
>You can shout from the rooftops how Christianity is Jewish all you want, the scriptures still call the Jewish law subversive to the soul.
Where do they say that? If that was the case, then why was Christianity an outgrowth of Judaism and all the early bishops of the Jerusalem church Jewish? Jewsus, Peter, Paul, and Barnabas were all Jews. Why was Paul the apostle to the gentiles? Why was Peter hesitant to deal with gentiles like Cornelius?
>Salvation comes from being baptized (full submersion), receiving the Holy Ghost and living a holy life. Not cutting your dick and avoiding shellfish. Not abstaining from pork and celebrating the Passover. Not respecting the sabbath day.
Neat. None of that changes the fact that Christianity was built on the foundation of the Hebrew Bible.
>I have nothing to do with those faggots and I'm not going to bother clicking on that link. Nice try, though.
Can't stand to be proven wrong?
>Great! I… don't care. You can be a Christian and never say the word Hanukkah, let alone observe it.
Your religion is an outgrowth of Judaism. You can't claim to oppose the Jews when your entire worldview revolves around a variant of their mythos that was marketed toward the goyim.
>"Hate" in that image does not mean hatred of your parents. Otherwise, why in the New Testament does it say to honor your mother and father? How can you do that if you hate them? Are you beginning to understand now that the way the word was used when it was translated hundreds of years ago isn't the exact same as how it gets used today? Or are you still too retarded to get such a simple concept?
You can split hairs over the precise meaning all you want, but either way it's telling you to put down your family and raise up your enemies. Put Rabbi Yeshua first, goy.
>Wrong, retard. If the law was still in effect then circumcision would be a prerequisite for salvation. Not only isn't it, but Christians are repeatedly warned against adopting circumcision in the New Testament.
The sidelining of the law came later, dummy. If Jesus actually spoke against it in real life, then why didn't Paul just cite him when the topic came up? The "Christians" who are most discouraged from following Jewish practices are gentile converts. Paul didn't see following the law as anything essential anymore, but according to Acts 21 he still followed the Jewish law himself.

Either way, Christianity is an outgrowth of Second Temple Judaism. There's no getting around that. Nobody other than Jews was awaiting the coming of the mashiach who would conquer the gentiles. The whole narrative affirms the validity of the Torah and the rest of your Tanakh, including Moses and the patriarchs. Jesus supposedly redeems humanity from the sin of Adam and is said to descend from Abraham. No matter how hard you try, you can't extricate Rabbi Yeshua Hamashiach from your fictional Torah tales. What does "INRI" mean in English, again?

>>165668
>Based on what evidence?
For starters, it's odd that kikes are deathly afraid of this comic book character you're describing. Why do they get so angry when they find out someone is a Christian? This person that allegedly never existed nor did anything special makes them rage day and night.

>Where do they say that?
For the second time, I point to the fifteenth chapter of Acts which disproves the notion that Christianity is Jewish. If Christianity is all about worshipping kikes then why are Jews telling Gentiles not to follow Jewish laws? Following the laws kikes had to in the Old Testament will not bring you salvation. If you stand before Jesus on the day of judgement and say "But I avoided shellfish and got circumcised just like the bible said!" when they ask why you aren't baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost, it's not going to be pretty.

>None of that changes the fact that Christianity was built on the foundation of the Hebrew Bible.
Christianity is built on the foundation of God abandoning the covenant he made with kikes for burning their kids alive to please magic cows.

>Can't stand to be proven wrong?
<You're wrong because these random guys say Jesus was simply interpreting the Torah, not rejecting it!
For a guy who wasn't rejecting the Torah, he sure did an awesome job of making sure his disciples had the mission of telling everyone in the world that you don't need to follow it. It's also funny how Paul, an ardent enforcer of the Torah's law, changed his tune once Jesus spoke to him. It got so bad that the kikes waited every day for a chance to murder him (Acts chapter 4).

>Your religion is an outgrowth of Judaism.
It isn't. Nothing you do as a Christian to receive salvation involves any practices observed in Judaism. Christianity "comes from" Judaism as far as shared scriptures in the Old Testament. Mind you, they serve as historical documents detailing the countless times the Jews openly betrayed God and why the Jewish laws of the old testament will not bring you even a micrometer closer to holiness like in the past. You can't pick an apple off an orange tree and you can't get Christianity out of Judaism. They are incompatible.

>You can split hairs over the precise meaning all you want
There is no splitting of hairs going on, that's quite literally not what the word "hate" means in either of those scriptures. Are you going to tell me next that in Genesis chapter 19, the verb "know" means what it does in contemporary life?

>why didn't Paul just cite him when the topic came up?
Where do you think Paul got his doctrine from? Jesus blinded him and asked him why he was being such a tryhard kike when he was on his way to imprison and put Christians to death for, you guessed it, not following the Torah.

>but according to Acts 21 he still followed the Jewish law himself.
18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

20 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:

21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

>>165660
>>165660
> Jesus got circumcised like every other Jew

See, again, you can't really deny Jesus was the jewishest jew to ever suck circumcision blood. You just didn't.

>my extremely specific version of christianity has never been tried!

It is literally impossible to argue with Christians because they can't for a second suspend their disbelief that maybe the Old Testament and New Testament didn't happen, or at least maybe not everyone thinks they happened.

Retarded Christnigger, you do realize that the book you read and take as the word of God is an ancient book that was written by Jews, that Jesus Christ was a Jew who fulfilled the old testament prophecies. None of your ancestors believed in that stuff because they had their own beliefs, they didn't align with Jewish Worldview like you exclusively do.

At the end of the day when they are confronted with this they do their own reasoning as to why Christianity is true and the others aren't. cause it just is okay They also will say the classical Christian belief that all other religions are simply falsehoods of the devil, and than of course the classic we killed the previous traditions off so just stick with our kike on a stick.

Christianity was not an attractive religion, its still not, its why it had to be heavily paganized to be appealing to Europeans, and why when it lost that Pagan coating it lost a lot of favor over time in Europe.

>>165685
>For starters, it's odd that kikes are deathly afraid of this comic book character you're describing. Why do they get so angry when they find out someone is a Christian? This person that allegedly never existed nor did anything special makes them rage day and night.
Why do Christians get so mad at Muslims? They must be mad that Muslims are following the Prophet and submitting to the true will of Allah.

