What do you mean "our" lord and savior? The whole messiah thing is a inter-Jewish thing. Let them kill each other and then European Pagans can finish what Hadrian started.
[ - ] dassar 1 point 2.9 yearsAug 5, 2022 00:32:12 ago (+1/-0)
I also weep everytime i hear of the Children selling the family home when the parents pass and cashing out for their share of shekels - like wth you dumb fcks - family trust it you dumbasses -rent it out to one of your own kids or something.
Not always practical though. Sometimes the family doesn't get along and it's worth cashing out just to put in distance. Other times it's a big family and everyone's too spread out to make it worth managing.
Sure. But the point is, Uber wealthy Families didnt get to where they are by falling to infighting and petty disagreements about selling off actual Assets of Generational Wealth. For many of them the blood line comes first or you're out.
[ - ] Not_C 1 point 2.9 yearsAug 5, 2022 01:04:15 ago (+1/-0)
Anti-Christ does not mean one person who is the opposite of Christ. What Anti-Christ really means is the people who are Against Christ.
The Anti-Christ during Biblical times were the Jews. The ones who were trying to stop Jesus from preaching; the ones who killed Jesus. The ones who are "Against Christ" are the Jews. The Jews are the Anti-Christ.
I don't understand why people can't see this.
God put his son on Earth. The most kind, giving, perfect thing God could create. And the Jews killed him. The Jews are pure evil. No matter how good, kind, wonderful you are, the Jews will kill you. No matter how beautiful and wonderful something is, the Jews will destroy it.
Every good Christian knows this. Unfortunately there aren't many good Christians in this world.
Yeshua was also a jew as were his followers. Christianity is far from clear on whether jews are enemies or not. Even the "synagogue of satan" thing is addressed to "false-jews," implying either that christians are the true jews or there's another group of genuine article jews who are a-ok.
Jesus was Christ. That's why he was called Christ. The followers of Christ were called Christ-ians. That's where the word Christians comes from. Followers of Christ. Christ-ians.
The word Anti-Christ does not mean the opposite of Christ. It means the people "Against Christ". When the word Anti-Christ was first used, back when the gospels were written, meant the people "Against-Christ". It does not mean one person who is the opposite of Christ. It means the people "Against-Christ".
The people who stopped Christ from preaching were the "Anti-Christ"; the "Against-Christ" people. The ones who crucified Christ were the "Against-Christ" people; the Anti-Christ. The people who killed Christ are the Anti-Christ; the people "Against-Christ".
The people who's holy books say that Christ was not the Messiah, the people who's holy books say that Christ is boiling in human excrement in hell, are the "Anti-Christ".
This has nothing to do with the Synagogue of Satan. The Jews are the Anti-Chist, the people "Against-Christ", that the Bible talks about. The Jews are the Anti-Christ, the people "Against-Christ", that the Bible prophesized about.
To say that an Ethiopian Jew is not ethnically or racially Jewish may be true. But they are still one of the Jews.
To say that the soldier that is firing on you is not your enemy because they are just following the orders of their commanding officer is wrong. Just like saying that the commanding officer is not your enemy because they are not firing on you is just as wrong. To say that the truck driver delivering ammo is not the enemy because they're just an innocent truck driver is also wrong. THEY ARE ALL OUR ENEMY!! One cannot exist without the others. They must all be killed. And their murders are more than justified. Religiously, morally, spiritually justified. And necessary.
Jesus was Christ. That's why he was called Christ. The followers of Christ were called Christ-ians. That's where the word Christians comes from. Followers of Christ. Christ-ians.
Oh really now. So why were these aramaic speakers calling their leader by a greek title? Assuming he existed it's unlikely he was ever called "christos" in his lifetime. That was invented later.
Anyhow that's neither here nor there, both he and his followers were jews.
THEY ARE ALL OUR ENEMY!! One cannot exist without the others. They must all be killed. And their murders are more than justified. Religiously, morally, spiritually justified. And necessary.
Anyhow that's neither here nor there, both he and his followers were jews.
His followers were Christians. Just like how Ethiopian Jews are Jews.
And Jesus was a Nazarene. "Jesus of Nazareth" - Have you ever heard that before? Jesus is called a Nazarene more than 30 times in the Bible.
Lamentations 4:7 - Her Nazarites were purer than snow, Whiter than milk.
Whiter than milk, purer than snow - Sure doesn't sound like a worthless troll of a kike.
Don't like the Bible, then there's Publius Lentulus' description of Jesus the Nazarene. It also is about someone who the original Latin translation calls, "Jhesus Christus". Christus.... that's kind of familiar, isn't it? Kinda sounds like Christ, doesn't it? - Looks like you were wrong.
Gamaliel described Jesus as Blonde and Blue.
Pilates letter to Tiberius Caesar calling Jesus a Blond.
Scholars have been presenting evidence for centuries. 1936's Christ Was Not a Jew by Jacob Elon Conner is an entire book pointing this out.
Oh, but you read a Facebook post once that said he was a Jew, right? That's all the evidence you need. You refuse to accept scholarly facts, and well documented first had accounts. Next you're going to tell me about how your grandparents died on a German roller coaster.
His followers were Christians. Just like how Ethiopian Jews are Jews.
