I don't have a personal beef with you but you seem to have a real hate boner for the "christ-cucks" and it's starting to feel old. Can we just focus on the one enemy and it's pets and then worry about all the other stuff when we've already took care of that big problem. May many jews be curb stomped this year, and in the future.
At first Hitler attempted to eradicate Christianity but at some point he realized that it wouldn't work and that it was much more beneficial to instead re-shape Christianity. Remove all the jewish stuff and re-write Jesus as an Aryan.
Positive Christianity is what they called it and I think it's the right idea when dealing with Christianity.
POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY IN THE THIRD REICH Professor D. Cajus Fabricius Published by Hermann Puschel, 10 Striesener Strasse, Dresden A 16 1937
"Positive Christianity in the Third Reich," written by German professor of theology and N.S.D.A.P. (Nazi Party) member Cajus Fabricius, dispels the misconceptions that National Socialism was an anti-Christian ideology and that the Third Reich was an anti-Christian state. This short book reveals to us that Hitler was a strong proponent of Positive Christianity in the role of German life, that there is no contradiction between Positive Christianity and National Socialism, and that Christianity was as popular as ever under Hitler.
Without watching and reading all that first, it looks like it’s all on the new Christianity they might have wanted. Anything on Hitler wanting to destroy Christianity before that?
Various historians credit the origins of "positive Christianity" more to the political acumen and opportunism of the Nazi leadership. Leading Nazis like Heinrich Himmler, Alfred Rosenberg, Martin Bormann, and Joseph Goebbels, backed by Hitler, were hostile to Christianity and ultimately planned to de-Christianise Germany.[13] However, Germany had been Christian for over a thousand years, and Hitler recognised the practical reality of the political significance of the Churches in Germany and determined that any moves against the churches must be made in stages. In the words of Paul Berben, positive Christianity therefore came to be advocated as a "term that could be overlaid with any interpretation required, depending on the circumstances" and the party declared itself for religious freedom provided this liberty did not "endanger the State or clash with the views of the 'Germanic Race'".[18]
It's not that the New Testament says you must, it instead describes how Christians will be prevented from doing it.
It's in the Gospel of Philip. Right after the parable of the Christian, Jew, and Atheist.
Philip 4:14-19 (New Millennia translation) - The parable of the Christian, Jew, and Atheist.
A Jew, a Christian, and an Atheist are arguing. They all decide to step outside and fight to the death. The Jew and the Christian both have knives, but the Atheist doesn't have a weapon.
The Atheist points this out, and both the Atheist and Jew demand that the Christian leave their knife inside for it to be a fair fight. The Christian leaves their knife inside, and the three of them step outside.
As the Christian and Jew exchange punches, the Jew stabs them both.
- The point of the story is to explain that religion is a weapon. And Jews manipulate Atheists into demanding that Christians abandon their weapons, while the Jews wield their's.
Philip 4:23-26
After the Christian religion is defeated through the use of Atheist puppets, no one will have the justification for stomping the children of Abraham's skulls onto stones as revenge for the murder of the true Messiah, our Lord, Jesus Christ.
And the curse that the Jews placed upon themselves, and their children, for murdering Christ, will be lifted.
no one will have the justification for stomping the children of Abraham's skulls onto stones as revenge for the murder of the true Messiah, our Lord, Jesus Christ.
I believe that is the reason Talmudites are afraid of Christianity. But the whole curse thing is misunderstood. The blood of Christ on the Jews and their children is a good thing and it is a sign of the acceptance of a new covenant.
"And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." - Ex 24:8
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" - Jeremiah 31:31
"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." - Luke 22:20
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." - 1 Peter 1:2
"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." - Mat 27:25
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" - Gal 3:13
Galatians 3:10-11 - For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” - Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”
The Jews are the ones, commanded by God, to rely on the works of the Law; to live by the Law; to do everything written in the Book of the Law. No one else. The Jews were the ones required to live by and rely on the Law.
Why were the Jews given this burden; given this curse?
Galatians 3:19 - Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.
God forced the Jews to be the carriers of the prophesy.
The Jews are under a curse. The Jews, the carriers of the prophesy, are the ones who rely on the law and are the ones under the curse, and even if they stop relying on the works of the law, they would be cursed for not continuing to do everything written in the Book of the Law.
