DISPELLING LEFTIST MYTHS ABOUT CHRIST

Panzerhund

✝️Appalachia Brimstone Bro✝️
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻🥩🥃
Destructive Ceremonious Master

Recently, a Twitter feed was shared with me regarding Richard Spencer encouraging the exploration of Christianity and its presumed, inevitable contribution to a communist conclusion. The author – whose handle name escapes me at the time of this writing – and Spencer seemed to believe that Christianity was practically a precursor to Marxism. Nothing can be further from the truth, but their general lack of understanding the faith can be forgiven.

It is a popular belief in dwindling Alt-Right circles: “Jesus, the Jewish-Socialist, was a radical who helped overthrow the Greatest European (“White”) Empire in world history through corrosive political-economic and social policies…” Of course, any serious scholar on Jesus Christ, especially one who has read his Bible, knows that statement is false. But the Left has propagated myths about Jesus Christ and Christianity that many on the political “Right” have come to believe. They are wrong.

Before I begin, however, it is important to understand “why” these myths about Jesus Christ exist. The political Left is pure evil – full stop. It is dripping with demonically inspired disorder. From transgender children to wealth redistribution, everything the Left represents is simply evil. There is nothing good about a leftist. In a saner world, we would be able to enact the punishments prescribed in Leviticus 20 upon most of their ilk. But I digress. The fact is, among the many things related to Satan, the “Father of Lies” (John 8:44) uses the Left to distort and destroy Christianity from within. Satan has weaponized language in a hyperemotional feminized world and that has led to misrepresentations on the words and the very being of Jesus Christ, as well as the expectations of Christianity and the Christian.

So, let’s begin with four explorations of Christ.

1. Jesus Christ was not “Jewish”

There is a common misperception among “normie” Christians, leftists, and the Alt-Right that Jesus was “Jewish.” The facts are simply against a “Jewish Jesus.” First, “Jewish” is a term that was applicable to a movement within the broader Israeli community of the time – not a people. We know this because both Jesus Christ and St. Paul call out the movement. Jews, as we know them today, are not the Jews of antiquity.

The often misquoted Gospel of John, Chapter 8, specifically references not only Jews as distinct from Israel (John 8:22, 48, 52) but is elaborated upon by Christ Himself: “They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do… And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” (John 8:39-44, 46-47). But it is the preceding line that makes a distinction between “Jews” and Israelites, to include Judeans.

“I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.” (John 8:37). What is Jesus Christ saying? Simple: Not everyone from Abraham’s seed is provided the promises of Israel. It is important to remember, Abraham had two sons – Jacob and Esau. Jacob becomes Israel, and it is with Israel that God lays His promise. Esau, meanwhile, is the Patriarch of the Edomites – a related tribe, but not a promised tribe. At the time of Jesus Christ, the Edomite ascension had been so complete, that the true Israelites were now ruled by Herod, an Edomite King of Judea. Thus, Jesus is effectively saying, “Yes, you have Abrahamic blood, but those of you who call yourself Jews are not my people, and thus, you cannot hear my words.”

Scripturally and spiritually, what does this mean? God does not lie. He promises to bless Abraham’s chosen seed (Genesis 12: 1-3), sealing the deal in Genesis 17, and manifesting the fulfilment of that promise in the manner of Jesus Christ: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” (Galatians 3:16) If you are truly a Christian, there is only one way to approach the Jewish rejection of Jesus Christ: either God is lying – and He offered a false promise to those whom He promised to fulfill– or those calling themselves Jewish are not the true Chosen people as recorded in the Bible. Since God does not lie, it is obvious that the other party is at fault. One cannot be Chosen and go to Hell. Thus, the reason that the Jews of Christ’s time did not accept Him then and reject Him today is simple: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.” (John 10:14)

In other words, Jesus is saying the Jews – a sect of individuals within Israel at the time of his human ministry – reject Him because they are not Abrahamic Israelites to whom He was promised. To this day, a rejection of Jesus Christ is a manifestation of a people who have no claim to Chosen status. They are spiritual imposters at best – and Jesus calls them out on this.

Paul, however, is more blunt. Paul claims to have been a devout Jew himself and persecuted the Christian church: “For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” (Galatians 1: 13-14) It is an odd choice of words – “the Jews’ religion.” In a different letter, Paul defines the distinction. He calls himself a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5) and in that same chapter describes his Israelite bona fides before blasting his prior Judaism – literally calling his adherence to that faith “dung”: “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.” (Philippians 3:8). Why would Paul seem to distinguish between being Jewish and a Hebrew Israelite? Read Acts.