Jews do not cease to be jews when they start following a new rabbi. They were jews.
And Jesus was a Nazarene. "Jesus of Nazareth" - Have you ever heard that before? Jesus is called a Nazarene more than 30 times in the Bible.
And during his lifetime nazareth was part of Israel. Even if it weren't it's irrelevant: His parents were from bethlehem. A jew does not cease to be a jew just by crossing a border. He was a jew.
Lamentations 4:7 - Her Nazarites were purer than snow, Whiter than milk.
Whiter than milk, purer than snow - Sure doesn't sound like a worthless troll of a kike.
A lyrical description does not make him caucasian. Mohammed is also described as having pale skin, he was still a camel jockey, just as jesus was a jew.
Gamaliel described Jesus as Blonde and Blue.
Where?
Pilates letter to Tiberius Caesar calling Jesus a Blond.
I have heard many stories about this letter and seen some proported text from it. I have not seen any clear provenance or any indication of where the original is. My conclusion is that it's about as genuine as dianetics.
Scholars have been presenting evidence for centuries. 1936's Christ Was Not a Jew by Jacob Elon Conner is an entire book pointing this out.
Europeans had a jewish religion foisted on them but couldn't square the behaviour of actual jews with the positive description of them in the bible. This has lead to all kinds of ridiculous mental gymnastics like claiming that the jews aren't jews, whites are jews or that jesus is white. I have never come across any such theory with convincing evidence to back it. They're all pure cope.
Oh, but you read a Facebook post once that said he was a Jew, right? That's all the evidence you need. You refuse to accept scholarly facts, and well documented first had accounts. Next you're going to tell me about how your grandparents died on a German roller coaster.
All of the descriptions of his life and parentage suggest he was a jew. "Scholarly facts" cooked up centuries after his death do not convince me otherwise.
I have also not been able to find any undoctored first hand accounts of his life. The closest is josephus but the section about jesus is very obviously a later insertion.
Yeah... I'm kinda passionate about this argument. There's a lot of rambling and repeating myself. So read it if you want.
And during his lifetime nazareth was part of Israel. Even if it weren't it's irrelevant: His parents were from bethlehem. A jew does not cease to be a jew just by crossing a border. He was a jew.
Israel didn't exist in Jesus' time. During Jesus' time there was no area or kingdom called Israel. Nazareth was a part of Galilee. Which was not Judea. Mary was born in Nazareth, Galilee. Meanwhile, Joseph was not Jesus' father. (Whether you believe in divine conception or not, the fact remains - Joseph was not Jesus' father.)
Galilee, Samaria, and Judea were on the Mediterranean, South of the Turkic Mountains. A major intersection of the Silk Road. To say that the only people to ever live in this area were ethnic Jews is ridiculous. Especially considering how many times this area had been conquered by different peoples. Jesus of Nazareth was a Galilean. Which is separate from Judea. Just because someone is born in Bethlehem, Judea that does not make them ethnically Jewish. You do not BECOME an ethnic Jew just by crossing a border. He was not a Jew.
Gamaliel described Jesus as Blonde and Blue. - Where?
In official court documents. - They had courts back then. People could read and write. They recorded things; wrote things down. Recorded history began long before computers or typewriters. Someone amassing followers and gaining influence would have been reported and recorded. And because they didn't have cameras, they used words to describe them. Those words included their hair and eye color.
I have not seen any clear provenance or any indication of where the original is. My conclusion is that it's about as genuine as dianetics.
What do you expect? How far are you going to move the goalposts? Me, I've never been to Ireland. Does that mean Ireland doesn't exist? That Ireland is as genuine as Dianetics?
behaviour of actual jews with the positive description of them in the bible
Positive description? Do you mean positive as in good? Because if so, the Jews are the Anti-Christ; the ones "Against-Christ". That's what the New Testament calls them. It's all in the book. Those "Against-Christ" people kill a guy named Christ because they're... well.... the Anti-Christ; they're Against-Christ. It's kind of an important part of the book.
Yes it's true that corrupt people have perverted the words of the Bible to suit their own gains. But no matter how anyone tries to spin it, the New Testament is clear - The Jews are the Anti-Christ.
I have never come across any such theory with convincing evidence to back it. They're all pure cope.
"Jesus was an ethnic Jew because he lived in a land that is now a part of modern day Israel." - That is pure cope.
To say that a major intersection of the Silk Road, one that linked the overland road with the Mediterranean, that was constantly being conquered and changing hands repeatedly - only had one race, one ethnicity of people living there is ridiculous. There were many different colonies in the area. Conner's book goes into great detail on this.
Also, Galilee was not Judea. Galilee didn't even border Judea. And that can lead to a bunch more evidence. But the fact is that to say Jesus lived in what is present day Israel, and that guarantees that he was an ethnic Jew... well that argument is ridiculous.
All of the descriptions of his life and parentage suggest he was a jew.
(You set yourself up for this.) All of the descriptions? What descriptions? Where is the clear provenance or any indication of those original descriptions? What undoctored first hand accounts have you seen? What facts and evidence do you have that weren't cooked up centuries after his death? - Rules for thee, but not for me. Is that what you're stating? I provide evidence, but you say that my evidence is invalid because it doesn't meet your criteria. Then you claim to be right, just because you say you are.