Galatians 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law
Christ redeemed "US". He didn't redeem everyone. He redeemed "US". "US" being the Galatian Christians the letter was written to. "US" being those who are able to, who are capable of, living by faith. And who are not cursed to live by the Law. Christ made it so we will never be under the curse of the Law that plagues the Jews. Meanwhile, the Jews can never live by faith, and are cursed because they must continue to live by the Law.
Your wild claim that Jesus' death freed the Jews from the curse of the Law is proven completely false by Galatians 3.
And/or the "Blood Curse" is completely separate from the curse of the Law.
When Pilate said, "I am innocent of this man's blood". Blood means death. When the Jews responded, "His blood", they are saying his death. Neither are using "blood" to signify anything mythical or spiritual. "Blood" in this situation undeniably means death. Regardless of any and all out of context references you find for the word blood in the Bible.
1) stop using a chatbot, it truly, verily is not helping your case.
2) No. You are wrong. The new covenant under Christ frees even Jews from the conditions of the old covenant. Gal 3 is inconvenient for your Dispensationalist ideology which is why you reject it. You reject the Bible.
even if they stop relying on the works of the law, they would be cursed for not continuing to do everything written in the Book of the Law.
The covenant of Christ fulfils the law. It makes a payment that is equivalent or better, as is part of the structure of the old law.
US" being the Galatian Christians the letter was written to.
No. The message contains truth for all. Consider the speaker. What does "redeemed us" mean?
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" - Gal 3:13
Your objection to Gal 3 is garbage tier. If you can't present a salient point about it this is the last time I'm discussing it with you.
And/or the "Blood Curse" is completely separate from the curse of the Law.
The passage does not say blood curse nor did I talk about "blood curse". Stop wasting time.
When Pilate said, "I am innocent of this man's blood". Blood means death. When the Jews responded, "His blood", they are saying his death.
That is the point of the sacrifice system. An offering happens and within the initiation of a covenant the sprinkling of blood occurs as a representation of the fact that the offering's blood is upon you.
Regardless of any and all out of context references you find for the word blood in the Bible.
It's not what I find, it is an undeniable exegetic of the text. Shut up or put up. You are sloppy and your argumentation is poor.
Now if you don't mind, please tell us which verses you were trying to reference when you said "Phil 4:23-26"
Shut up or put up. The new covenant under Christ frees even Jews from the conditions of the old covenant.
Galatians 3:15 Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
There is no first and second covenant. There is no old and new covenant.
Galatians 3:15 Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
No one can set aside a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. No one can add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
No one can take God's covenant, set it aside and claim that there is a new covenant. No one can take God's covenant, and add a second covenant. Because - Galatians 3:15 Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
You're wrong. And the reason you're wrong isn't because of this one line of scripture, or because that other line does or doesn't exist. You're wrong because the root of your arguments is wrong.
Admit that Galatians 3:15 exists. Admit it clearly states that no one can set aside or add to God's covenant. Admit that there is no new and old covenants, that there is no first and second covenants, and then we can move on to Part 2.
There is no first and second covenant. There is no old and new covenant.
Wrong. Stop pretending that you understand Christianity & the Bible. Read Hebrews 8.
Admit that Galatians 3:15 exists. Admit it clearly states that no one can set aside or add to God's covenant.
Read the entirety of Galatians 3. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. We're done here.
I will leave you with this:
"For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:" - Hebrews 8:8-10
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" - Col 2:14
You were so confident, until you realised that your lies won't work on me.
I'm correct about Galatians 3 and everything I've said about God's covenant which was made with Abraham and his singular seed. And instead of acknowledging that, you try the same type of lie which didn't work the first time.
Earlier I didn't let you get away with the lie about Pilate and the Jews not meaning death when they said "blood" because somewhere else in the Bible they used the word "blood" in a different way. Well... I'm not going to let you get away with the lie that every time the word "Covenant" is used in the Bible, they are ALWAYS talking about the same Covenant every time.
You lied. That makes you a LIAR. And your lies don't work on me.
Admit I'm right. Admit that you're a liar, and we can move on to Part 2.