When you get down to it, it's a intrafamilial squabble. Catholics, Orthodorks, and Protestants have a bone to pick with each other, Sunni and Shia Muslims have a bone to pick with each other, and Jews and Christians have a bone to pick with each other. That's also leaving out how many Christians are philosemites and how many Jews think gentiles converting to Christianity is a positive development. They might think Christians are idolaters, but on balance they believe it's more good than bad because it puts a damper on "pagan" (i.e., gentile) traditions and is priming them for Noahidism.

And about that "idolater" accusation: Jews often accuse Christians of being idolaters because of the concept of the Trinity. They believe it to be tritheistic, which I think is an understandable accusation, but in other words they're getting mad at Christians for still having too much of a "pagan" outlook.
>For the second time, I point to the fifteenth chapter of Acts which disproves the notion that Christianity is Jewish. If Christianity is all about worshipping kikes then why are Jews telling Gentiles not to follow Jewish laws? Following the laws kikes had to in the Old Testament will not bring you salvation. If you stand before Jesus on the day of judgement and say "But I avoided shellfish and got circumcised just like the bible said!" when they ask why you aren't baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost, it's not going to be pretty.
>Christianity is built on the foundation of God abandoning the covenant he made with kikes for burning their kids alive to please magic cows.
Christianity is built on the idea that God came to the Jews first and expanded the covenant to the gentiles.

Romans 1:16:
>For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Romans 2:9-10:
>There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
The goyim were grafted onto the olive tree of Israel. See Romans 11:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011&version=RSV
You can't really be a Bible-believin' Christian without accepting Old Testament fictions and the conceit that the kikes had a hotline to heaven at one point.
>For a guy who wasn't rejecting the Torah, he sure did an awesome job of making sure his disciples had the mission of telling everyone in the world that you don't need to follow it. It's also funny how Paul, an ardent enforcer of the Torah's law,
He didn't believe that following the Jewish laws were important for gentile converts, but he didn't reject the Jewish scriptures. He believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of it and that gentiles need to circumcise their hearts (Romans 2:29) and accept his super duper magical rabbi.

By the way, the modern Jews who promote Noahidism don't expect Noahides to be compliant with all of Jewish law either.
>changed his tune once Jesus spoke to him.
You mean Polterchrist? He never met Jesus in real life. He claimed that Jesus "appeared" to people, including himself, and relied on supposed Old Testament prophecies mentioning him (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). That sounds a lot like it's all reliant on visions and playing midrashic word games with the Jewish scriptures.
>It got so bad that the kikes waited every day for a chance to murder him (Acts chapter 4).
Intrafamilial squabble. Catholics and the various Protestant denominations followed variants of the same religion, but that didn't stop them from killing each other during the European Wars of Religion.
>It isn't. Nothing you do as a Christian to receive salvation involves any practices observed in Judaism. Christianity "comes from" Judaism as far as shared scriptures in the Old Testament.
In other words, Jewish scriptures.
>Mind you, they serve as historical documents detailing the countless times the Jews openly betrayed God and why the Jewish laws of the old testament will not bring you even a micrometer closer to holiness like in the past. You can't pick an apple off an orange tree and you can't get Christianity out of Judaism. They are incompatible.
Historical documents? Stories involving talking animals, flat-Earth cosmology, people living to be hundreds of years old, and an angry god smiting mortals sure don't sound like reliable history to me. There are parts that are rooted in real history, like King Hezekiah, but overall the events described in the Old Testament are based more on legend. Even the consensus among historians nowadays is that Moses and the patriarchs never existed, which is something that also completely destroys the credibility of the New Testament. When you dismantle the foundational stories of the Old Testament, you completely destroy the foundation of the New Testament too.

The Old Testament is a grab bag of Jewish texts of various genres anyway. Ecclesiastes isn't trying to be a history text, for example. It's also a way better read than the "historical" texts.
>There is no splitting of hairs going on, that's quite literally not what the word "hate" means in either of those scriptures. Are you going to tell me next that in Genesis chapter 19, the verb "know" means what it does in contemporary life?
It's hairsplitting when one verse clearly diminishes the importance of family and another tells you to value your enemies more.

You can also compare the Greek words used between the texts if you really want to go down that route:
https://biblehub.com/text/luke/6-27.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/luke/14-26.htm
They look to be variants of the same word, and they're also written by the same author as far we know.
>Where do you think Paul got his doctrine from?
The deepest, darkest reaches of his own ass.
>Jesus blinded him and asked him why he was being such a tryhard kike when he was on his way to imprison and put Christians to death for, you guessed it, not following the Torah.
His worldview is rooted in his own interpretation of the Old Testament. How does that 1 Corinthians verse say that "Christ died for our sins" and that he was "raised on the third day"? It says it happened "in accordance with the scriptures."

And it's very convenient that you cut out the rest of that section of Acts:
> 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law. 25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled[b] and from unchastity." 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them.

>>165686
>You just didn't.
There's no money in me entertaining your deranged fantasies, my friend. I'll leave it at that.

>>165700
I don't have the amount of time it would take to explain why each and every denomination is wrong. This is /dup on tvch.moe, not a theology doctorate program. Maybe if I had the misfortune to know you in real life we could talk it over face-to-face at length. Most likely not, which is more than fine by me. Nothing I say ITT is going to change your mind. I can't make you believe and you can't make me stop.

>>165705
>opening up your post with LARPagan memes
I shouldn't read even a sentence of what you wrote, but it looks like you put in a lot of effort. Maybe I'll give your paragraphs a closer look when I'm less strapped for time.

>>165725
>I don't have the amount of time it would take to explain why each and every denomination is wrong.
<my specific version of Christianity hasn't been tried yet
<bro I am le anarchist christcuck like Leo Tolstoy
At least Tolstoy was objectively a good author even if he was a christfag kook.

Your form of Christianity likely resonates with little and as such couldn't formulate or maintain a civilization.
<Nothing I say ITT is going to change my mind
I fixed that for you christbrain.

>Maybe if I had the misfortune to know you in real life we could talk it over face-to-face at length
What is there to even talk about? I don't believe in the Abrahamic Canon and defame it any form in an effort to destroy the power it has. You believe in it and like all Christians seek to purify any form of Non-Abrahamic or Abrahamic believe you believe is heretical because you a worldview that claims people are going to hell if they don't worship Yaweh.
<muh LARPagan memes
LARPagan doesn't mean it still isn't wrong.

>>165705
>Why do Christians get so mad at Muslims?
When we find out why the Jews can't stand Christianity, then I will worry about that. As long as they're busy blowing each other up far away from me it isn't my problem.

>When you get down to it, it's a intrafamilial squabble
It's retards cannibalizing retards. The only problem is that they reproduce faster than they perish.

