Religion

The Bible Does Not Justify Ardent Zionism Among Christians

421 Comments

Peace, grace, and mercy to you all from the Lord Jesus Christ. There are three groups of people to whom God wishes me to speak; one of those three groups is Christians who automatically ally themselves with the modern state of Israel.

The vast majority of Christians that I’ve met are Zionists. They not only espouse a Jewish right to a homeland in Israel, but they refer to Jews as “God’s Chosen People” and believe it is their duty as good Christians to defend Israel no matter what.

When I ask Christians whether Zionism is a valid position to hold, I am not asking whether they believe in the Jewish right to their own homeland. I believe that every group of people should have their own homeland, if they should desire one. Instead, I am talking about the reflexive posture of submission and servility shown by Christian Zionists towards the state of Israel in the belief that doing so will bring blessings from God.

In this article, I am going to examine the position of Christian Zionism from both a Biblical and an ethical perspective. But before certain elements decide to label me with slurs, I’d like to explain something first.

As I’ve mentioned on my website, I was born and raised in Reform Judaism. It’s about as close as you can get to secular humanism while still maintaining some veneer of religion, and I even went to Israel for my “Birthright” trip at the age of 26.

However, I had neither a relationship with God nor a belief in religion at all until much later in life. In fact, I was not Saved by the Lord Jesus Christ to become Born-Again until after I’d been through an atheist phase, a New Age phase, and even a brief Luciferian phase.

In other words, what I’m about to write is not the result of some kind of bias. It’s the result of many years of serious philosophical study and discovery, ultimately culminating in my salvation towards the end of 2015.

That’s when all my illusions were blasted away, and the truth made itself unmistakably known to me. So that said, let’s break down Christian Zionism and see if it’s a Biblically-sound position to hold.

The Abrahamic Covenants

To defend their position as Zionists, most Christians refer to the covenants God made with Abraham and his descendants in the Old Testament. In exchange for Abraham’s agreeing to murder his own son and deliberately cut off part of his penis, the Old Testament God makes a few covenants with him.

God says to Abraham in Genesis 12:2-3, “…I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee, and in thee shall all families of the Earth be blessed.”

We read in Genesis 15:18, “In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” 

Finally we read in Genesis 17:7-8, “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

On the basis of these verses (and a few others later in the Torah), Christians recognize that the Israelites were the Chosen People of God according to the Old Testament. Whether the Jewish people currently ruling Israel are actually the blood descendants of said Israelites is a matter for another time–but a matter which should (clearly) be of vital importance.

After all, if the Jewish people currently ruling Israel are not the blood descendants of the ancient Israelites, then there should be no reason at all for most Christians to defend them as per the Old Testament’s writings. I have read both sides of this argument, and I think it is very important to study.

There is a big difference between those who Jesus called “those who say they are Jews but are not,” and those Peter called “fellow Israelites.” Anyway, this is where the crux of the problem begins.

Covenants Fulfilled

The very same Christians who refer to the Old Testament covenants to defend their belief in the Israelites as “Chosen People” will very quickly turn around and declare–when it better suits the argument at hand–that “the Old Covenant was fulfilled by Jesus and we are under the NEW Covenant now instead.”

They make this argument–which is completely incompatible with their aforementioned belief in the Old Testament covenants–when presented with such questions as “why don’t you follow the dietary laws of the Old Testament?” or “why didn’t you circumcise your son?”

When switching their argument to the “we’re under the New Covenant now” side, many Christians will quote from Paul’s letters on the topic. They are correct in their assertion that Paul believed the Old Testament had no further meaning or purpose after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

“The Old Testament was just a prank, bro.”–St. Paul

There are entire chapters in the New Testament specifically devoted to addressing the question of whether the “Old Covenant” is still relevant. In Galatians 3:28-29, Paul summarizes his answer to that question with the following passage…

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul wrote–in very unambiguous terms–that the heirs of God’s promise to Abraham are now those who follow Christ.

If Christ’s “rending of the veil” removed the separation between Jews and Gentiles, opening up the Kingdom of God for all who believe in Him…then how could a Christian justify still believing that only one particular group of people are favored by God?