[ + ] DestroyerofSquirrels
[ - ] DestroyerofSquirrels 4 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 01:29:27 ago (+4/-0)*
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 01:44:18 ago (+1/-1)
Positive Christianity is what they called it and I think it's the right idea when dealing with Christianity.
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 02:15:20 ago (+0/-0)
Other then just Nazi party members writing their opinions on Christianity?
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt 2 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 02:29:53 ago (+2/-0)
"Positive Christianity in the Third Reich," written by German professor of theology and N.S.D.A.P. (Nazi Party) member Cajus Fabricius, dispels the misconceptions that National Socialism was an anti-Christian ideology and that the Third Reich was an anti-Christian state. This short book reveals to us that Hitler was a strong proponent of Positive Christianity in the role of German life, that there is no contradiction between Positive Christianity and National Socialism, and that Christianity was as popular as ever under Hitler.
https://ia600905.us.archive.org/10/items/positive-christianity-in-the-third-reich-by-cajus-fabricius_201906/positive-christianity-in-the-third-reich-by-cajus-fabricius_text.pdf
https://odysee.com/@TheFascifist:c/Positive-Christianity:0
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 02:44:51 ago (+0/-0)
Anything on Hitler wanting to destroy Christianity before that?
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 02:58:02 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] QuestionEverything
[ - ] QuestionEverything 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 07:28:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] GetFuckedCunt
[ - ] GetFuckedCunt 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 07:34:52 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 02:13:38 ago (+0/-0)
Pretty sure he would consider this Christians
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 4 points 1 monthMar 20, 2024 23:43:30 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo [op] -1 points 1 monthMar 20, 2024 23:46:37 ago (+1/-2)
It's a simple question, but Christ-Cucks don't like it.
[ + ] Reawakened
[ - ] Reawakened 2 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 00:07:37 ago (+3/-1)
But if just must have an answer, try Psalm 137:9.
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo [op] -1 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 00:17:38 ago (+1/-2)
Maybe Christ-Cucks should switch to Babylonian Gods instead of Jesus.
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 4 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 01:07:40 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Lordbananafist
[ - ] Lordbananafist 1 point 1 monthMar 21, 2024 00:48:24 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] dontbeaphaggot
[ - ] dontbeaphaggot 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 08:19:27 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] HeyJames
[ - ] HeyJames 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 07:03:19 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 03:50:27 ago (+0/-0)
It's in the Gospel of Philip. Right after the parable of the Christian, Jew, and Atheist.
Philip 4:14-19 (New Millennia translation)
- The parable of the Christian, Jew, and Atheist.
A Jew, a Christian, and an Atheist are arguing. They all decide to step outside and fight to the death.
The Jew and the Christian both have knives, but the Atheist doesn't have a weapon.
The Atheist points this out, and both the Atheist and Jew demand that the Christian leave their knife inside for it to be a fair fight.
The Christian leaves their knife inside, and the three of them step outside.
As the Christian and Jew exchange punches, the Jew stabs them both.
- The point of the story is to explain that religion is a weapon. And Jews manipulate Atheists into demanding that Christians abandon their weapons, while the Jews wield their's.
Philip 4:23-26
After the Christian religion is defeated through the use of Atheist puppets, no one will have the justification for stomping the children of Abraham's skulls onto stones as revenge for the murder of the true Messiah, our Lord, Jesus Christ.
And the curse that the Jews placed upon themselves, and their children, for murdering Christ, will be lifted.
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 08:08:18 ago (+0/-0)
Philippians 4 only has 23 verses.
I believe that is the reason Talmudites are afraid of Christianity. But the whole curse thing is misunderstood. The blood of Christ on the Jews and their children is a good thing and it is a sign of the acceptance of a new covenant.
"And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." - Ex 24:8
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" - Jeremiah 31:31
"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." - Luke 22:20
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." - 1 Peter 1:2
"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." - Mat 27:25
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" - Gal 3:13
Do you see it now?
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 21:38:13 ago (+0/-0)
Galatians 3:10-11
- For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”
- Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”
The Jews are the ones, commanded by God, to rely on the works of the Law; to live by the Law; to do everything written in the Book of the Law. No one else. The Jews were the ones required to live by and rely on the Law.
Why were the Jews given this burden; given this curse?
Galatians 3:19
- Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.
God forced the Jews to be the carriers of the prophesy.