>They believe it to be tritheistic
Because it is. There is no such thing as the trinity.

>God came to the Jews first
Noah and Enoch were Jews?

>The goyim were grafted onto the olive tree of Israel
The kikes wreaking havoc in the Middle East Israel, or Israel as in the people of God?

>You can't really be a Bible-believin' Christian without accepting Old Testament fictions and the conceit that the kikes had a hotline to heaven at one point
No one had a bible back when Jesus was riling up the kikes nor when the apostles were spreading the gospel. How is it, then, that people, especially Gentiles, were receiving salvation with zero knowledge of the Old Testament fictions or even one letter of the New Testament? The bible as a complete (I use that term quite loosely here) work is man-made. God doesn't depend on it for you to receive salvation.

>he didn't reject the Jewish scriptures
Paul did not endorse the Jewish laws as a legitimate path towards salvation after he was blinded. He went from being an expert on them to earning himself the reputation of being someone who told everyone the old laws were no longer necessary (I will go a little more in depth on this later).

>and accept his super duper magical rabbi
God is not a rabbi.

>You mean Polterchrist? … That sounds a lot like…
You already made it clear that you don't believe in any of this. Why repeat yourself with these questions/statements? You can take almost anything in the scriptures and bust out a one-liner about how you don't think it's real. I can do it with the Koran, book of m*rmon, Talmud, etc. It's redundant.

>In other words, Jewish scriptures.
You can be a Christian even without them. It worked just fine for all the Gentiles who received the gospel in the New Testament. Or are they not real Christians because they didn't give all their tax dollars to our Greatest Ally?

>sure don't sound like reliable history to me.
Well then there's nothing I can do about it. If you don't believe, that's fine by me.

>consensus among historians
lol

>clearly diminishes the importance of family
If you have no idea what it says, I guess so. In this context, hate means to not put your family before God. How could you possibly fail to grasp that? I'm genuinely asking, how?

>His worldview is rooted in his own interpretation of the Old Testament … It says it happened "in accordance with the scriptures."
What point are you trying to make here?

>And it's very convenient that you cut out the rest of that section of Acts:
I did that intentionally because I already know you do not comprehend the scriptures. The remainder of that excerpt only makes your position all the more untenable, yet you still felt compelled to quote it. You accuse me of omitting seemingly contradictory information yet left this out:
27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,

28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut.

31 And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.

32 Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul.

If Paul was such an upright keeper of the law, why did he have to purify himself, why did this disguise not work on the Jews, why did the Jews still want him killed after he explained himself (verses 22 and 23 of the next chapter), and why did the Jews know him as someone who taught others that there was a new path towards salvation?

This whole "Christianity is Jewish" narrative doesn't add up. You don't need the Jewish scriptures for salvation (the whole point of Christianity!), the Jewish laws of the Old Testament are of no help to the soul, the kikes violently oppose even to this very day the religion that is supposed to make the goyim serve them obediently, and more.

>>165729
><my specific version of Christianity hasn't been tried yet
This really shouldn't be hard to understand. c*tholics and pr*testants do not practice Christianity. It's not my opinion, it's not how I feel, that's how it is. What Christianity is supposed to be and how you receive salvation, they do not adhere to it.

>What is there to even talk about?
I have been trying to keep my posts brief. There is no trouble on my end in making each one a huge wall of text explaining my position but that would be a waste of energy. This is an obscure anonymous image board and, keeping that in mind, I try to say what is on my mind without becoming too verbose.

>You believe in it and like all Christians seek to purify any form of Non-Abrahamic or Abrahamic believe you believe is heretical because you a worldview that claims people are going to hell if they don't worship Yaweh.
Can you try saying that again without having a stroke?

>LARPagan doesn't mean it still isn't wrong.
What is your native language? Or did your parents never bother to teach you how to read and write?

