I don't think this is him trying to shapeshift. If it were he'd have changed Johnah too. It sounds like he has serious trauma associated with that surname, maybe child abuse?
I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as goats, are in fact gnus/wildebeest, or as I've recently taken to calling it, gnus plus wildebeest..
I'd imagine it's both, most predators have nasty mouths. There's a thing called "seal thumb" for example which happens a lot to fishermen trying to deal with aggressive sea doggos. If they nip your hand it can end up partially paralysed from all the toxins the bacteria build up.
Protestant sects also use all kinds of native european religious symbols, titles, architecture etc. If catholicism is pagan then so is pretty much every other christian cult.
By the time christianity came around rome had become a globalist shell devoid of any faith or meaning. Cosmopolitan urbanites in roman cities were rapidly cycling through foreign cults, constantly seeking after novelty and diversion. Christianity wasn't the first fashionable new religion they picked up, it wasn't even the last.
I'm disregarding the retardation about the pope being a pagan. The early christians (like all jews) couldn't build anything of their own so they latched onto existing institutions and took them over. You also have your timeline backward since catholicism was not established until after they gained control of the imperial system.
When did the catholics ever "put pagans in control?"
The only concessions a (((catholic))) ever granted a native european was when they were desperately vying for the right to groom his children and subjects. Sounds familiar come to think of it, where have we encountered this behaviour before...
> The audience of Romans is the saints of Rome. The Greek word being translated into "Gentile" is basically "ethnicities".
That's what goyim means, yes, nations or ethnicities, but in context it is used to mean "non-jews." Now given that the early christians were mostly helenised jews and the broader term "ethnicities" makes no sense in this quote, it makes complete sense to translate it as "gentiles" or "goyim" and the "saints of jerusalem" he's referring to as "jews."
The alternative makes very little sense so it would be more honest to discard it.
> I addressed this in an earlier comment in this thread chain. The saints in Jerusalem would by extension likely be at least prodominantly Hebraic in fleshly ethnicity.
Then they are jews.
> You are basically proposing a conflict between the Talmudic account vs. Christian account of scripture. There are discrepancies in the respective Old Testaments. And this is fine for conversations about the OT. But because we are looking at the NT, Christianity is the only one with skin in the game for that. The source manuscripts stand. And source manuscripts do not venerate antiChrist Jews.
The NT was also written by jews. I'm still not buying into this "antichrist jews" distinction. Jews are jews.
> The entire point is that many antiChrist 'Jews' are likely to be fake Jews. The exception is in cases like Saul to Paul where an antiChrist Jew is destined to become a Christian through divine intervention. The whole point is that all true-Jews will eventually join Christianity because none come to the Father except through Christ. An antiChristian Jew is not considered a saint.
If judaism is an ethnicity and they'll still be jew when they abandon judaism and become christian then how can someone be a "false jew?"? Alternately if judaism is a religion then how will they still be jewish when they become christians?
With your interpretation the quote makes no sense whatsoever. It makes much more sense to interpret it as the author approving of some jewish sects while disapproving of others. Still philosemitism.
> The Bible points towards true ones and fake ones.
The bible can say what it likes, this won't address the problem that jews are jews and philosemitism will ultimately be the end of europeans if we allow it to continue.
The bible is a major part of this problem, placing a jewish supremacy document at the center of our culture has lead to all kinds of completely unnecessary pro-jewish sentiment and anti-european conflict. Not to mention the perversions of history that result from european nationalists trying to square their ethnic origins with their jew-centric upbringing.
If it weren't for christianity there would be precisely zero europeans trying to claim jews are white, or jews aren't the real jews or whites are the real jews. It'd be a retarded thing to suggest.
> KJV isn't perfect, but it is 1) a good English approximation with close fidelity to the source manuscripts, and 2) is free of tainting from modern politics
But not free of the taint of contemporary politics. Just saying that you can't pick a translation you like then criticise everyone else for not using the original.
> The original doesn't say "Jews" at all. That's the point.
Again though, the people it's referring to are defined in opposition to gentiles. So these people who live in jerusalem and are not gentiles aren't jews?
> Take a moment to be scholarly about this and realize which group would want to change the phrasing. This is just an example of things that are shifted.
That goes both ways though. Christians are just as capable of rewriting their books to downplay the philosemitism when they realise how bad it is.
> It does not refer to true Jews. The passages even say as much. And the definition of Jew is further expanded on in other passages. AntiChrist Jews aren't really Jews. "One is not a Jew that is one outwardly"
Exactly. And if it's complaining about fake-jews being a problem then it's suggesting there are a group he considers genuine jews who are not a problem. So it's highly disingenuous to hold it up as evidence early christians rejected jews or acted in opposition to them.
> By claiming that Rom 15 is talking about antiChrist Jews #is# an attempt to ignore what was written.
I'm not the one making special distinctions here. I never said "antichrist jews" or tried to create any other subcategory. There is only one type of jew as far as I'm concerned and christianity is far too tolerant of them.