While pleading his case to the Roman governor over Judea, Agrippa, Paul makes a plea in Acts 26 that first lays out differing characteristics of the Jewish community within the region (Acts 26:2-3) before making an interesting distinction between Israel and the Jews: “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.” (Acts 26:6-7). In other words, Paul is stating, Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God’s promise to His people – Israel – and the Jews are trying to punish Paul for spreading that word to his fellow Israelites.

But even if all of this were a moot point, there is another critical component upon which all Christians should subscribe that eliminates the idea that Jesus was Jewish: Jesus was a manifestation of a Triune God. Jesus was the promise made in the flesh to not only become the sacrificial lamb in accordance with covenant, but to be a fair Judge of His creation. He is not a specific flesh, because Jesus transcends earthly distinctions. He is God incarnate.

2. The Historical Jesus was not “Black”

An extension of the Jesus is Jewish myth is an oft told belief, again held by a broad spectrum of normie conservatives and Leftists, that Jesus Christ was a dark skinned, dark haired Palestinian – much like those found in Palestine today. Historically, that belief is inaccurate. The genetic construct of ancient Levantines is different than the post-Muslim invasions of the region, which brought a mixture of Asian and African DNA to the region en masse.


Scripturally, we know that the ancient Hebrews were lighter skinned because several passages point to this fact. In the Song of Solomon, for example, the Shulamite princess describes herself as “Black,” but not because she is of African lineage or naturally dark skinned. As she describes her darker complexion, “…I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me…” (Song of Solomon 1:6); her deep tan was not genetic, it was the result of angry siblings who made her work in the sun beaten vineyards before discovery. In the preceding passage, the Shulamite states that she is “Black, but comely….” (Song of Solomon 1:5). In other words, despite being an odd color (“Black”), she is still attractive. That would be a strange distinction if she were surrounded by fellow dark brown peoples. Obviously, she was not, and as such, felt a need to explain her dark skin tone.

Archeological and historical artifacts point to a fairer skinned people in the region, too. Artwork from Israel’s neighbor and business partner, the Phoenicians, depict a light skinned people with brown hair. Carthaginian coinage depicts Hannibal Barca, the Carthaginian general who nearly defeated Rome, as a White guy. The Carthaginians, like many societies in the Mediterranean, hailed from Phoenician origins. Josephus, the ancient Romano-Judean scholar, had fair skin, hazel eyes, and brown hair. In other words, the people of the area looked more like Byzantine reliefs than modern Arabs, let alone, Africans.

So what did Jesus look like? A clue can be found in John 8 – the same Gospel chapter describing the Jews as antagonistic toward Christ and His response. Oddly, the Jews call Jesus a “Samaritan” (John 8:48) – an interesting allegation for two key reasons. First, unlike other tribal Israelites, the Samaritans were spared the Assyrian captivity – remaining in Israel when other Israelites were taken in bondage. This allegation would therefore denote some kind of Israelite “purity” within Jesus Christ (a problem for an Edomite). Secondly, the Samaritan region – from which Jesus the Galilean hailed – was the epicenter of Hellenistic culture. It was the region within which the Decapolis (“ten Greek cities”) was established during the Seleucid Occupation in the post-Alexandrian break-up of the late emperor’s demise. Consequently, those who settled in the region from which Jesus hailed looked much more like Mediterranean Europeans and Northern Greeks of the era (fairer skin, brown to blonde hair, lighter colored eyes) than their Southern Palestinian counterparts hailing from the sons of Esau or those who returned from bondage after generations of Assyrian and Persian subservience.

It is highly unlikely that Jesus would have chosen to look like someone who seemed out of place among His people. The historical Jesus was far more likely to have looked like the Emperor Justinian than Black Jesus. Leftists want to believe in a Black Jesus because they seek to weaponize race. Normie conservatives ignore their own historical and Biblical evidence because they fear the racism label. The Alt-Right wants to believe Jesus was a Black guy because they lack Christian faith and meaningful understanding. Jesus would have looked like any other Mediterranean European of the era.

3. Jesus was not a Socialist

Jesus Christ was certainly not a socialist. Of all the myths peddled by leftists, this is the easiest to dismiss. Christ was compassionate, but he clearly believed in a stratified socioeconomic structure predicated on hard work and rewards.

Socialism is the economic choice of inferior people. When someone tells me they are a socialist, I know they are weak by nature. Socialism boils down to a desire to redistribute the output and means of production among people who cannot achieve economic success on their own because they are less capable. This can involve anything from manufacturing to wealth redistribution – and it is achieved through the tyranny of the masses and the expansion of democracy until the “have nots” outnumber and overwhelm the “haves” and take from them that which is not theirs. Socialism is compelled economics. Jesus Christ clearly advocates for none of that nonsense.