>>165705
*It's not hairsplitting
>>165725
Yeah, why don't those LARPagans role play as ancient Jews instead of their own ancestors?
>>165764
>When we find out why the Jews can't stand Christianity
The Jews who hate Christians do so because they think they're heretical pseudo-pagans. It's just autistic Abrahamic infighting.
>Noah and Enoch were Jews?
No, but they also almost certainly didn't exist outside of Jewish legends. Romans also says that Yahweh came to the Jews first.
>The kikes wreaking havoc in the Middle East Israel, or Israel as in the people of God?
The kikes wreaking havoc today and the kikes who believed they were chosen by Yahweh thousands of years ago are the same race of people.
>No one had a bible back when Jesus was riling up the kikes nor when the apostles were spreading the gospel. How is it, then, that people, especially Gentiles, were receiving salvation with zero knowledge of the Old Testament fictions or even one letter of the New Testament? The bible as a complete (I use that term quite loosely here) work is man-made. God doesn't depend on it for you to receive salvation.
The Hebrew Bible existed, and all the stuff about Jesus is downstream of those texts. Paul cited the Old Testament as a source for his knowledge about Jesus. That's why the authors of the New Testament liked recontextualizing Old Testament verses in support of their claims about Jesus (like Matthew 2:15 citing Hosea 11:1). It's pesher-style exegesis. The early Christian evangelists were converting gentiles based on that and divine revelations that they'd claimed they'd experienced.
>Paul did not endorse the Jewish laws as a legitimate path towards salvation after he was blinded. He went from being an expert on them to earning himself the reputation of being someone who told everyone the old laws were no longer necessary (I will go a little more in depth on this later).
Regardless of his stance on the law and his problems with it, he still believed in the god of the Torah and that it had been divinely ordained in the past (Galatians 3:23-24).
>God is not a rabbi.
No, but Jewsus supposedly was. See John 1:38 and John 1:49.
>You already made it clear that you don't believe in any of this. Why repeat yourself with these questions/statements? You can take almost anything in the scriptures and bust out a one-liner about how you don't think it's real. I can do it with the Koran, book of m*rmon, Talmud, etc. It's redundant.
Because Paul admittedly never even met King Josh in the flesh.
>You can be a Christian even without them. It worked just fine for all the Gentiles who received the gospel in the New Testament. Or are they not real Christians because they didn't give all their tax dollars to our Greatest Ally?
No, because Christian beliefs are still ultimately dependent on the Tanakh. Christians see themselves as adopted children of Abraham (Galatians 3:29).
>lol
The point is that to say those figures probably never existed isn't considered some kooky fringe position anymore. While the majority of scholars aren't convinced of Jesus mythicism, it's even possible that Jesus might go the same way eventually.
>If you have no idea what it says, I guess so. In this context, hate means to not put your family before God. How could you possibly fail to grasp that? I'm genuinely asking, how?
I'm saying that you don't need to quibbling over details to see what's wrong with it. It's telling you that loving your family really isn't actually that important (typical cult leader rhetoric) compared to following the King of the Jews. And it also says that you need to love your enemies more. Do you not see what's wrong with that? It's all about reversing the expected priorities of social bonds in a dysfunctional way in service of a weird offshoot of Judaism. It's also far from the only socially destructive advice given in the New Testament (or even in Luke; compare Luke 20:34-40 to Matthew 22:29-33 and Mark 12:24-27 and see if you notice anything odd).
>What point are you trying to make here?
That the Old Testament is foundational to Christianity. The Jesus story is reliant on verses from the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is affirmed as the word of God himself.
>I did that intentionally because I already know you do not comprehend the scriptures. The remainder of that excerpt only makes your position all the more untenable, yet you still felt compelled to quote it. You accuse me of omitting seemingly contradictory information yet left this out:
>If Paul was such an upright keeper of the law, why did he have to purify himself, why did this disguise not work on the Jews, why did the Jews still want him killed after he explained himself (verses 22 and 23 of the next chapter), and why did the Jews know him as someone who taught others that there was a new path towards salvation?
He purified himself to show that he wasn't in opposition to the law and to clear things up with the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem who thought he was in violation to it, and they were satisfied after he'd complied. Why would that stop non-Christian Jews, who were religious conservatives and would have seen Christianity as a dangerous deviation from "real" Judaism, from trying to kill him? What makes you think the old-school Jews' allegations against him in Acts 21 are supposed to be true, especially seeing as how he was just shown to have undergone a purification ritual to prove the naysayers wrong? Wouldn't a better reading be that this group of Jews are shameless liars? Also, in Acts 22:22-23 the implication is that the crowd is set off by Paul saying that he was sent to preach to the gentiles. Allegedly allowing Greeks into the inner court of the temple was also a supporting reason they gave to target him in Acts 21:28.
>This whole "Christianity is Jewish" narrative doesn't add up. You don't need the Jewish scriptures for salvation (the whole point of Christianity!), the Jewish laws of the Old Testament are of no help to the soul, the kikes violently oppose even to this very day the religion that is supposed to make the goyim serve them obediently, and more.
It's completely obvious and derived directly from the texts themselves. Nobody other than Jews and Judeophile "god fearers" (Noahides) were basing their religion off the Tanakh or awaiting the coming Mashiach. Very few people have a problem accepting the Jewish roots of Christianity besides a few weirdo e-crusaders who need to come up with convoluted explanations to justify how a religion that started off as a strange branch of Second Tample Judaism marketed toward gentiles was created independently of Judaism. It would be like saying Mormonism isn't an outgrowth of Christianity.

>>165729
*belief or belief they deem heretical
*Just because it's muh LARPagan doesn't mean it still doesn't say the truth
>>165764
The Bible was a collection of fabricated myths made and originally distributed by Jews.
>>165765
>did your parents never bother to teach you how to read and write?
I mean you kinda got the gist of what I was trying to say anyway, I make my thoughts fast, and I post before correcting things properly. I should probably proofread more when I write.
>This is an obscure anonymous image board and, keeping that in mind
<I am so above you all
So above that you still have the need to debate autists and let your point be known. You aren't better than anyone. It's not that I entirely fault you for being a spaz as only a true spaz would be drawn to this place in the current year, in a way it draws a connection between you and others here even if you are on the wrong side of the fence.
>>165767
Impressive work anon, can't say I entirely see the point when it comes to debating Christians themselves that are beyond the veil of it all, but it's very effective with skeptic autists.

>>165768
>The Bible was a collection of fabricated myths
As you believe. Sure, that is perfectly fine by me. If that is how you wish to see the scriptures then there is nothing I can do about it.

><I am so above you all
When did I ever say or imply this? I'm not better than anyone on this entire website (except whoever keeps spamming CP). When I say this is an obscure anonymous image board, my point is that my posts are nothing but dust in the wind. Very soon, we will forget about each other.

>>165767
>but they also almost certainly didn't exist outside of Jewish legends
Again, we already know you don't believe in this stuff. On top of that, accounts of the flood can be found all over the world. Whether Noah existed or not cannot entirely be written off.

>Romans also says that Yahweh came to the Jews first
People were saved before there were Jews. You could say that he gave them a promise that led us to where we are today, sure.

>same race of people
Being a Jew is not a race-based thing. Being a child of God isn't in your DNA, it is in your behavior. The Jews were not set aside as an example for their flesh and blood, they were to live holy. They burned babies alive for magical cows instead, so God created a new covenant wherein the old laws will not save you anymore. It was the faith and obedience of Abraham that led God to choose him, not his lineage. Today, faith and obedience to God is still the main criteria for whether you are of him or not. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees when they said they were descendants of Abraham because their behavior betrayed their words. Why do you suppose there is neither the ethnic Jew nor Greek in Christ?

>The Hebrew Bible existed, and all the stuff about Jesus is downstream of those texts
Yes, as background knowledge explaining how things got to the point they did. The last thing the kikes should want is for you to read the OT because of how it portrays them, fact or fiction. Besides that, it's not like Gentiles were all magically literate in Hebrew and had ready access to the Hebrew Bible so they could all sit down and read it to one another, and what's more is that what they were learning about the OT from the Jews who preached the gospel to them is that the old laws were of no effect anymore. For a Jewish religion, there sure is a whole lot of telling people they don't have to do Jewish things anymore going on.

>divinely ordained in the past
And now it won't do anything for you. The Jews took what was supposed to set them apart and tarnished it. There are many verses where God curses the Jews and promises to vanquish almost all of them because of what they had done.

>No, but Jewsus supposedly was.
Yes, there is no arguing that. What I will say is that the message he was sending did not align with what almost all Jews thought to be acceptable at the time. It is said in the OT that Jesus would be sent to "his own", that is, the Jews, and they would reject him. If the Egyptians were the chosen people, he would have been an Egyptian, and so on and so forth.

>Christian beliefs are ultimately dependent on the Tanakh
Can you explain what you believe Christian beliefs are?

>Christians see themselves as adopted children of Abraham
That much is true.

>Jesus might go the same way eventually
Might? The amount of people who actually believe in God is already quite low and has been shrinking for decades.