I have also not been able to find any undoctored first hand accounts of his life.
Whoa... Hold on there.... One second you have "descriptions of his life and parentage suggesting he was a Jew", and the next second you don't have "any undoctored first hand accounts of his life"? You have descriptions that meet your criteria, and then you've never seen any descriptions that meet your criteria. That sounds like the pure cope you were talking about earlier.
I stand by what I've said here, and in earlier comments. No, I do not have a time machine and DNA/genetic testing equipment. So it is impossible for me to indisputably prove everything 100% to meet every single person's criteria. But the undeniable fact remains - The Jews are the Anti-Christ the New Testament talks and prophesize about. Whether the Bible is the word of God or not is debatable. But it is an undeniable fact that the New Testament states that the Jews are the Anti-Christ.
Also, just because Jesus lived in what is now called Israel is no guarantee that he was racially Semitic. And there is far more evidence, and it is far more likely, that he was not.
Israel didn't exist in Jesus' time. During Jesus' time there was no area or kingdom called Israel. Nazareth was a part of Galilee. Which was not Judea. Mary was born in Nazareth, Galilee. Meanwhile, Joseph was not Jesus' father. (Whether you believe in divine conception or not, the fact remains - Joseph was not Jesus' father.)
Both Nazareth and Bethlehem are jewish territory. Even when one had been part of Judea and the other Israel they were both still jewish territory. Jesus was born in a jewish community, grew up in a jewish community and was raised by jewish parents. As a boy he visited the jewish temple in jerusalem and later made a career as a rabbi.
There is no reason whatsoever to claim he was not a jew.
Galilee, Samaria, and Judea were on the Mediterranean, South of the Turkic Mountains. A major intersection of the Silk Road. To say that the only people to ever live in this area were ethnic Jews is ridiculous. Especially considering how many times this area had been conquered by different peoples.
All? No. Most? Yes. And given all the other evidence he was a jew it's silly to claim otherwise.
In official court documents. - They had courts back then. People could read and write. They recorded things; wrote things down. Recorded history began long before computers or typewriters. Someone amassing followers and gaining influence would have been reported and recorded. And because they didn't have cameras, they used words to describe them. Those words included their hair and eye color.
Like I said, where. What is the provenance for these court documents.
What do you expect? How far are you going to move the goalposts? Me, I've never been to Ireland. Does that mean Ireland doesn't exist? That Ireland is as genuine as Dianetics?
No one is moving any goalposts, I just haven't seen any clear evidence that letter is genuine. What is the oldest record of it?
Positive description? Do you mean positive as in good? Because if so, the Jews are the Anti-Christ; the ones "Against-Christ". That's what the New Testament calls them. It's all in the book. Those "Against-Christ" people kill a guy named Christ because they're... well.... the Anti-Christ; they're Against-Christ. It's kind of an important part of the book.
The jewish books describe them essentially as the masterrace. The new testament makes no clear condemnation of them. Your claim that "anti-christ" means anyone who opposes christianity is tenuous.
(You set yourself up for this.) All of the descriptions? What descriptions? Where is the clear provenance or any indication of those original descriptions? What undoctored first hand accounts have you seen? What facts and evidence do you have that weren't cooked up centuries after his death?
Good point. The authorship of the new testament is suspect at best, so we can't take it as an authoritative account of jesus' life, or proof that he was a real historical person.
That said, I'm guessing you don't take this position so you must therefore accept it's description of him. He was born to parents from a jewish region living in another jewish region. He later became a rabbi and primarily preached to jewish audiances in the jewish language.
Every historical account we have about him suggests he was a jew, nothing suggests otherwise. I am not convinced you would be arguing he was non-jewish if his cult had not become widespread in europe.
Whoa... Hold on there.... One second you have "descriptions of his life and parentage suggesting he was a Jew", and the next second you don't have "any undoctored first hand accounts of his life"? You have descriptions that meet your criteria, and then you've never seen any descriptions that meet your criteria. That sounds like the pure cope you were talking about earlier.
The new testament is not a first hand account.
I stand by what I've said here, and in earlier comments. No, I do not have a time machine and DNA/genetic testing equipment. So it is impossible for me to indisputably prove everything 100% to meet every single person's criteria.
Come off it. It's not that I set some impossibly high bar and you fell just below it, there's pretty much nothing to suggest he was white.
You cited two documents you couldn't source and meanwhile the book you hold as holy truth is full of his jewish origins and connections to jews.
But the undeniable fact remains - The Jews are the Anti-Christ the New Testament talks and prophesize about. Whether the Bible is the word of God or not is debatable. But it is an undeniable fact that the New Testament states that the Jews are the Anti-Christ.
That is highly deniable. The new testament has no clear condemnation of jews, much less identifying them as the anti-christ.
Also, just because Jesus lived in what is now called Israel is no guarantee that he was racially Semitic.
Guarantee? No. Anything's possible. It's possible the first emperor of japan was actually a cherokee who got lost, but staying within the realm of normal possibility he was japanese, just as jesus was a jew.
And there is far more evidence, and it is far more likely, that he was not.
So far your evidence is two documents identifying him as having fair hair. Neither of which you can show are contemporary.
