1 in 4 Maui children 'likely' missing from school as classes resume. Could be up to a thousand children burned alive because Democrats were too incompetent to sound a fire siren and had a water god worshipping diversity hire.

submitted by Chipit from thepostmillennial.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]KyleIsThisTall 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Because they are collectively evil

Read the talmud

They love the pain of others

[–][deleted]  (8 children)

[deleted]

    [–]KyleIsThisTall 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Nope. He was of judah. He did not follow the Babylonian book of satan worship known as the talmud. Remphan moloch baal

    [–]makesyoudownvote 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

    Well yeah, the Talmud didn't even begin to exist until about 150 years after Jesus died, just like the new testament in the Bible. It is basically just a bunch of discussions on how to interpret the Torah/Old Testament that came about as a result of Jesus splitting the Jewish faith into what became Christianity and creating the new testament that put a brand new perspective on the old testament. Yes they specifically deny Jesus, and you can call that evil, but the whole cult of Baal thing is absolute hogwash.

    Also: Jesus was absolutely Jewish and proudly states this repeatedly in the Bible. He simply believed that the Jewish people on the whole had lost their way. Just like the Jews themselves did every few centuries before Jesus. That's basically most parts of the sacred text/Bible/Koran/Torah are about.

    Maybe you should read more translations of the Bible to get a better sense of what's intended instead of what a particular author or set of authors thought some time in the past 400 years since it's been translated to English.

    Also, I am assuming you only read KJV or NKJV based on your repeating of the same mistakes. Get a more full picture. Or better yet, if you really want to learn the bible, learn greek and/or latin and read some more original versions, rather than a rush job created by a committee so quickly that it used to say things like "Thou shall commit adultery" and "God showed us his great asse".

    I'm not shaming the KJV. It's my go to edition too, but maybe just broaden your perspective just a bit. If Jesus stood for one thing it was not to hate or oppress anyone. He taught to turn the other cheek. The anti-jewish stuff is more of a Mohammed/Islamic thing, and even he taught to respect and care for "people of the book" meaning Christians and Jews.

    The Hawaii fire had fuck all to do with any Jewish conspiracy. At least not to that extent. If you were to say on the other hand that it's an elites conspiracy of which a disproportionate number of them tend to be Jewish and it might be a small group of Jewish elites really pulling the strings, I might think there is moee to that. I might even go as far as to buy that this is a successor in a way to the Jews who ran the original Dutch East India trading company. I'd buy that people like Epstein were part of this. Not enough to really believe it, but enough to believe you put in research work and weren't just repeating something you had a tenuous grasp on.

    But yeah I can promise you, knowing quite a few Jewish people, that there is absolutely no way the average Jew has an association with this anymore than you, Chris Pratt, Jim Caviezel and Kevin Sorbo are all in league to turn Hollywood into a Christian only entity.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Jesus was absolutely Jewish and proudly states this repeatedly in the Bible.

    It is written that he stated this, translated through several languages and revised on several occasions according to modern interpretation. And by modern, I mean the interpretation of those who lived several hundred years after the fact.

    [–]makesyoudownvote 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Yup, the oldest complete version of the bible was written in 300 AD, and includes this statement. It's certainly possible/plausible this was added in that 300 years, however given the political climate in that period, and in the 1700 years after this, it seems unlikely this would have been added any time later than the immediate time after Jesus's death as Christians and Jews drifted further apart and more contemptuous of eachother.

    If anything references to the Jewish origin would have been toned down or removed in that time in order to further distinguish Christians from Jews, much like was done with the later King James translation, which was written at a time of particular anti-semetism and pious identity politics of the early 17th century.

    It's no coincidence that it was commissioned two years after the founding of the Dutch East India company (VOC) by 7-11 Jewish merchants. England had founded it's own competing East India Company (EIC) and was particularly resentful of the success of it's rival in the VOC.

    So I guess that's true, but for that fact the entire Bible is. If you used half a brain cell you could easily see it wouldn't make sense to add that contextually. If you are doubting that, the entirety of the religion itself is in question far earlier.

    Keep in mind also, early Christianity had far more variations than you see today where pretty much all modern Christianity is a branch of Catholicism. In the first few centuries you had very different forms of Christianity like Gnosticism which is more similar to Buddhism in ideology. It took the least Jewish approach to the religion of all known early Christian branches.

    [–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Believe it or not there was a very strong motivation in the first 3 centuries to add such a statement. Marcion was teaching that the Old Testament and Jewish God are the demiurge and different from the Father, and he was quite successful. For whatever reason this ENRAGED the church fathers to the point where they blamed EVERYTHING on Marcion, even though to me his views clearly look like nothing more than an understandably misguided understanding of the Old Testament. People STILL struggle with the Old Testament for all the same reasons, and it's not hard to see why. From everything I've gathered Marcion was probably an honest person who took the rampant corruption of the church and its persecution of him as proof that he was right. They even tampered with the New Testament and added a bunch of stuff to it, and then blamed him for supposedly removing it. He became the scapegoat, they called him the literal child of the devil for centuries, and Martin Luther is the only one who has ever been considered a worse heretic than him.

    [–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I also wouldn't say gnosticism was the "least Jewish". The entire Old Testament looks like gnostic allegory to me, and the missionary Paul seems to agree.

    [–]KyleIsThisTall 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Imagine not knowing that the talmud is just lies about the torah and septuagint through the mysticism of the demon worship from babylonia

    [–]makesyoudownvote 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Oh so you have read it then?

    Like not a few snippets taken out of context by a person who might have an agenda. That's a trick out of MSNBC and CNN playbook. I mean ACTUALLY read it.

    Maybe in a class, taught by someone who isn't jewish.

    I've read it twice in various theology classes. Once for my old testament and archeology class taught by a quaker archeologist, and once by a Jesuit preist for a comparative religion class.

    Imagine thinking you know something enough to correct someone without ever having even looked at it yourself. Kinda sounds like that "trust the science™" stuff doesn't it?

    Edit: OK that's taking it a bit too far, at least religion acknowledges it's based on faith, science is meant to be a set of protocols to remove biases like faith from knowledge acquisition. Trusting scientists without criticism or peer review is inherently unscientific.