>It's telling you that loving your family really isn't actually that important compared to following the King of the Jews.
No, what you claim is the direct opposite of what it says in that verse on top of what Christianity teaches. I will give you credit where it is due, you are rather creative when it comes to twisting scriptures to say something they do not.

Does it not say in the sixth chapter of Ephesians to honor your mother and father? Is it not taught repeatedly in the New Testament that we are to love one another, and that he who hates his brother is a murderer? You have no trouble citing all of these other verses, yet somehow you missed those? I mean what I am about to say next in the most polite way possible: what this tells me is that either you do not actually know what you are talking about and are getting all of your information from a dubious source, or you are making a conscious effort to deceive. Either door leads to the end of this discussion.

>love your enemies more
More than what? Even though you just made that up, I'd like to see precisely what you mean.

>Do you not see what's wrong with that?
If there is something wrong with honoring and loving your family, please let us know as soon as possible. Now this, I gotta hear.

>compare Luke 20 to…
What is the issue here? Maybe you see something I don't.

>The Jesus story is reliant on verses from the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is affirmed as the word of God himself.
Yes, we already know that the OT explains why Jesus had to go and die on the cross. It also explains why I don't have to do anything Jewish to get into heaven. More shellfish and pork for me!

>He purified himself to show that he wasn't in opposition to the law … and they were satisfied after he'd complied
>What makes you think the old-school Jews' allegations against him in Acts 21 are supposed to be true
>Wouldn't a better reading be that this group of Jews are shameless liars?
Paul was teaching people that it was okay to be in opposition to the law which was only one of a few big problems the Jews had with him. He was on his way to getting beaten to death and people calmed down once they heard him speak in their language, not when they saw he was travelling with men who shaved their heads.

Concerning the allegations against Paul, why would he purify himself and try to pull a fast one on the Jews if they were false? If he was in observance to the law then why did he not say such when giving his speech to the crowd? Whatever the case may be, Paul was infamous among the Jews for saying it was okay to reject the old laws regardless of whether you were ethnically Jewish or a Gentile. Observance of them would profit you nothing, but there was no lasting harm in doing so.

>a religion that started off as a strange branch of Second Temple Judaism
Here's a tip, my friend: just because you read something on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's true.

Jesus is white.

>>165779
>If that is how you wish to see the scriptures then there is nothing I can do about it.
Look, there is archeological evidence of dinosaurs, does that mean they existed the exact way we often think of them? There is evidence the universe is older than what most myths claim, but does that mean it is 100 percent correct? Obviously not. Modern scientists of today are high off their own farts and serve as priests for the New World Order in some shape or form. All myths have a measure of truth to them, but they have always been used to teach lessons and to unify people. Fundamentalism in the way that Abrahamic religions practice is something unique to them. Their intolerance for any non-Abrahmic worldview and constant slander is also a unique Abrahamic concept. Fundamentalist Pagans weren't and still aren't twice as literal even when they are literal, I typically see this as a point of contention from Abrahamics but if anything I think it is a sign of normalcy, of sanity.

You can be intelligent and rewrite your entire worldview to align to Abrahamic myth, you can make all sorts of wires linking scripture to happening. You can make sense of it in your head, personally I think this is stupid. It is like taking a parasite and shoving it further into your brain rather than expelling it. But I understand how seducing and fearful Christianity can be as someone who was a Christian for most of my life in some shape or form. I've seen this throughout European history with various philosophers, I've seen it with other Abrahamic faiths, but the root of the religion will always come across to me as altogether evil, which I'll say more about later in this post. It might come across as surface to you, but I choose to try and see both the exoteric and esoteric in writings/manifestations to the best of my ability. Maybe it's flawed, but I follow my instincts, and generally they seem to have saved me for the most part.

Now unlike you, I am limited in my biblical knowledge I never finished the bible, I only read some of it, but I was raised in a Church for a very good amount of my life. I am pretty soaked in the mythos and the memes of Christianity. This is why I have always cared more about Christianity in action and fact rather than theory or how it is supposed to be. To me, it doesn't matter if it wasn't "real" Christianity because I have already experienced so many of them. The logical conclusions of reading and using that book for the bedrock of our society has clearly been disastrous.

>I'm not better than anyone on this entire website (except whoever keeps spamming CP)
I can easily agree with (you) on this anon.

>when I say this is an obscure anonymous image board, my point is that my posts are nothing but dust in the wind. Very soon, we will forget about each other.
Look, I get what you're saying, but I'll probably remember you as I often remember conversions I have with strangers on the internet that are interesting.

>>165780
>It was the faith and obedience of Abraham that led God to choose him
The idea that the creator of the universe would have one of his creations sacrifice his son and this be a good thing personally disgusts me. I can look at human sacrifice from a perspective where I might even understand why it existed or its importance. Criminals being burned alive to appease Gods? I can see that, even if I'm not sure if we should be deifying such punishment. Aztec ritual human sacrifice for a better harvest? The sacrificing of a King as symbolic atonement for his incompetent leadership, or as to quell starving people/satisfy disappointed Gods in the face of Famine? I don't like it, the liberal in me doesn't, but the autist in me understands the logic behind it.

I will never see the reasoning behind Abraham's obedience to an invisible voice, I would never sacrifice my son to such a thing, if that is what separates me from those with faith than so be it. The fact that such faith is required and God says "bro you did good it was just a prank" is just disgusting to me, and it's disgusting to any normal human who hasn't suspended their disbelief.

>Being a Jew is not a race-based thing
Honestly, that's not really true. Just because Noahides Proselytes existed and some even redeemed the Jews in the Old Testament or the pre-Jewish people per se doesn't mean that the book doesn't historically have its roots in the Ancient Jewish people. It also doesn't mean that they aren't Jewish Characters, goyim or not. It's like Jews today are 67-80 percent European on average, and yet 99 percent of them consider themselves Jewish and openly dislike Europeans. Just because 1 or 2 Jews legit consider themselves white, some even more than Jewish, doesn't really mean much in action and de facto. A lot of it is their use of other myths to construct the modern biblical stories, which come from other peoples. The flood existed before in pre-Jewish myths and the Jews used it in their noble lie which they used to unify their nation. Kinda like how they likely read Plato's Republic and grafted Platonism onto Yahweh to make him this all-powerful god. You can be smart/autistic and be able to rewrite what something is to make it based. You can try to reinterpret it, and it will make sense, but the root remains, and eventually if that root is a poison it will kill you or your ancestors. This is because people often will in the

Abrahamic Faiths are like the disease Toxoplasma Gondii, most humans have developed a level of Commensalism for it. For most of the history of Europe, it was stuck in their encysted parts of our flesh. But when Europe was spiritually weakened the parasite broke free and wrecked untold havoc on the body, the result today is what you see in the modern world. A sick Europe allows the parasite to easily contribute to its death. Because Judaism isn't a commensal symbiote, it hasn't and will never reach a level of evolution to not hurt its host, it is a parasite which will always kill and never learns its lesson.