Both Nazareth and Bethlehem are jewish territory. Even when one had been part of Judea and the other Israel they were both still jewish territory. Jesus was born in a jewish community, grew up in a jewish community and was raised by jewish parents.
Is your entire argument based around the whole -"It doesn't matter if they're black as coal, if they're born in Sweden, then they're a Swede, no different than any other Swede. They're all the same ethnicity and race."? A chink is a chink, a nigger is a nigger no matter where they are born. And an ethnic Swede can be born anywhere. It's genetics. And I'll tell you something - Just because I was born in Canada, that doesn't make me a fucking Injun or an Eskimo.
And then there's the old saying - Sitting in a church makes you a Christian, just as much as sitting in a garage makes you a car. So what if Jesus sat in a temple? When Jesus was creating a new branch of the Abrahamic religion, he started by converting people who already believed in the old branch. That has nothing to do with his ethnicity or race. He wanted to talk religion, so he talked to religious people.
Also, Galilee, Samaria, and Judea were not one country, with one ethnicity, or one race. To say they were overseen by Herod is ignoring that they were overseen by Rome. To say that Herod was a Jew so Jesus was a Jew, is no different than saying Tiberius was a Roman so Jesus was a Roman. And Tiberius trumps Herod. (But that's irrelevant.)
Judea was mainly populated by Jews. Samaria meanwhile, - "Samaria at the time Jesus lived included cities and towns that were Greek and some that were Samaritan. The Samaritans were descended from the Assyrians who conquered before 700 B.C. Samaritans were considered Gentiles by the Jews in Judea." Then further North there was Galilee. Yes Galilee did have the Jewish religion, but the ethnic Jews were in Judea. Meanwhile, the entire area was filled with colonists because that was where all the fertile land was right next to where the Mediterranean meets the Silk Road.
And again, Jesus' step dad being from Judea and an ethnic Jew in no way makes Jesus an ethnic Jew. And also, being born in Bethlehem does not make someone an ethnic Jew. WE ALREADY WENT OVER THIS!!
There is no reason whatsoever to claim he was not a jew.
WHAT?? There is no reason to claim he was.
But anyway, there are reasons to claim he wasn't racially a Jew. He was blond and blue for 2. His mother was not ethnically Jewish, she being a blonde also. We have no idea who his father is (divine conception aside) but Jesus was blonder than his mother and had blue eyes (both recessive traits meaning his father was blonder and bluer than his mother) he was as far from a Semite as one can get.
given all the other evidence he was a jew it's silly to claim otherwise.
There is no evidence that he was an ethnic Jew. Even you admitted that not all people in the area were ethnically Jewish. Outside of Judea, there were very few. I've at least presented some evidence that he wasn't an ethnic Jew. But you have presented NONE saying he was.
Yes, maybe his step-dad was a Jew, but that has nothing to do with his genetics.
Like I said, where. What is the provenance for these court documents.
Where are the goal posts for this? It's recorded history. Is every report or letter saved for all time? No. But the ones that contain important things or events about important people are compiled and copied down. Then that compilation is compiled with others, and only the most important things are copied down. Etc, etc. That's how recorded history works. Again, where are the goal posts? - "In 1024 when it was written that Jesus was blond and blue, that person could have lied." - Yeah, well, the one who wrote the original in 34AD could have lied too, right? Where are the goal posts?
Your claim that "anti-christ" means anyone who opposes christianity is tenuous.
Tenuous? When the gospels were written, who were the people "Against-Christ"? Who tried to stop him from preaching? Who literally crucified him? When the word Anti-Christ was coined, who were they referring to? That guy Frank who lives down the street, who gets mad when the church bells wake him up on Sunday? No. It means the fucking Jews. The people, who during biblical times, rejected Jesus as their Messiah.
And don't give me any of that - "Well, not every Jew. Maybe one of them kinda liked staring into Jesus' deep blue eyes as his blond hair flowed in the wind, and didn't want him to get crucified. So it can't mean EVERY Jew." - Anti-Christ means the fucking Jews. No loopholes or technicalities. When the word Anti-Christ was written it meant the people Against-Jesus, and at the time it meant the people who rejected Christ as their Messiah. They were talking about the Jews. And when the Jews wrote their New Testament and said that Jesus is in Hell boiling in shit, the Jews themselves proved that they are the Anti-Christ.
I am not convinced you would be arguing he was non-jewish if his cult had not become widespread in europe.
Why not? Tutankhamun was North Western European in race. His DNA proved it. There is also evidence that Abraham was Northern European in race too. (Which starts a whole other argument.... that also fucks up this one.)
Also, to be clear, Jesus isn't called blond and blue because the religion spread to Europe. He's called blond and blue because that's what people at the time said he was.
The new testament is not a first hand account.
(If it isn't the word of God then...) That's true. And the New Testament doesn't give Jesus' description. Other than Revelations 1-14 which says his hair was white like snow. Pretty rare for a 36 year old to have a full head of white hair, unless it was very blond.
Oh.... wait.... You say that Jesus did this Jewish thing and that Jewish thing. But.... "The new testament is not a first hand account.".... Right?
I caught you with that one. Take everything from the New Testament out of your argument, and what do you have? I definitely caught you there.
The new testament has no clear condemnation of jews, much less identifying them as the anti-christ.