First, throughout the Gospels, Jesus Christ uses parables that extoll the virtues of hard work or good financial governance. Socialists will point to the parable of the vineyard laborers (Matthew 20) and claim that the decision to give everyone the same wage regardless of work output as evidence of Jesus’ socialist tendencies. Ignoring the spiritual connotations of the passage, it is clear that the householder made a contract (work for a penny) and paid that wage unto all the workers who agreed to get paid a penny – a contract was made and kept. That is a capitalist perspective on management-labor relations, not a socialist one.

In the parable of the wealthy man and three servants (Matthew 25:14 – 28), Jesus explains a spiritual manner in basic financial acumen. A wealthy man gives money to three servants who are expected to increase the value of the talents (money) provided. Two servants increase the value of the coins given, one does not. The one who does not increase the value of the initial “investment” is treated harshly for failing. But in the beginning of this parable is a clue toward the anti-socialist mindset of Christ: “And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.” (Matthew 25:15; emphasis my own). Socialism is an economic system based upon equal outcomes – devaluing individual talent for the sake of the “collective good.” Jesus is flat out rejecting that concept by acknowledging differing abilities and expecting differing outcomes.

In the parable of the bridegroom of virgins within the same chapter (Matthew 25: 1-13), Jesus takes a pretty hardline against redistribution for its own sake. Again, reading these passages for their practical value to the listeners of the era, Jesus is describing spiritual consequences in business terms. When ten virgins were set to meet their bridegroom on the evening of their marriage, five were wise and brought oil for their lamps and five were foolish, choosing not to bring oil (ostensibly, because the price of oil was higher than they wished to spend). What comes next is a decidedly free market consequence: “And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.” (Matthew 25:8-12).

Jesus also accepted the fact that socioeconomic distinctions were a fact – not one to necessarily celebrate, but one in which there was no temporal solution. “For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.” (Matthew 26:11) Jesus knows that poverty will not be cured on earth.

This is about the point that the leftist and the ignorant Alt-Right adherent will clamor about the rich man through the eye of the needle – which they likely heard regurgitated by some other ignorant leftist. Let’s break that story up to better understand the context of that which Christ is saying. Without context, the passage would lead someone to believe Jesus is a socialist hippy. He is not.

The setting portrayed in Matthew is one in which Jesus is approached by a young man who wants to enjoy eternal life. Jesus proceeds to give the young man advise regarding his actions, whereby the young man replies that he has done these things and continues to press the issue: “The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19: 20-24) So, what is Jesus saying?

Yes, rich men can enter the Kingdom of God because all things are possible in Him, but this is not about material means vs selective poverty. Rather, Jesus is saying that individuals who choose to value wealth over Christ will have a hard time getting to heaven. Most wealthy people choose temporal comforts over spiritual promises. The pathway to Salvation is a narrow one – as narrow as the “eye of a needle” – a tight passage within the walls of Jerusalem. Camels of the era were typically burdened with traveling goods and as such, the passage was made more difficult based on the amount of possessions carried on the back of a camel. In other words, if you choose to value material possessions more than spiritual ascendancy, you will likely not pass through the eye at all (like a camel burdened by possessions that cannot fit) or you can choose to drop said goods that are weighing you down and follow your guide through the passage.

The young man in this scenario was being tested by Christ and he failed. He valued “stuff” more than Jesus Christ. That is not the same thing as an endorsement of socialism. Rather, it is an advocacy of priorities. Which is more important to you – wealth here or in Heaven? One can have both, but they should be ready to choose the latter over the former. If you choose the latter, be prepared to suffer here on earth. To put this story in modern context: are you willing to be a true Christian and speak the truth about the disgusting transgender deviant at the risk of being doxed? Keeping your mouth shut and accepting vile degeneracy as normal will enable you to keep your job, but not the preservation of your soul.

Christ also appears to be a proponent of social order. “For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.” (Luke 22:27) Jesus recognizes the supremacy of the master, but chooses to serve. Still, Jesus is not about servants supplanting their master – quite the opposite: “But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.” (Luke 17: 7-10) Let me interpret: masters do not invite servants to their dining table; servants should not expect additional rewards for doing that which is expected of them.

The New Testament is replete with social stratification: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5) “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” (1 Peter 2:18) “Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative.” (Titus 2:9) “Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.” (Colossians 3:22)

Christianity is not a socialist faith.

4. Jesus was a Nationalist

One passage that seems to drive so called White-Supremacists nuts, while exciting leftists, is the following: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). No single passage has ever been more misinterpreted by the Left than this particular passage by Paul. It is completely taken out of context.

Let me begin by that which Jesus says about the Nations: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.” (Matthew 25:31-33) Jesus the Nationalist admits there are good nations and bad nations. There are some groups that will be rewarded and some who will be punished.

If there is any indication that Jesus Christ was a Nationalist – promoting distinct peoples, some of whom will be rewarded and some of whom will not – it is Matthew 28. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Jesus Christ literally closes the Book of Matthew with a distinct acknowledgment of independent nations.