>Yes, as background knowledge explaining how things got to the point they did. The last thing the kikes should want is for you to read the OT because of how it portrays them
Honestly, it just reinforces their opinions in the Talmud and their historical actions in both pre-Christian and post-Christian Europe.

>Does it not say in the sixth chapter of Ephesians to honor your mother and father?
>Is it not taught repeatedly in the New Testament that we are to love one another, and that he who hates his brother is a murderer
Yes this is true, but the bible was written by so many people, the words twisted so many times. Not gonna directly quote it because I don't remember, and I'm not some super scholar. The other anon pointed to multiple quotes showcasing cultish autism on the same level as Stefan Molymeme telling his followers to cut themselves off from their family. Christianity does say to love your enemies, which is paradoxical because your enemies don't love you, and they want you dead. They don't even see you as another human being more often than not because the average person usually has to dehumanize their enemies to butcher them. All I have ever gotten from the bible is mixed messages, I feel like you have a suspended disbelief to try to think there is some sort of puzzle, some sort of true higher meaning to it. I also believe it does have a couple higher meanings, one being Old-school blood and soil Paganism for the Jews, Old Testament and a certain level of life rejection, nihilism, and bringing the gentiles to the Jewish God. New Testament

>>165782]
Continued from previous post:
>Here's a tip, my friend: just because you read something on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's true
If you read both the bible and historical documents, it pretty much lines up that Judaism was in its 2nd temple period at the supposed time of Jesus. All the Apostles were born 2nd temple Jews, with the supposed exception of Luke who some think was a gentile, which I do doubt.

I clearly get that you are a well-read individual when it comes to your Christian faith, I can even understand from your perspective why you think all other Christian faiths are false. Like so many other non-catholic/orthodox Christian Theologian But I get the feeling your interpretation of it is incompatible with 99 percent of people, it would be incompatible with society and reality. You would simply become a one-off person who dies with your beliefs. Maybe your writings would leave some followers of it, but ultimately this may be meaningless to you as if you properly fulfill your beliefs you will be rewarded in Heaven with God. Such a belief-system to me comes across as an attempt by an enemy people to have another group of people cede their stake in the physical world. If such things are trivial, what is the point in doing anything?

If the only thing that matters is the faith in God in this transient world, then why do anything? Just save/try to save those important to you, possibly pass it on to your children, and live life. But, in the long run, the nature of your beliefs and their lack of societal structure would simply produce more autistic people who would have different interpretations of your beliefs. Basically the Reformation and the 2nd Great awakening all over again. After your death, they would splinter into different beliefs-interpretations of their own. Now Say if your friends and family were all on an island, and isolated from the rest of the world, in the end the person with the strongest physical and mental faculties would evidently push his beliefs onto people. My best guess is this person would likely make their interpretations of the religion more align with what appeals, what standardizes, and what makes people follow. In other words, it would be more like the heretical Christianity you don't like. Honestly, this was a thought experiment of mine that kinda went down everywhere, but I think it writes down my point on how Christianity always splinters inevitably, this can be applied to all Abrahamic religions overall.

Christianity is ultimately in action a nihilistic religion that leads to the society we have today, people in the end follow the logical conclusion of things. The logical conclusion of Christianity isn't esoteric reasoning for why it's not Jewish and why it's the truth and the way. The logical conclusion is rebel rousing, destruction of society, and in post-religious interpretations the morality creates egalitarian neoliberalism and communism.

TL;DR I hope there aren't more grammatical errors in this.

>>165768
>Impressive work anon, can't say I entirely see the point when it comes to debating Christians themselves that are beyond the veil of it all, but it's very effective with skeptic autists.
I feel like this helps me to learn more and see any potential flaws in my own position. It's also not as impressive as it might look. I've just learned from much smarter and more knowledgeable people than myself and also read the New Testament and to get a basic gist of this stuff.
>>165780
>Again, we already know you don't believe in this stuff. On top of that, accounts of the flood can be found all over the world. Whether Noah existed or not cannot entirely be written off.
Noah exists only in one story. Maybe the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis is true like some people claim and there was a massive flood, but that doesn't mean the specific Noah character existed or the Jewish flood story more accurate than anyone else's. How does that make Noah any more real than Utnapishtim?
>Being a Jew is not a race-based thing.
It kind of is. Jews all over the world tend to have genetic links to the Levant.
>Being a child of God isn't in your DNA, it is in your behavior. The Jews were not set aside as an example for their flesh and blood, they were to live holy. They burned babies alive for magical cows instead, so God created a new covenant wherein the old laws will not save you anymore. It was the faith and obedience of Abraham that led God to choose him, not his lineage. Today, faith and obedience to God is still the main criteria for whether you are of him or not. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees when they said they were descendants of Abraham because their behavior betrayed their words.
By "God" you mean Yahweh, the tribal god of the Jews. The Jews are the self-chosen peopl
>Why do you suppose there is neither the ethnic Jew nor Greek in Christ?
Because a faction within first-century Judaism wanted to spread their beliefs to the gentiles. Telling them that everyone is welcome helps make the Jewish stuff go down easier. It's a bit like how the Jews pushing Noahidism today try to soft-pedal the Judeocentricity of it. They also go on about how lucky the goyim are that they don't have to follow the whole 613 commandments thing. Sound familiar?

And whether it was intended or not, the emergence of Christianity as a distinct religion promotes universalism for gentiles while maintaining particularism for the Jews.
>Yes, as background knowledge explaining how things got to the point they did.
It's more than that. It was used midrashically to come up with the story of Jesus. Jews who interpret scripture this way believe there are hidden meanings within the text beyond what's plainly stated and that they're basically the ones with the super-duper secret decoder ring that can reveal it. A modern example would be how Kabbalists believe that there are 600,000 souls in the world linked to the 600,000 Israelite men mentioned in the Exodus story.
https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380372/jewish/600000-Souls-600000-Letters.htm

Incidentally, it also reminds me a bit of a less extreme version of how Terry A. Davis would try to talk to God using complete gibberish generated by the TempleOS Oracle.