THEY FUCKING KILLED HIM!! THE JEWS KILLED HIM!! That's the main part of the book. The cornerstone of the Christian religion. The Jews wanted him dead. They were so Anti-Christ that they literally had him tortured and then crucified. You can't get more Anti-Christ than torturing and murdering Christ.
Let's change the word and see if you get it - "Against-Jesus"
The Jews were Against-Jesus. They were against Jesus' teachings and were against accepting Jesus as their Messiah. The Jews were so Against-Jesus that they had Jesus tortured and crucified. Then they even wrote books that are accepted as religious doctrine about how Jesus is in hell boiling in shit. Their religious history literally contains a time where they were defined by the fact that they were the ones who rejected the possible Messiah, Jesus. Their religion survived through that time because they refused to convert by rejecting Jesus. This resulted in them being called the Against-Jesus people.
When the branch of the Abrahamic religion split, one branch accepted Jesus as God and the other did not. One was the for Jesus branch, and the other was the Against-Jesus branch. The Jewish religion exists to this day because they rejected Jesus. Because they were Against converting to Jesus' new version of the Abrahamic religion. The Jewish religion is the Against-Jesus branch of the Abrahamic religion.
That's the thing that separated the two Abrahamic religions. Being for or against Jesus.
The Jews, in every way shape and form, literally and figuratively, are the Against-Jesus that are talked about in the New Testament.
It is made very clear in the New Testament that the Jews are the Against-Jesus people because they are the ones who had Jesus tortured and crucified for claiming to be the Messiah. And they are the Against-Jesus people because they were against accepting Jesus as their Messiah.
And because Jesus is known as both Jesus and as Christ, and another word for Anti is Against. That means Against-Jesus is another word for the Anti-Christ. Do you get it now? If not, read it again replacing the word "Against" with "Anti" and "Jesus" with "Christ".
And again - THEY FUCKING KILLED HIM!! THE JEWS KILLED HIM!! That's the main part of the book. The cornerstone of the Christian religion. The most Anti-Christ thing anyone could ever do is torture and crucify Christ.
staying within the realm of normal possibility he was japanese, just as jesus was a jew.
A Nazarine in biblical times would be far more likely to be Assyrian than a Jew. And would also be far more likely to be ethnically from a Mediterranean country than be a Jew. An ethnic Jew would be pretty far down the list of likely possibilities. It's a good thing that we have at least a few records referencing his blue eyes and blond hair so that we don't have to guess.
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 3 points 2.9 yearsAug 4, 2022 18:41:40 ago (+6/-3)
The whole messiah thing is a inter-Jewish thing. Let them kill each other and then European Pagans can finish what Hadrian started.
[ + ] I_am_baal
[ - ] I_am_baal [op] 3 points 2.9 yearsAug 4, 2022 19:28:52 ago (+4/-1)
[ + ] Hermes
[ - ] Hermes 0 points 2.9 yearsAug 4, 2022 21:35:45 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] spasswerk
[ - ] spasswerk 2 points 2.9 yearsAug 4, 2022 22:09:11 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 1 point 2.9 yearsAug 5, 2022 00:32:12 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.9 yearsAug 5, 2022 05:01:58 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 2.9 yearsAug 5, 2022 15:46:25 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 1 point 2.9 yearsAug 5, 2022 01:04:15 ago (+1/-0)
What Anti-Christ really means is the people who are Against Christ.
The Anti-Christ during Biblical times were the Jews. The ones who were trying to stop Jesus from preaching; the ones who killed Jesus. The ones who are "Against Christ" are the Jews. The Jews are the Anti-Christ.
I don't understand why people can't see this.
God put his son on Earth. The most kind, giving, perfect thing God could create. And the Jews killed him.
The Jews are pure evil. No matter how good, kind, wonderful you are, the Jews will kill you.
No matter how beautiful and wonderful something is, the Jews will destroy it.
Every good Christian knows this. Unfortunately there aren't many good Christians in this world.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.9 yearsAug 5, 2022 05:04:24 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 0 points 2.9 yearsAug 5, 2022 14:20:39 ago (+0/-0)
The word Anti-Christ does not mean the opposite of Christ. It means the people "Against Christ". When the word Anti-Christ was first used, back when the gospels were written, meant the people "Against-Christ". It does not mean one person who is the opposite of Christ. It means the people "Against-Christ".
The people who stopped Christ from preaching were the "Anti-Christ"; the "Against-Christ" people. The ones who crucified Christ were the "Against-Christ" people; the Anti-Christ. The people who killed Christ are the Anti-Christ; the people "Against-Christ".
The people who's holy books say that Christ was not the Messiah, the people who's holy books say that Christ is boiling in human excrement in hell, are the "Anti-Christ".
This has nothing to do with the Synagogue of Satan. The Jews are the Anti-Chist, the people "Against-Christ", that the Bible talks about. The Jews are the Anti-Christ, the people "Against-Christ", that the Bible prophesized about.
To say that an Ethiopian Jew is not ethnically or racially Jewish may be true. But they are still one of the Jews.
To say that the soldier that is firing on you is not your enemy because they are just following the orders of their commanding officer is wrong. Just like saying that the commanding officer is not your enemy because they are not firing on you is just as wrong. To say that the truck driver delivering ammo is not the enemy because they're just an innocent truck driver is also wrong.