The Jews are under a curse.
The Jews, the carriers of the prophesy, are the ones who rely on the law and are the ones under the curse, and even if they stop relying on the works of the law, they would be cursed for not continuing to do everything written in the Book of the Law.
Galatians 3:13
- Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law
Christ redeemed "US". He didn't redeem everyone. He redeemed "US".
"US" being the Galatian Christians the letter was written to.
"US" being those who are able to, who are capable of, living by faith. And who are not cursed to live by the Law.
Christ made it so we will never be under the curse of the Law that plagues the Jews.
Meanwhile, the Jews can never live by faith, and are cursed because they must continue to live by the Law.
Your wild claim that Jesus' death freed the Jews from the curse of the Law is proven completely false by Galatians 3.
And/or the "Blood Curse" is completely separate from the curse of the Law.
When Pilate said, "I am innocent of this man's blood". Blood means death.
When the Jews responded, "His blood", they are saying his death.
Neither are using "blood" to signify anything mythical or spiritual.
"Blood" in this situation undeniably means death. Regardless of any and all out of context references you find for the word blood in the Bible.
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 0 points 1 monthMar 22, 2024 06:28:24 ago (+0/-0)
2) No. You are wrong. The new covenant under Christ frees even Jews from the conditions of the old covenant. Gal 3 is inconvenient for your Dispensationalist ideology which is why you reject it. You reject the Bible.
The covenant of Christ fulfils the law. It makes a payment that is equivalent or better, as is part of the structure of the old law.
No. The message contains truth for all. Consider the speaker. What does "redeemed us" mean?
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" - Gal 3:13
Your objection to Gal 3 is garbage tier. If you can't present a salient point about it this is the last time I'm discussing it with you.
The passage does not say blood curse nor did I talk about "blood curse". Stop wasting time.
That is the point of the sacrifice system. An offering happens and within the initiation of a covenant the sprinkling of blood occurs as a representation of the fact that the offering's blood is upon you.
It's not what I find, it is an undeniable exegetic of the text. Shut up or put up. You are sloppy and your argumentation is poor.
Now if you don't mind, please tell us which verses you were trying to reference when you said "Phil 4:23-26"
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 0 points 1 monthMar 22, 2024 16:46:44 ago (+0/-0)
The new covenant under Christ frees even Jews from the conditions of the old covenant.
Galatians 3:15
Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
There is no first and second covenant. There is no old and new covenant.
Galatians 3:15
Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
No one can set aside a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
No one can add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
No one can take God's covenant, set it aside and claim that there is a new covenant.
No one can take God's covenant, and add a second covenant.
Because -
Galatians 3:15
Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.
You're wrong.
And the reason you're wrong isn't because of this one line of scripture, or because that other line does or doesn't exist.
You're wrong because the root of your arguments is wrong.
Admit that Galatians 3:15 exists. Admit it clearly states that no one can set aside or add to God's covenant. Admit that there is no new and old covenants, that there is no first and second covenants, and then we can move on to Part 2.
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 0 points 1 monthMar 22, 2024 20:29:28 ago (+0/-0)
Wrong. Stop pretending that you understand Christianity & the Bible. Read Hebrews 8.
Read the entirety of Galatians 3. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. We're done here.
I will leave you with this:
"For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:" - Hebrews 8:8-10
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" - Col 2:14
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 0 points 1 monthMar 22, 2024 21:45:02 ago (+0/-0)
Then....
You were so confident, until you realised that your lies won't work on me.
I'm correct about Galatians 3 and everything I've said about God's covenant which was made with Abraham and his singular seed.
And instead of acknowledging that, you try the same type of lie which didn't work the first time.
Earlier I didn't let you get away with the lie about Pilate and the Jews not meaning death when they said "blood" because somewhere else in the Bible they used the word "blood" in a different way.
Well... I'm not going to let you get away with the lie that every time the word "Covenant" is used in the Bible, they are ALWAYS talking about the same Covenant every time.
You lied. That makes you a LIAR. And your lies don't work on me.
Admit I'm right. Admit that you're a liar, and we can move on to Part 2.
[ + ] DeusExMachina
[ - ] DeusExMachina 0 points 1 monthMar 21, 2024 01:48:22 ago (+0/-0)