But we also know Jesus is a Nationalist because he is not only selective in His ministry, Christ frequently references distinct peoples. When a Canaanite woman implores Jesus for assistance, He states that he was only on earth to serve Israel (Matthew 15:21-28). Ultimately, her faith transcends His Nationalist proclivities in this incident. But, Jesus sees Romans, Greeks, Samaritans, Israelites, and Jews as distinct peoples.

The fact that Paul still makes distinctions in his letter to the Galatians, is not an admission that we are destined to blend together without distinctions. Rather, it simply refers to the promise of Salvation as inclusive to the faithful. In other words, Jews are Jews… Greeks are Greeks… Women are Women… Slaves are Slaves… but you can still be saved through Jesus Christ.

How do we know that Paul is not eliminating distinctions? That is evidenced in his many letters instructing slaves, women, Jews, and Gentiles how to behave. Why take the trouble of explaining a woman’s subordinate role in the church, for instance, if we are to be one blended, indistinguishable gender mass? “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” (1 Corinthians 14:34) Paul makes distinctions because they exist and those distinctions are sanctioned by Jesus Christ Himself.

In sum, Christianity offers compassion, but also consequences. Christianity supports distinctions along national and socioeconomic terms. Christianity is not a Jewish faith – it is a repudiation of that faith.

Christianity is a rejection of egalitarianism in every facet because in the eyes of God, no one is equal.

We are different. The Left cannot supersede the authority of God by means of fiat or Facebook censorship. Each person is made differently, with different skills and abilities. Some are meant to be leaders (masters); some are meant to be followers (servants). Women submit to their husbands; husbands love their wives. We will be judged by God and He will throw many into eternal damnation because they revel in sin. Wealth redistribution, globalist-driven ethnic deconstruction, and sexual degeneracy are antithetical to the Biblical Jesus Christ.

If Christianity was compatible with leftism, the gravitation toward an increasingly secular and unholy world would not lead to suffering of the Christian, himself. Biblical Christians would not lose their jobs for questioning ungodly LGBTQ+ perspectives. Biblical Christians would not be at risk of assault by leftist mobs when leading open prayer rallies. Biblical Christians would not have their congregants killed by leftwing gunmen while in worship on a Sunday in Texas. As the world becomes more “leftist,” the true Christian is increasingly targeted for being Christian. Why? Because leftists know Christianity is incompatible with their worldviews. It does not lead to a Marxist conclusion. It leads to Salvation.

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” (Matthew 10:22, KJV)

And, what is it that leftists hate about the true message of Jesus Christ? Everything. No exploration of the Bible can come away with a conclusion that Economic and/or Cultural Marxism and Christianity are compatible. One is predicated on a compelled collective driven by economics or redefined social constructs; one is predicated on an individual relationship with God that transcends temporal considerations. The totality of the leftist assault on God is a manifestation of their evil core.

To be a Godly Christian, you cannot embrace leftism in any form – and therefore, any genuine discussion on Christian society cannot result in communism. Leftists should be viewed as the demonic filth they truly are. Repudiation is the only conclusion the true Christian can determine as it pertains to all manifestations of Marxism.
 

Ethan_Allen

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
When someone says "Jesus was [or was not] Jewish", do they mean that in the racial sense or the religious sense, or both?

We know that Jesus observed the Jewish Sabbath, observed Passover, went to and even taught in the temple where they called him "Rabbi", and that he was circumcised. During the time of Jesus, what person other than a Jew, does all of these things?

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you. I just want to understand better. Honestly, I don't know how much it matters which earthly form he took -- racial, ethnic or otherwise.
 

Astral-Pepe

Behind Enemy Lines
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓
I love this topic, honestly, its one of my favorite things to deal with. Unfortunately I have a busy day ahead of me and I'm just finishing up my last cup of coffee before I go work on firewood.

Anyway.

The central question here is what does the word jew mean? What does it mean today and what did it mean 2000 years ago? This question is the core of the arguments and misunderstandings regarding Jesus.

Its quite complex and people generally don't want to do the work to figure it out.

I've said this stuff a few times on the old bbs and now on the new one as well but I don't mind repeating because it's important.

Firstly, there are several words that get translated "jew" in the Bible. These words can mean a member of the tribe of Judah, a person born or living in Judea or a follower of 2nd Temple Judaism. Modern jews are not members of the tribe of Judah and they are not followers of 2nd Temple Judaism.

The first time the word "jew" appears in the Bible is in 2 Kings 16 where we find the king of Israel allying with the king of Syria to make war with the jews:

5 Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him.

This establishes that jews are not Israel otherwise how could Israel be at war with the jews?