THEY ARE ALL OUR ENEMY!! One cannot exist without the others. They must all be killed. And their murders are more than justified. Religiously, morally, spiritually justified. And necessary.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.9 yearsAug 5, 2022 14:42:08 ago (+0/-0)
Oh really now. So why were these aramaic speakers calling their leader by a greek title? Assuming he existed it's unlikely he was ever called "christos" in his lifetime. That was invented later.
Anyhow that's neither here nor there, both he and his followers were jews.
Ok christcuck
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 0 points 2.9 yearsAug 5, 2022 22:15:39 ago (+0/-0)
His followers were Christians. Just like how Ethiopian Jews are Jews.
And Jesus was a Nazarene. "Jesus of Nazareth" - Have you ever heard that before? Jesus is called a Nazarene more than 30 times in the Bible.
Lamentations 4:7 - Her Nazarites were purer than snow, Whiter than milk.
Whiter than milk, purer than snow - Sure doesn't sound like a worthless troll of a kike.
Don't like the Bible, then there's Publius Lentulus' description of Jesus the Nazarene. It also is about someone who the original Latin translation calls, "Jhesus Christus".
Christus.... that's kind of familiar, isn't it? Kinda sounds like Christ, doesn't it? - Looks like you were wrong.
Gamaliel described Jesus as Blonde and Blue.
Pilates letter to Tiberius Caesar calling Jesus a Blond.
Scholars have been presenting evidence for centuries. 1936's Christ Was Not a Jew by Jacob Elon Conner is an entire book pointing this out.
Oh, but you read a Facebook post once that said he was a Jew, right? That's all the evidence you need. You refuse to accept scholarly facts, and well documented first had accounts. Next you're going to tell me about how your grandparents died on a German roller coaster.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.9 yearsAug 6, 2022 16:05:15 ago (+0/-0)*
Jews do not cease to be jews when they start following a new rabbi. They were jews.
And during his lifetime nazareth was part of Israel. Even if it weren't it's irrelevant: His parents were from bethlehem. A jew does not cease to be a jew just by crossing a border. He was a jew.
A lyrical description does not make him caucasian. Mohammed is also described as having pale skin, he was still a camel jockey, just as jesus was a jew.
Where?
I have heard many stories about this letter and seen some proported text from it. I have not seen any clear provenance or any indication of where the original is. My conclusion is that it's about as genuine as dianetics.
Europeans had a jewish religion foisted on them but couldn't square the behaviour of actual jews with the positive description of them in the bible. This has lead to all kinds of ridiculous mental gymnastics like claiming that the jews aren't jews, whites are jews or that jesus is white. I have never come across any such theory with convincing evidence to back it. They're all pure cope.
All of the descriptions of his life and parentage suggest he was a jew. "Scholarly facts" cooked up centuries after his death do not convince me otherwise.
I have also not been able to find any undoctored first hand accounts of his life. The closest is josephus but the section about jesus is very obviously a later insertion.
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 0 points 2.9 yearsAug 6, 2022 19:00:16 ago (+0/-0)
Israel didn't exist in Jesus' time. During Jesus' time there was no area or kingdom called Israel. Nazareth was a part of Galilee. Which was not Judea. Mary was born in Nazareth, Galilee. Meanwhile, Joseph was not Jesus' father. (Whether you believe in divine conception or not, the fact remains - Joseph was not Jesus' father.)
Galilee, Samaria, and Judea were on the Mediterranean, South of the Turkic Mountains. A major intersection of the Silk Road. To say that the only people to ever live in this area were ethnic Jews is ridiculous. Especially considering how many times this area had been conquered by different peoples.
Jesus of Nazareth was a Galilean. Which is separate from Judea. Just because someone is born in Bethlehem, Judea that does not make them ethnically Jewish.
You do not BECOME an ethnic Jew just by crossing a border. He was not a Jew.
In official court documents. - They had courts back then. People could read and write. They recorded things; wrote things down. Recorded history began long before computers or typewriters. Someone amassing followers and gaining influence would have been reported and recorded. And because they didn't have cameras, they used words to describe them. Those words included their hair and eye color.
What do you expect? How far are you going to move the goalposts? Me, I've never been to Ireland. Does that mean Ireland doesn't exist? That Ireland is as genuine as Dianetics?
Positive description? Do you mean positive as in good? Because if so, the Jews are the Anti-Christ; the ones "Against-Christ". That's what the New Testament calls them. It's all in the book. Those "Against-Christ" people kill a guy named Christ because they're... well.... the Anti-Christ; they're Against-Christ. It's kind of an important part of the book.
Yes it's true that corrupt people have perverted the words of the Bible to suit their own gains. But no matter how anyone tries to spin it, the New Testament is clear - The Jews are the Anti-Christ.
"Jesus was an ethnic Jew because he lived in a land that is now a part of modern day Israel." - That is pure cope.
To say that a major intersection of the Silk Road, one that linked the overland road with the Mediterranean, that was constantly being conquered and changing hands repeatedly - only had one race, one ethnicity of people living there is ridiculous. There were many different colonies in the area. Conner's book goes into great detail on this.
Also, Galilee was not Judea. Galilee didn't even border Judea. And that can lead to a bunch more evidence. But the fact is that to say Jesus lived in what is present day Israel, and that guarantees that he was an ethnic Jew... well that argument is ridiculous.