That's why when you go back and read the Old Testament verses cited as proof of the fulfillment of prophecy in the New Testament, they can seem to be taken completely out of context.
>The last thing the kikes should want is for you to read the OT because of how it portrays them, fact or fiction. Besides that, it's not like Gentiles were all magically literate in Hebrew and had ready access to the Hebrew Bible so they could all sit down and read it to one another, and what's more is that what they were learning about the OT from the Jews who preached the gospel to them is that the old laws were of no effect anymore.
The Old Testament only intends to show Jews as bad in the sense that they supposedly weren't following their tribal god Yahweh hard enough.
>For a Jewish religion, there sure is a whole lot of telling people they don't have to do Jewish things anymore going on.
It shouldn't be surprising considering how hard the religion went to convert gentiles, who wouldn't be interested in following the law. The Jewish law was just seen as being of no relevance anymore and not something that was truly bad or without purpose in the first place.
>And now it won't do anything for you. The Jews took what was supposed to set them apart and tarnished it. There are many verses where God curses the Jews and promises to vanquish almost all of them because of what they had done.
Because of their lack of devotion to Yahweh. In other words, the Jews weren't being Jewish enough.

>Yes, there is no arguing that.
Well, it's good that you don't believe in Aryan Chad Jesus.
>What I will say is that the message he was sending did not align with what almost all Jews thought to be acceptable at the time. It is said in the OT that Jesus would be sent to "his own", that is, the Jews, and they would reject him. If the Egyptians were the chosen people, he would have been an Egyptian, and so on and so forth.
I think that if there really was a historical Jesus, then I think he's had words put in his mouth. Why was such a big deal made about Paul being the apostle to the gentiles and Peter getting a divine message to associate with them when the Great Commission was supposed to be clear about that? Why doesn't Paul ever seem to cite sayings of Jesus to back up his opinions?
>Can you explain what you believe Christian beliefs are?
That there was a Jewish preacher named Jesus in first-century Palestine who fulfilled Messianic prophecies and was a savior figure in some sense (vicarious atonement is what people in Western Christianity tend to think of, but it's not the only conception of salvation), the son of God, and was crucified. John 3:16 sums up the latter part.
>Might? The amount of people who actually believe in God is already quite low and has been shrinking for decades.
I'm talking about in the sense of Jesus mythicism. It's considered a fringe idea, even though as time goes on scholars seem to increasingly find more and more aspects of the Gospels implausible. They like to go on confidently about the historical Jesus, but they can't seem to agree on who he was other than that he was a Jewish preacher in first-century Palestine who was crucified. If you're going to say that there was a real guy but that the majority of the Gospels are fictitious, then it seems kind of odd to have a bone to pick with people who say the entire thing is fictitious.
>No, what you claim is the direct opposite of what it says in that verse on top of what Christianity teaches.
Completely wrong. It's an extremely worded statement about putting Yahweh above all. It's not out of line with what Matthew says. Remember "Seek ye first the kingdom of God"?

But I wouldn't be surprised if it genuinely meant "hate." Considering the author of Luke's views on marriage that are on full display in that Luke 20 passage I cited, it really isn't all that surprising he'd say something like that. There was a lot of weird anti-family stuff among early Christians. Jesus in Matthew 19:12 at the very least gives the green light for celibacy, and Paul gave his own personal stamp of approval of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7. Eusebius also claimed that Origen castrated himself, although it possibly never happened. Still, self-castration seems to have been a prominent enough issue in the minds of early Christians that it was addressed in the first canon of the First Council of Nicaea:
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm

This is also worth a read:
https://alioshabielenberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Clark-1995-Antifamilial-Tendencies-in-Ancient-Christianity.pdf
The "Biblical family values" thing is overblown and much more of a mixed bag than what conservative Christians like to believe.
>I will give you credit where it is due, you are rather creative when it comes to twisting scriptures to say something they do not.
I'm not twisting anything.
>Does it not say in the sixth chapter of Ephesians to honor your mother and father? Is it not taught repeatedly in the New Testament that we are to love one another, and that he who hates his brother is a murderer? You have no trouble citing all of these other verses, yet somehow you missed those? I mean what I am about to say next in the most polite way possible: what this tells me is that either you do not actually know what you are talking about and are getting all of your information from a dubious source, or you are making a conscious effort to deceive. Either door leads to the end of this discussion.
If the Luke verse doesn't literally mean "hate," then theoretically it would still be possible for a Christian to honor their parents (although not to the same extent someone who isn't a slave to Yahweh could). If the Luke verse literally means "hate," then it would be far from the only inconsistency in the Bible. Remember the two conflicting accounts of the death of Judas?
>More than what? Even though you just made that up, I'd like to see precisely what you mean.
More than a normal person would based on following their instincts. This isn't that complex. It completely inverts the way people tend to relate to friends vs. enemies.
>If there is something wrong with honoring and loving your family, please let us know as soon as possible. Now this, I gotta hear.
If you can't see what's wrong with people, especially gentiles, putting the Jew god Yahweh above their own families and being prescribed to love their enemies, I can't help you.
>What is the issue here? Maybe you see something I don't.
Do you not see the change the author of Luke made? It says that only those who don't marry will be counted worthy of the resurrection.

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/lukes-surprising-and-oft-ignored-views-on-marriage-and-resurrection/
>Paul was teaching people that it was okay to be in opposition to the law which was only one of a few big problems the Jews had with him. He was on his way to getting beaten to death and people calmed down once they heard him speak in their language, not when they saw he was travelling with men who shaved their heads.
Speaking Hebrew could have been a way signaling his Jewish bona fides, which calmed down the crowd. It says the people who stirred up the crowd were Jews from Asia, which makes it sound like a relatively small number of people with an axe to grind are winding them up.

Paul was preaching a law-free gospel to gentiles, but I don't think that means he was opposed to it.
If he was against the law in and of itself, why did he bother complying with the purification ritual to begin with?
>but there was no lasting harm in doing so.
That's the thing. And either way, he still affirmed the Tanakh. That's ultimately what it all comes down to.
>Here's a tip, my friend: just because you read something on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's true.
You're completely out of touch with reality if you can't accept that Christianity is derivative of ancient Judaism.

>>165809
>doubling down on what hate means
You win, Mr. Soyjak Poster. I give up. If proving that one cannot serve God without loving his family didn't work the first two times, why should I waste my time going for a third and eventually fortieth?

>>165782
>>165783
Don't worry about grammatical mistakes, Anon. I don't care anymore. The next time I see people take Instagram memes at face value, I'm keeping my mouth shut.