Then we read that the allied armies of Syria and Israel defeat the jews and drive them out of the land:

6 At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.

The reason for this war, we are told, is because the jews were practicing child sacrifice and worshiping pagan gods:

3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel.

There are a number of passages in the NT that establish that Jesus and his disciples were at odds with the jews and were not of them.

Consider:

John 7:1

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

John 7:13

Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.

John 18:36

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.


Jesus was a Galilean, as were most of the disciples. Notice the jews' attitude toward them and their understanding that they were not the same:

John 7:52

They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.


This is just a start brother, I'll check in on this thread later.

Also "Rabbi" just means master. There were no Rabbis in the modern sense (i.e. a professional jewish religious leader) at that time.
 

Panzerhund

✝️Appalachia Brimstone Bro✝️
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻🥩🥃
Destructive Ceremonious Master
I love this topic, honestly, its one of my favorite things to deal with. Unfortunately I have a busy day ahead of me and I'm just finishing up my last cup of coffee before I go work on firewood.

Anyway.

The central question here is what does the word jew mean? What does it mean today and what did it mean 2000 years ago? This question is the core of the arguments and misunderstandings regarding Jesus.

Its quite complex and people generally don't want to do the work to figure it out.

I've said this stuff a few times on the old bbs and now on the new one as well but I don't mind repeating because it's important.

Firstly, there are several words that get translated "jew" in the Bible. These words can mean a member of the tribe of Judah, a person born or living in Judea or a follower of 2nd Temple Judaism. Modern jews are not members of the tribe of Judah and they are not followers of 2nd Temple Judaism.

The first time the word "jew" appears in the Bible is in 2 Kings 16 where we find the king of Israel allying with the king of Syria to make war with the jews:

5 Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him.

This establishes that jews are not Israel otherwise how could Israel be at war with the jews?

Then we read that the allied armies of Syria and Israel defeat the jews and drive them out of the land:

6 At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.

The reason for this war, we are told, is because the jews were practicing child sacrifice and worshiping pagan gods:

3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel.

There are a number of passages in the NT that establish that Jesus and his disciples were at odds with the jews and were not of them.

Consider:

John 7:1

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

John 7:13

Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.

John 18:36

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.


Jesus was a Galilean, as were most of the disciples. Notice the jews' attitude toward them and their understanding that they were not the same:

John 7:52

They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.


This is just a start brother, I'll check in on this thread later.

Also "Rabbi" just means master. There were no Rabbis in the modern sense (i.e. a professional jewish religious leader) at that time.
Was hoping you would jump in here @Astral-Pepe
You always do an excellent job breaking it down.
 

Dr Livci

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽
Does this mean Spencer loves Christianity now? As far as I can tell Spencer is straight neo liberal and if Christianity contributed to liberalism than Spencer ought to be grateful.

Anyway the phenomenon were pseudo edgy atheist and agnostics who claim to be nordic pagans (they like Viking aesthetics but don’t have any strong religious beliefs) lecture me about my own religion is so tiring. St John Chrysostom, St Gregory of Palamas, St Athanasius and over 2 thousands years of Saints explaining exactly what the faith is and where it came from are utterly BTFO by Spencer 🙄🙄.

It’s genuinely weird because I have no compulsion to deconstruct Zeusian atheism to Spencer’s cult, or engage with agnostic Nordic aesthetic fetishist how they aren’t really pagans imo. But they really have some need to prove to Christians that they know more about Christianity than Christians themselves do.
 

Astral-Pepe

Behind Enemy Lines
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓
There's quite a bit more to this obviously.

OP asked about both religious and racial aspects and I'll do my best to deal with both of these things as briefly as possible. No one likes long winded scriptural arguments and I'd rather have people actually read what I'm writing than pass it over.

The jews were practicing Talmudism at the time of Jesus. This is IMO the reason why he came when he did. They were subverting the word of God and were in a position to spread their heresy to the entire world by way of the Roman Empire.

The Talmud was referred to as "the tradition of the elders" at this time because it was an oral tradition and had not been codified into the written Talmud yet. The jews confront Jesus concerning his disregard for their religious practices multiple times. This proves he was not following any sort jewish religion:

Matthew 15

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?


The jews are not racially Israel either. Jesus lets them know that he is aware of this on several occasions.

Jesus says he has come only for the lost tribes of Israel:

Matthew 15

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Later when confronted by the jews he tells them they are not his sheep:

John 10

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:


Notice that he doesn't say that they are not his sheep because they don't believe but rather that they don't believe because they are not his sheep. Its a very important distinction.

Jesus spoke in parables so that the jews wouldn't be able to understand. He wasn't ministering to them and he didn't want them to convert:

Mark 4

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.


This is hard for many Christians to accept, I get that.

There really is a lot more to this but I don't want to be a bore.
 