(You set yourself up for this.) All of the descriptions? What descriptions? Where is the clear provenance or any indication of those original descriptions? What undoctored first hand accounts have you seen? What facts and evidence do you have that weren't cooked up centuries after his death?
- Rules for thee, but not for me. Is that what you're stating?
I provide evidence, but you say that my evidence is invalid because it doesn't meet your criteria. Then you claim to be right, just because you say you are.
Whoa... Hold on there.... One second you have "descriptions of his life and parentage suggesting he was a Jew", and the next second you don't have "any undoctored first hand accounts of his life"? You have descriptions that meet your criteria, and then you've never seen any descriptions that meet your criteria. That sounds like the pure cope you were talking about earlier.
I stand by what I've said here, and in earlier comments. No, I do not have a time machine and DNA/genetic testing equipment. So it is impossible for me to indisputably prove everything 100% to meet every single person's criteria. But the undeniable fact remains - The Jews are the Anti-Christ the New Testament talks and prophesize about. Whether the Bible is the word of God or not is debatable. But it is an undeniable fact that the New Testament states that the Jews are the Anti-Christ.
Also, just because Jesus lived in what is now called Israel is no guarantee that he was racially Semitic. And there is far more evidence, and it is far more likely, that he was not.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2.9 yearsAug 6, 2022 22:08:24 ago (+0/-0)*
This is Judea under Herod: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Herodian_Kingdom.png
Both Nazareth and Bethlehem are jewish territory. Even when one had been part of Judea and the other Israel they were both still jewish territory. Jesus was born in a jewish community, grew up in a jewish community and was raised by jewish parents. As a boy he visited the jewish temple in jerusalem and later made a career as a rabbi.
There is no reason whatsoever to claim he was not a jew.
All? No. Most? Yes. And given all the other evidence he was a jew it's silly to claim otherwise.
Like I said, where. What is the provenance for these court documents.
No one is moving any goalposts, I just haven't seen any clear evidence that letter is genuine. What is the oldest record of it?
The jewish books describe them essentially as the masterrace. The new testament makes no clear condemnation of them. Your claim that "anti-christ" means anyone who opposes christianity is tenuous.
Good point. The authorship of the new testament is suspect at best, so we can't take it as an authoritative account of jesus' life, or proof that he was a real historical person.
That said, I'm guessing you don't take this position so you must therefore accept it's description of him. He was born to parents from a jewish region living in another jewish region. He later became a rabbi and primarily preached to jewish audiances in the jewish language.
Every historical account we have about him suggests he was a jew, nothing suggests otherwise. I am not convinced you would be arguing he was non-jewish if his cult had not become widespread in europe.
The new testament is not a first hand account.
Come off it. It's not that I set some impossibly high bar and you fell just below it, there's pretty much nothing to suggest he was white.
You cited two documents you couldn't source and meanwhile the book you hold as holy truth is full of his jewish origins and connections to jews.
That is highly deniable. The new testament has no clear condemnation of jews, much less identifying them as the anti-christ.
Guarantee? No. Anything's possible. It's possible the first emperor of japan was actually a cherokee who got lost, but staying within the realm of normal possibility he was japanese, just as jesus was a jew.
So far your evidence is two documents identifying him as having fair hair. Neither of which you can show are contemporary.
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 0 points 2.9 yearsAug 7, 2022 06:29:26 ago (+0/-0)
Is your entire argument based around the whole -"It doesn't matter if they're black as coal, if they're born in Sweden, then they're a Swede, no different than any other Swede. They're all the same ethnicity and race."?
A chink is a chink, a nigger is a nigger no matter where they are born. And an ethnic Swede can be born anywhere. It's genetics.
And I'll tell you something - Just because I was born in Canada, that doesn't make me a fucking Injun or an Eskimo.
And then there's the old saying - Sitting in a church makes you a Christian, just as much as sitting in a garage makes you a car.
So what if Jesus sat in a temple?
When Jesus was creating a new branch of the Abrahamic religion, he started by converting people who already believed in the old branch. That has nothing to do with his ethnicity or race. He wanted to talk religion, so he talked to religious people.
Also, Galilee, Samaria, and Judea were not one country, with one ethnicity, or one race. To say they were overseen by Herod is ignoring that they were overseen by Rome. To say that Herod was a Jew so Jesus was a Jew, is no different than saying Tiberius was a Roman so Jesus was a Roman. And Tiberius trumps Herod. (But that's irrelevant.)
Judea was mainly populated by Jews. Samaria meanwhile, - "Samaria at the time Jesus lived included cities and towns that were Greek and some that were Samaritan. The Samaritans were descended from the Assyrians who conquered before 700 B.C. Samaritans were considered Gentiles by the Jews in Judea." Then further North there was Galilee. Yes Galilee did have the Jewish religion, but the ethnic Jews were in Judea. Meanwhile, the entire area was filled with colonists because that was where all the fertile land was right next to where the Mediterranean meets the Silk Road.
And again, Jesus' step dad being from Judea and an ethnic Jew in no way makes Jesus an ethnic Jew. And also, being born in Bethlehem does not make someone an ethnic Jew. WE ALREADY WENT OVER THIS!!