>>165831
>The next time I see people take Instagram memes at face value, I'm keeping my mouth shut.
Nice passsive aggressive jab mister rewrites reality to align with your worldview. Turns out you really do think you are so above it all.

It doesn't matter where a meme came from if its saying the truth, you are simply putting wool upon your eyes and shouting lalala when anons point out the truths about Abrahamic Religions and how paradoxical it is to oppose the enemy of mankind but avow the paradigm that gives them their power over us. Reminder that the Yes Chad not a wojak was based off the Nordic guy from the your not white thread response from old /pol/.

>>165831
>If proving that one cannot serve God without loving his family didn't work the first two times
For the millionth time, at the very least it means that your family shouldn't come before Yahweh. That's a harmful idea to begin with, and early Christianity gave mixed signals on whether family life was a good thing.

And you know that the top Nazis were opposed to Christianity, right?

>>165848
Here are a couple more images related to the oppositional relationship between Christianity and Nazism.

I've also included a relevant bit from the Antifamilial Tendencies in Ancient Christianity paper I linked to earlier.

If you form a coalition battle buddy team of every pagan, satanist and atheist in the face of christianity you will get rekt and you know it. Which is why you can only argue disingenuously here and can't form any volk to outdo the heeby jeebies given to every rabbi and synagogue by the threat posed by christianity. (You) will see in YOUR lifetime a 200,000 strong anti-Semitic army, and it'll be mostly christians comprised of it.

Fuck (You) for being a stonehenge cuck

>>165831
>is on an imageboard to stir shit and argue
>does in fact stir shit and argues
>gets BTFO, is not particularly convincing nor does his worldview make much sense
<heh, I'm so above it all, I don't even see why I'm arguing

nigger you came here posting about your magical rabbi in the first place, nobody forced you to start arguing.

I fucking hate that attitude. "Why would I even waste my time arguing with you on an imageboard???"

Like nigger there's nothing else to do here, that's the one reason to be here, to argue with anons

>>165861
It sounds like you're just accusing me of disingenuous because you don't want to confront the things I'm bringing up. I'm citing actual sources about antifamilial attitudes among the early Christians you could at least attempt to rebut, but you won't.

Do you seriously believe you're going to form an effective anti-Jewish political movement while worshiping a Jew? Get real. Like Hitler pointed out in that quote, you're not going to get anywhere with a fraudulent "antisemitism" founded on a Christian basis. You're also not going to be able to form a consistent pro-white movement that revolves around a universalistic religion.
>>165862
And he doesn't even bother addressing the arguments while calling other people disingenuous.

>>165848
>benevolent smiling Zeus
Didn't Zeus raped a boy? Wasn't he a walking dick, a barely disguised writer fetish?

>>165908
I'm not very knowledgeable about Greek religion, but I'm inclined to agree with you on that. The old gods could be pricks just like Yahweh. It's more understandable to a certain extent in that it became the consensus that Yahweh was supposed to be both omnipotent and omniscient, whereas the other gods were more limited. Odin could be a slippery old bastard who would hurt people to further his own ends, but he also had Ragnarok to worry about and limited means to prepare for it.

Plato also criticized the way the gods were portrayed in the Greek myths.

>>165546
This. People of all political stripes always think that they will be part of what are essentially the patrician class after [insert revolution] finally happens, while in all likelihood they will just get gulag'd or RWDS'd all the same. It has happened all throughout history, learning about the intricate fates of the French Revolution's staunchest supporters or the various worldwide national upheaval movements around the time of WW2 and the Cold War era would make you laugh at how retarded the vast majority of any kind of "revolutionaries" are.

>>165928
I agree wholeheartedly with your post. People don't wanna take action, they just want to bloviate on the online release valve. Soon that will be taken away, and then what? And in times of great turmoil and change, I think we need to play the Power game and infiltrate and attempt our own Long March Thru the ZOG. It couldn't hurt to try. There's a time for the more rough-hewn approach, a time for the Power play, a time for all sorts of different approaches but we gotta have Power. And to become the patrician class after a revolution will require doing [redacted] IRL. But because of jewish legalism bullshit, we can't speak plainly about this.

If you'll notice too, the christfag chimped out later on ITT, these people claim they want a debate, then get BTFO in a debate and chimp out. They can't help themselves from getting emotional, because their entire religion is based on emotions and feels instead of any tangible reality. Very woman-brained. Many appeals to authority. And even after making my bang on the money comparison to the christian and the academia commies, I still went back after and apologized for losing decorum and tried to encourage him to post more. This world tries to say we're full of hate, we're this and that, but christian normalfags (all christians are normalfags, failed or otherwise), the normalfaggots are the most judgmental, spiteful, petty, vicious little cunts imaginable. Its only on the fringes of society there can be open and honest discussion, and this is why cuckflare, jewgle, and all the rest of them are killing the Internet.

I fucking hate what the 2016 Election did to our corner of the Web. And more to the point, I would be willing to put aside religious differences in favor of the White race pulling together in unity, but christfags just won't let up. They say they're your friend, they say they fight the good racial fight, but when push comes to shove? "Every knee will bow, every tongue shall confess". They are a complex, and insidious poison, but an enemy nonetheless. It shouldn't have to be this way, but they just quite simply can't undo the jewish programming inside their mind, because their semite religion glorifies ignorance

I think the very nature of the beast that is online mass communication makes people over-intellectualize our struggle and fedjacket too much. I understand we can't speak plainly about the struggle, but look at Ireland and the encouraging things coming from there. We can't relent and this is total war

>>165935
>the christfag chimped out later on ITT
That wasn't me. I don't know what got that other Anon so riled up but when I said "I give up", I meant it.

For the sake of argument lets say Cuckianity wasn't a kiked religion worshiping a desert jew. They still let niggers in. You can make the most delicious meal, but if you then smear it with shit it becomes shit.

>>165941
I've even heard of a fucking Christian Identity church letting in nons. If even they're incapable of holding the line, then that shows Christianity is completely worthless when it comes to white racial preservation.

>>165941
They definately need to be exclusionary. I think that's the biggest thing, for any religion. You have to be willing to say no, you're not welcome. There has to be an outgroup and it's not obvious to me christians think *anybody* is in the outgroup.

Christianity was invented from the get-go by Jews to make the goyim favor them, the outgroup over their own people/benevolent rulers, I.E. the Romans.

>>165913
Yes all the greeks Gods were shit, except for ONE, Hades, he did NOTHING wrong, the only rape he did wasn't his fault and he still took responsibility and married her.