Last edited:

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
but rather that they don't believe because they are not his sheep. Its a very important distinction.
My mind is always put at ease when I read this...when you do not believe on him you can't hear him.
You can't hear jesus calling to you wrapped up in mammons world. So much noise so little Jesus!
 

Astral-Pepe

Behind Enemy Lines
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓
please do, this is very important to understand.
I'll get back to it later tonight I promise. I still need to deal with who exactly the jews are.

I just have a ton of logs to chunk up here and at another property and I need to get it done before it all gets covered in snow.

Later on brother.
 

Gian

Well-known member
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻🥩🥃
Destructive Ceremonious Master
Does this mean Spencer loves Christianity now? As far as I can tell Spencer is straight neo liberal and if Christianity contributed to liberalism than Spencer ought to be grateful.
Spencer had always said of Christianity, “I’m not a believer”.
 

Panzerhund

✝️Appalachia Brimstone Bro✝️
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻🥩🥃
Destructive Ceremonious Master
You can't hear jesus calling to you wrapped up in mammons world. So much noise so little Jesus!
Which is why I believe the modern worlds technology and all the static pollution that is emitted from it blocks us further from a connection with Jesus.
 

Al_Bundy

A fat jewess walks into the shoe store....
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓
I love this topic, honestly, its one of my favorite things to deal with. Unfortunately I have a busy day ahead of me and I'm just finishing up my last cup of coffee before I go work on firewood.

Anyway.

The central question here is what does the word jew mean? What does it mean today and what did it mean 2000 years ago? This question is the core of the arguments and misunderstandings regarding Jesus.

Its quite complex and people generally don't want to do the work to figure it out.

I've said this stuff a few times on the old bbs and now on the new one as well but I don't mind repeating because it's important.

Firstly, there are several words that get translated "jew" in the Bible. These words can mean a member of the tribe of Judah, a person born or living in Judea or a follower of 2nd Temple Judaism. Modern jews are not members of the tribe of Judah and they are not followers of 2nd Temple Judaism.

The first time the word "jew" appears in the Bible is in 2 Kings 16 where we find the king of Israel allying with the king of Syria to make war with the jews:

5 Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him.

This establishes that jews are not Israel otherwise how could Israel be at war with the jews?

Then we read that the allied armies of Syria and Israel defeat the jews and drive them out of the land:

6 At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.

The reason for this war, we are told, is because the jews were practicing child sacrifice and worshiping pagan gods:

3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel.

There are a number of passages in the NT that establish that Jesus and his disciples were at odds with the jews and were not of them.

Consider:

John 7:1

After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

John 7:13

Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.

John 18:36

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.


Jesus was a Galilean, as were most of the disciples. Notice the jews' attitude toward them and their understanding that they were not the same:

John 7:52

They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.


This is just a start brother, I'll check in on this thread later.

Also "Rabbi" just means master. There were no Rabbis in the modern sense (i.e. a professional jewish religious leader) at that time.
This is great, but would you answer people's questions on here? I feel like anyone in doubt, or maybe hung up on the "how and why" of the Bible, could have their questions answered and hopefully you can lead people to the path to save their souls! Hopefully I am not asking too much of you @Astral-Pepe
 

Panzerhund

✝️Appalachia Brimstone Bro✝️
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻🥩🥃
Destructive Ceremonious Master
This is great, but would you answer people's questions on here? I feel like anyone in doubt, or maybe hung up on the "how and why" of the Bible, could have their questions answered and hopefully you can lead people to the path to save their souls! Hopefully I am not asking too much of you @Astral-Pepe
Yes !

Absolutely! Would be a perfect opportunity to guide people and answer questions.
 

Astral-Pepe

Behind Enemy Lines
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓
This is great, but would you answer people's questions on here?
I don't want you to take my word for anything but I'm always here if you want my opinion about something.

I'm exhausted and I just ate a big rib steak so I'll be as quick as I can with the rest of this. The first thing I want to do is go back and supplement what I said earlier about the words that get translated "jew" in the Bible. Its important to remember that the word "jew" is a word that dates from the 12th Century:



It is derived from several words that mean Judean, a follower of Judaism or a member of the tribe of Judah, like I said earlier. The concept of a jew in the modern sense really didn't exist at the time of Jesus though the Pharisees were the closest thing to this concept.

Ok so anyway, who are these jews?

Jesus says they are the children of the Devil:

John 8

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


Everyone has read that before I'm sure. Jesus wasn't just name calling, he meant it literally.

All of John is worth reading but lets consider what led up to this. Earlier in the chapter the jews have brought a woman accused of adultery to Jesus and asked him if she should be killed by stoning. This is the point when he says "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7).

The Pharisees are unsatisfied because they want to trap Jesus in a contradiction or get him to violate the law. They do this repeatedly in various places in scripture.