WHAT?? There is no reason to claim he was.
But anyway, there are reasons to claim he wasn't racially a Jew. He was blond and blue for 2. His mother was not ethnically Jewish, she being a blonde also. We have no idea who his father is (divine conception aside) but Jesus was blonder than his mother and had blue eyes (both recessive traits meaning his father was blonder and bluer than his mother) he was as far from a Semite as one can get.
There is no evidence that he was an ethnic Jew. Even you admitted that not all people in the area were ethnically Jewish. Outside of Judea, there were very few. I've at least presented some evidence that he wasn't an ethnic Jew. But you have presented NONE saying he was.
Yes, maybe his step-dad was a Jew, but that has nothing to do with his genetics.
Where are the goal posts for this?
It's recorded history. Is every report or letter saved for all time? No. But the ones that contain important things or events about important people are compiled and copied down. Then that compilation is compiled with others, and only the most important things are copied down. Etc, etc. That's how recorded history works.
Again, where are the goal posts? - "In 1024 when it was written that Jesus was blond and blue, that person could have lied." - Yeah, well, the one who wrote the original in 34AD could have lied too, right?
Where are the goal posts?
Tenuous? When the gospels were written, who were the people "Against-Christ"? Who tried to stop him from preaching? Who literally crucified him? When the word Anti-Christ was coined, who were they referring to? That guy Frank who lives down the street, who gets mad when the church bells wake him up on Sunday? No. It means the fucking Jews. The people, who during biblical times, rejected Jesus as their Messiah.
And don't give me any of that - "Well, not every Jew. Maybe one of them kinda liked staring into Jesus' deep blue eyes as his blond hair flowed in the wind, and didn't want him to get crucified. So it can't mean EVERY Jew."
- Anti-Christ means the fucking Jews. No loopholes or technicalities. When the word Anti-Christ was written it meant the people Against-Jesus, and at the time it meant the people who rejected Christ as their Messiah. They were talking about the Jews. And when the Jews wrote their New Testament and said that Jesus is in Hell boiling in shit, the Jews themselves proved that they are the Anti-Christ.
Why not? Tutankhamun was North Western European in race. His DNA proved it. There is also evidence that Abraham was Northern European in race too. (Which starts a whole other argument.... that also fucks up this one.)
Also, to be clear, Jesus isn't called blond and blue because the religion spread to Europe. He's called blond and blue because that's what people at the time said he was.
(If it isn't the word of God then...) That's true. And the New Testament doesn't give Jesus' description. Other than Revelations 1-14 which says his hair was white like snow. Pretty rare for a 36 year old to have a full head of white hair, unless it was very blond.
Oh.... wait.... You say that Jesus did this Jewish thing and that Jewish thing. But.... "The new testament is not a first hand account.".... Right?
I caught you with that one.
Take everything from the New Testament out of your argument, and what do you have?
I definitely caught you there.
THEY FUCKING KILLED HIM!! THE JEWS KILLED HIM!! That's the main part of the book. The cornerstone of the Christian religion. The Jews wanted him dead. They were so Anti-Christ that they literally had him tortured and then crucified. You can't get more Anti-Christ than torturing and murdering Christ.
Let's change the word and see if you get it - "Against-Jesus"
The Jews were Against-Jesus. They were against Jesus' teachings and were against accepting Jesus as their Messiah. The Jews were so Against-Jesus that they had Jesus tortured and crucified. Then they even wrote books that are accepted as religious doctrine about how Jesus is in hell boiling in shit. Their religious history literally contains a time where they were defined by the fact that they were the ones who rejected the possible Messiah, Jesus. Their religion survived through that time because they refused to convert by rejecting Jesus. This resulted in them being called the Against-Jesus people.
When the branch of the Abrahamic religion split, one branch accepted Jesus as God and the other did not. One was the for Jesus branch, and the other was the Against-Jesus branch. The Jewish religion exists to this day because they rejected Jesus. Because they were Against converting to Jesus' new version of the Abrahamic religion. The Jewish religion is the Against-Jesus branch of the Abrahamic religion.
That's the thing that separated the two Abrahamic religions. Being for or against Jesus.
The Jews, in every way shape and form, literally and figuratively, are the Against-Jesus that are talked about in the New Testament.
It is made very clear in the New Testament that the Jews are the Against-Jesus people because they are the ones who had Jesus tortured and crucified for claiming to be the Messiah. And they are the Against-Jesus people because they were against accepting Jesus as their Messiah.
And because Jesus is known as both Jesus and as Christ, and another word for Anti is Against. That means Against-Jesus is another word for the Anti-Christ.
Do you get it now? If not, read it again replacing the word "Against" with "Anti" and "Jesus" with "Christ".
And again - THEY FUCKING KILLED HIM!! THE JEWS KILLED HIM!! That's the main part of the book. The cornerstone of the Christian religion. The most Anti-Christ thing anyone could ever do is torture and crucify Christ.
A Nazarine in biblical times would be far more likely to be Assyrian than a Jew. And would also be far more likely to be ethnically from a Mediterranean country than be a Jew. An ethnic Jew would be pretty far down the list of likely possibilities. It's a good thing that we have at least a few records referencing his blue eyes and blond hair so that we don't have to guess.