Rom 15 is talking about a group of people who live in jerusalem and are not gentiles. That is jews. You would have to deliberately blind yourself to conclude otherwise.
> Again, the original source manuscripts have more authority than modern English translations. Look at what the originals say. Your argument falls apart when you look into this.
> In biblical Israel, it was all the land between the Nile and Euphrates, which included Aryian people, Syrian people, Arabs, Persians and filthy fucking jews, and only a small minded moron would lump all these people together to come up with "joos".
That's nice, fortunately no one did.
What I did do was lump together the jews and the rest of the israelites, because they're the same people and their descendants are the banker clan we all know and love today.
Broc_Liath 0 points 2.1 years ago
They involve rapier duels.
/v/MoviesWithGoats viewpost?postid=644da1c74fc4d
Broc_Liath 1 point 2.1 years ago
Looks decent!
/v/MoviesWithGoats viewpost?postid=644da1c74fc4d
Broc_Liath 0 points 2.2 years ago
It's jews we're talking about here, very good chance he was raped as a kid.
/v/Jews viewpost?postid=6446548379f1c
Broc_Liath 1 point 2.2 years ago
I don't think this is him trying to shapeshift. If it were he'd have changed Johnah too. It sounds like he has serious trauma associated with that surname, maybe child abuse?
/v/Jews viewpost?postid=6446548379f1c
Broc_Liath 1 point 2.2 years ago
Thanks
/v/Christcucks viewpost?postid=643942b3e6198
Broc_Liath 1 point 2.2 years ago
There's a lot of detail in here I wasn't aware of, do you have any recommended books on the subject?
"How jesus became christian" is on my reading list.
/v/Christcucks viewpost?postid=643942b3e6198
Broc_Liath 0 points 2.2 years ago
Got a link to the story? I tried hunting but came up blank.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6440ada1c4767
Broc_Liath 1 point 2.2 years ago
I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as goats, are in fact gnus/wildebeest, or as I've recently taken to calling it, gnus plus wildebeest..
/v/Goats viewpost?postid=643e7943475fe
Broc_Liath 0 points 2.2 years ago
Dammit, they didn't show who won.
/v/Goats viewpost?postid=643e7943475fe
Broc_Liath 1 point 2.2 years ago
We watched that and das boot recently. Both amazing films though.
/v/MoviesWithGoats viewpost?postid=643b2741dde57
Broc_Liath 0 points 2.2 years ago
I'd imagine it's both, most predators have nasty mouths. There's a thing called "seal thumb" for example which happens a lot to fishermen trying to deal with aggressive sea doggos. If they nip your hand it can end up partially paralysed from all the toxins the bacteria build up.
/v/Reptiles viewpost?postid=6437e9a3b7d65
Broc_Liath 0 points 2.2 years ago
Also actual poisons I think, so even if they just nip you you start to go to sleep.
/v/Reptiles viewpost?postid=6437e9a3b7d65
Broc_Liath 5 points 2.2 years ago
Those things are terrifying. They regularly eat humans too, and other komodo dragons.
/v/Reptiles viewpost?postid=6437e9a3b7d65
Broc_Liath 1 point 2.2 years ago
Protestant sects also use all kinds of native european religious symbols, titles, architecture etc. If catholicism is pagan then so is pretty much every other christian cult.
/v/subrequest viewpost?postid=6437afbfbbb7a
Broc_Liath 1 point 2.2 years ago
By the time christianity came around rome had become a globalist shell devoid of any faith or meaning. Cosmopolitan urbanites in roman cities were rapidly cycling through foreign cults, constantly seeking after novelty and diversion. Christianity wasn't the first fashionable new religion they picked up, it wasn't even the last.
I'm disregarding the retardation about the pope being a pagan. The early christians (like all jews) couldn't build anything of their own so they latched onto existing institutions and took them over. You also have your timeline backward since catholicism was not established until after they gained control of the imperial system.
/v/subrequest viewpost?postid=6437afbfbbb7a
Broc_Liath 6 points 2.2 years ago
When did the catholics ever "put pagans in control?"
The only concessions a (((catholic))) ever granted a native european was when they were desperately vying for the right to groom his children and subjects. Sounds familiar come to think of it, where have we encountered this behaviour before...
/v/subrequest viewpost?postid=6437afbfbbb7a
Broc_Liath 5 points 2.2 years ago
My whole body clenched hearing that, nightmare fuel. Glad you kept your hand.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6435b2356d18c
Broc_Liath 0 points 2.2 years ago
Risky click of the day. Wasn't sure if I was going to get ebonics or perky tits.
/v/ClownWorld viewpost?postid=64355e755335c
Broc_Liath 0 points 2.2 years ago
> The audience of Romans is the saints of Rome. The Greek word being translated into "Gentile" is basically "ethnicities".
That's what goyim means, yes, nations or ethnicities, but in context it is used to mean "non-jews." Now given that the early christians were mostly helenised jews and the broader term "ethnicities" makes no sense in this quote, it makes complete sense to translate it as "gentiles" or "goyim" and the "saints of jerusalem" he's referring to as "jews."