He says to them:

John 8

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.


Then they make a revealing statement:

33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

Jesus doesn't deny that they are Abraham's seed:

37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

So how can they be Abraham's seed but also never have been in bondage (slavery)? The only way that both of these things can be true is if they are Edomites, meaning the descendants of Esau who never went into captivity.

Esau, you'll remember, was the brother of Jacob (who's name was changed to Israel) and the son of Issac who was the son of Abraham. Its hard to keep track of all this I know.

Esau is often said to have sold his birthright for a bowl of stew but in reality he lost his birthright when he married Hittite and Canaanite women:

Genesis 26

34 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:

35 Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.


Isaac and Rebekah were grieved because Esau had mixed his blood with Canaanites which Abraham had warned against:

Genesis 24

3 And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:

4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.


These Canaanites along with the Hittites, Amorites, Hivites etc. are the descendants of Cain and are so evil that God repeatedly demands that they be utterly destroyed:

Deuteronomy 20

16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:


Descendants of Cain? How can that be Astral-Pepe? That doesn't make any sense?

I'll deal with Cain tomorrow. Stay tuned.
 
Last edited:

Panzerhund

✝️Appalachia Brimstone Bro✝️
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻🥩🥃
Destructive Ceremonious Master
I don't want you to take my word for anything but I'm always here if you want my opinion about something.

I'm exhausted and I just ate a big rib steak so I'll be as quick as I can with the rest of this. The first thing I want to do is go back and supplement what I said earlier about the words that get translated "jew" in the Bible. Its important to remember that the word "jew" is a word that dates from the 12th Century:



It is derived from several words that mean Judean, a follower of Judaism or a member of the tribe of Judah, like I said earlier. The concept of a jew in the modern sense really didn't exist at the time of Jesus though the Pharisees were the closest thing to this concept.

Ok so anyway, who are these jews?

Jesus says they are the children of the Devil:

John 8

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


Everyone has read that before I'm sure. Jesus wasn't just name calling, he meant it literally.

All of John is worth reading but lets consider what led up to this. Earlier in the chapter the jews have brought a woman accused of adultery to Jesus and asked him if she should be killed by stoning. This is the point when he says "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7).

The Pharisees are unsatisfied because they want to trap Jesus in a contradiction or get him to violate the law. They do this repeatedly in various places in scripture.

He says to them:

John 8

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.


Then they make a revealing statement:

33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

Jesus doesn't deny that they are Abraham's seed:

37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

So how can they be Abraham's seed but also never have been in bondage (slavery)? The only way that both of these thing can be true is if they are Edomites, meaning the descendants of Esau who never went into captivity.

Esau, you'll remember, was the brother of Jacob (who's name was changed to Israel) and the son of Issac who was the son of Abraham. Its hard to keep track of all this I know.

Esau is often said to have sold his birthright for a bowl of stew but in reality he lost his birthright when he married Hittite and Canaanite women:

Genesis 26

34 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:

35 Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.


Isaac and Rebekah were grieved because Esau had mixed his blood with Canaanites which Abraham had warned against:

Genesis 24

3 And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:

4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.


These Canaanites along with the Hittites, Amorites, Hivites etc. are the descendants of Cain and are so evil that God repeatedly demands that they be utterly destroyed:

Deuteronomy 20

16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:


Descendants of Cain? How can that be Astral-Pepe? That doesn't make any sense?

I'll deal with Cain tomorrow. Stay tuned.
Thank you for this @Astral-Pepe it is much appreciated.
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Escaped True Master
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
Amen
Galatians
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:


7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.


8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.


9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

so many "other gospels" the devil corrupted the word via 600 sects of Christianity, on purpose we have a so many, every one gets to pick and choose..today the pope is choosing aborted baby cells out of expedience to a disease of this world...

I think we do well to concentrate on the word.

amen
and thank you Astral-pepe
 

Astral-Pepe

Behind Enemy Lines
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓
so many "other gospels" the devil corrupted the word via 600 sects of Christianity, on purpose we have a so many, every one gets to pick and choose..today the pope is choosing aborted baby cells out of expedience to a disease of this world...

I think we do well to concentrate on the word.

amen
Amen brother, my goal here is never to divide Christians. Anyone attempting to do this should be suspect.

My goal is to cut through doctrinal error, particularly those errors that have hurt White people. The pushing of flawed doctrine was done on purpose to destroy us.

Lets deal with Cain.

Cain isn't listed in the genealogy of Adam:

Genesis 5

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.


Yet we know Cain lived and had offspring:

Genesis 4

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.


Etc.

So how do we reconcile this? Well, mainstream Christians just ignore it and I don't blame them because its difficult.

I firmly believe that Cain is the offspring of Lucifer. I'm not saying that Lucifer necessarily had sex with Eve, though this may be what happened. What I am saying is that the violation of God's laws resulted in the birth of Cain and that Cain is the beginning of the seedline of the Devil.

You'll remember the violation of God's laws in Genesis and the aftermath:

Genesis 3

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.


Beguile is a verb that can also mean seduce.

The word translated as serpent is nachash, a word that also means enchanter or one who practices divination:



It can also mean "shining one":



This wasn't just a snake, we are told who the serpent is later on:

Revelation 12

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


After the serpent causes Adam and Eve to violate God's law we are given the very first prophecy in the Bible:

Genesis 3

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


The concept of these competing seedlines, one of God and one of Lucifer is very complex but consider a few passages out of the literally hundreds (250+) times this is mentioned in the Bible.

There are promises and covenants made to the seed of God:

Genesis 17

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.


There are prophecies regarding the seed of the Devil:

Psalm 21

8 Thine hand shall find out all thine enemies: thy right hand shall find out those that hate thee.

9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the Lord shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.

10 Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men.


Jesus explains what all this means in the parable of the tares among the wheat:

Matthew 13

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.


You'll remember that Cain killed his brother Abel and then lied to God about it. This mirrors what Jesus said in John 8:44 which we discussed earlier:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Cain is cursed and driven off the land:

Genesis 4

11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.


Notice the similarities Cain has with modern jews? They are fugitives and vagabonds (international citizens they call themselves today). They don't produce anything but live by graft and usury.

Cain goes East to the land of Nod we are told:

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Cain's son Enoch is not the same Enoch that is said to have written the Book of Enoch. I don't want to digress on that but it can be confusing.

Anyway, where did Cain get this wife and all the people needed to build a city? If you believe the standard doctrine that Adam is the first man then there are only three people alive on Earth after Cain kills Abel (Adam, Eve and Cain). Most Christians don't know how to answer this because the answer has been hidden from them.

Adam was not the first man, the 6th day creation story is not the same as the Garden of Eden story. Adam was created after the 6th day. He was not created ex nihilo (from nothing) but was formed from dust and had the spirit of God breathed into him.

There were already many pre-Adamic peoples on the Earth at the time Adam was created. Empires already existed, cities already existed. We get an account in Ezekiel of a powerful Assyrian empire at the time of the Garden of Eden:

Ezekiel 31

8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.

9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.


Cain is of his father the Devil:

1 John 3

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.


Jesus lets the jews know, on several occasions, that they are serpents and that their evil is as old as Cain's violation:

Matthew 23

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.


The word "generation" in the above context means bloodline or seedline.

Hopefully that helps, there really is much more to this than I could post here.

Please don't take my word for any of this but read the Bible for yourself. Read the whole thing from cover to cover at least once and then read it again. Make notes and ask questions.
 

Al_Bundy

A fat jewess walks into the shoe store....
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓
Anyway, where did Cain get this wife and all the people needed to build a city? If you believe the standard doctrine that Adam is the first man then there are only three people alive on Earth after Cain kills Abel (Adam, Eve and Cain). Most Christians don't know how to answer this because the answer has been hidden from them.

Adam was not the first man, the 6th day creation story is not the same as the Garden of Eden story. Adam was created after the 6th day. He was not created ex nihilo (from nothing) but was formed from dust and had the spirit of God breathed into him.

There were already many pre-Adamic peoples on the Earth at the time Adam was created. Empires already existed, cities already existed. We get an account in Ezekiel of a powerful Assyrian empire at the time of the Garden of Eden:
That was one thing that really had me believing the Bible was jibberish and fake at one point because how could Adam and Eve take their kid to a nearby village for a wife, if they are the first man and woman? You focus on how could it make sense, believing it was an incestual beginning, or that's what jews want you to believe. But this is very helpful putting all of it into perspective. Thanks!
 

Dr Livci

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽
You focus on how could it make sense, believing it was an incestual beginning, or that's what jews want you to believe
There are some cases of incest in the Bible amongst the faithful, the post flood examples being the most obvious. God wiped out the whole earth according to scripture except Noah’s family. So you had the whole earth being repopulated by people who would have been related at first. According to Orthodox Christian thinking God prohibited marrying relatives later on because man is progressively getting less healthy as time progresses. At the time of Noah men lived much longer, the climate was much better etc. According to the early church fathers the “firmament above the earth” kept earths climate ideal for human habitation but it was done away with during the flood. Seeing as how there is evidence for forests in Antarctica and Egypt I see no reason to dismiss that theory.

Anyway incest causes genetic errors to accumulate much faster and since post flood the earth became a much harsher place where men lived shorter lives marrying relatives could have been quite disastrous for mankind. Hence God forbid it eventually.
 
Top