The alternative makes very little sense so it would be more honest to discard it.
> I addressed this in an earlier comment in this thread chain. The saints in Jerusalem would by extension likely be at least prodominantly Hebraic in fleshly ethnicity.
Then they are jews.
> You are basically proposing a conflict between the Talmudic account vs. Christian account of scripture. There are discrepancies in the respective Old Testaments. And this is fine for conversations about the OT. But because we are looking at the NT, Christianity is the only one with skin in the game for that. The source manuscripts stand. And source manuscripts do not venerate antiChrist Jews.
The NT was also written by jews. I'm still not buying into this "antichrist jews" distinction. Jews are jews.
> The entire point is that many antiChrist 'Jews' are likely to be fake Jews. The exception is in cases like Saul to Paul where an antiChrist Jew is destined to become a Christian through divine intervention. The whole point is that all true-Jews will eventually join Christianity because none come to the Father except through Christ. An antiChristian Jew is not considered a saint.
If judaism is an ethnicity and they'll still be jew when they abandon judaism and become christian then how can someone be a "false jew?"? Alternately if judaism is a religion then how will they still be jewish when they become christians?
With your interpretation the quote makes no sense whatsoever. It makes much more sense to interpret it as the author approving of some jewish sects while disapproving of others. Still philosemitism.
> The Bible points towards true ones and fake ones.
The bible can say what it likes, this won't address the problem that jews are jews and philosemitism will ultimately be the end of europeans if we allow it to continue.
The bible is a major part of this problem, placing a jewish supremacy document at the center of our culture has lead to all kinds of completely unnecessary pro-jewish sentiment and anti-european conflict. Not to mention the perversions of history that result from european nationalists trying to square their ethnic origins with their jew-centric upbringing.
If it weren't for christianity there would be precisely zero europeans trying to claim jews are white, or jews aren't the real jews or whites are the real jews. It'd be a retarded thing to suggest.
> KJV isn't perfect, but it is 1) a good English approximation with close fidelity to the source manuscripts, and 2) is free of tainting from modern politics
But not free of the taint of contemporary politics. Just saying that you can't pick a translation you like then criticise everyone else for not using the original.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=643386412b7f9
Broc_Liath 0 points 2.2 years ago
Well... it's certainly realistic XD
/v/ClownWorld viewpost?postid=64355e755335c
Broc_Liath 0 points 2.2 years ago
> The original doesn't say "Jews" at all. That's the point.
Again though, the people it's referring to are defined in opposition to gentiles. So these people who live in jerusalem and are not gentiles aren't jews?
> Take a moment to be scholarly about this and realize which group would want to change the phrasing. This is just an example of things that are shifted.
That goes both ways though. Christians are just as capable of rewriting their books to downplay the philosemitism when they realise how bad it is.
> It does not refer to true Jews. The passages even say as much. And the definition of Jew is further expanded on in other passages. AntiChrist Jews aren't really Jews. "One is not a Jew that is one outwardly"
Exactly. And if it's complaining about fake-jews being a problem then it's suggesting there are a group he considers genuine jews who are not a problem. So it's highly disingenuous to hold it up as evidence early christians rejected jews or acted in opposition to them.
> By claiming that Rom 15 is talking about antiChrist Jews #is# an attempt to ignore what was written.
I'm not the one making special distinctions here. I never said "antichrist jews" or tried to create any other subcategory. There is only one type of jew as far as I'm concerned and christianity is far too tolerant of them.
Rom 15 is talking about a group of people who live in jerusalem and are not gentiles. That is jews. You would have to deliberately blind yourself to conclude otherwise.
> Again, the original source manuscripts have more authority than modern English translations. Look at what the originals say. Your argument falls apart when you look into this.
So why did you weigh in with KJV then?
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=643386412b7f9
Broc_Liath 0 points 2.2 years ago
> In biblical Israel, it was all the land between the Nile and Euphrates, which included Aryian people, Syrian people, Arabs, Persians and filthy fucking jews, and only a small minded moron would lump all these people together to come up with "joos".
That's nice, fortunately no one did.
What I did do was lump together the jews and the rest of the israelites, because they're the same people and their descendants are the banker clan we all know and love today.
> You're a fucking idiot.
Eat shit jewcuck
/v/Christianity viewpost?postid=64340cf3b1170
Broc_Liath 3 points 2.2 years ago
Hey! You should be grateful! Normally you need a premium onlyfans account to see his bra-pics.
/v/ClownWorld viewpost?postid=64355e755335c
Broc_Liath 1 point 2.2 years ago
I'm amazed underwear companies haven't gotten more woke about this kind of thing and started producing size XXXXL g-strings.
/v/ClownWorld viewpost?postid=64355e755335c
Broc_Liath 17 points 2.2 years ago
Oh no I meant from the photo you posted. Nice beard btw! Salt 'n pepper is a classic.
/v/ClownWorld viewpost?postid=64355e755335c