Even more importantly, how could they justify believing that the only people favored by God are those who rejected His son and the Gospel? It’s a completely insane thing to believe.

As it must be pointed out, what Paul preached on this topic is not what the Living Christ actually preached during His ministry. In fact, it’s the polar opposite.

As recorded in the Gospels (the New Testament writings outside of Paul’s letters), Jesus was crystal-clear on His belief that all of the Old Testament’s commandments were to be followed. Even further, He insisted that His teachings were only for the Jews. Paul’s decision to negate these instructions from Christ has been widely debated since the day he made it.

This is why early Jewish Christian sects, like the Nazarenes and Ebionites, utterly rejected Paul and his anti-Torah message. They followed what the Living Christ said, and followed the Old Testament’s commandments to the letter.

Therefore, Jewish Christians like the aforementioned groups (and modern sects like the Messianic Jewish synagogue) could potentially justify their defense of Israel if its modern rulers were actually descendants of the ancient Israelites. However, any Christian who believes in Paul’s message must necessarily reject Zionism as anti-Scriptural heresy.

The Ethical Defense Of Other People

Now that we have examined the “Old vs. New Covenant” dilemma, let us move on to examining whether it’s truly ethical to defend any particular group of people–no matter what they do.

I think it’s a fairly dangerous position to take, and one that leads to very negative logical conclusions. After all, if one has made up one’s mind to defend a person or group of people no matter what they do, then is there any point at which one would hold said person or people accountable?

Is there any crime so vicious, any act so heinous, that your sense of decency (or self-preservation) would kick in and you would want to defend yourself from them, instead of defending those actions?

Or, if the Israeli politicians are “God’s Chosen People” who can do no wrong, do you simply turn a blind eye to anything bad they do out of fear of offending God?

This is a very serious matter, as the Old Testament does say that those who curse the Israelites will be cursed in turn. It puts the thinking man in a difficult position, if he believes in the Old Testament and ignores Paul’s thoughts on the topic.

Of course, the problem is easily solved if it is true that the “Jewish” people currently running Israel have no blood relation to the ancient Biblical Israelites. If that’s the case, then not only are Christians under no obligation whatsoever to mindlessly defend them, but we can also safely hold them accountable for their actions without fear of divine retaliation.

Read Next: How American Christians Were Manipulated Into Loving Israel

421 thoughts on “The Bible Does Not Justify Ardent Zionism Among Christians”

        3. but is so you can’t know it hasn’t been posted by a hasbara guy though.

    1. “The source, who made a point of saying that both pilots were women, said it flew like this at 230 knots – as opposed to around 500 knots – for about an hour-and-a-half, while the extended landing gear dragged heavily on the aircraft.”
      There should have been three big indicator lights that show the gear to remain extended in addition to an audible alert, yet these cunts flew 1.5 hrs without acknowledging them?
      https://media.giphy.com/media/XsUtdIeJ0MWMo/source.gif

      1. Check their Facebooks and Instagrams for that same time period to see what they were really doing.

        1. Those passengers should thank the heavens they got away with their lives.

    2. They’re women. If they’ve got nice shoes, they like to show them off

  3. Hold on a sec… Doesn’t the bible itself say in the Book of Revelation that the temple will be rebuilt in Israel? How is that not Zionist?

    1. I recall it saying that John saw a new Jerusalem descend out of the heavens, but not much about the Revelation given to Saint John makes a lot of sense (few prophecies do until fulfilled).
      Jesus warned about the abomination of desolation standing in the place he should not stand – it could refer to anything, and some say it’s the Dome of the Rock or one of the caliphs or Israel itself or something yet to come to pass. The simple fact is that we do not know, and unless God reveals it to us in plainer terms we will never know until all is fulfilled.
      As to Israel, we have seen no evidence as yet that the Jews have changed tremendously from who they were in the days of Christ. He had many harsh words to say about the religion they constructed (and I say “they constructed” in order to echo the words of the prophets Isaiah and Micah, particularly), and that religion is not the Christian religion.
      All this to say, Zionism has no clear root in Christian teaching, and many teachings can be derived straight from Christ and the Apostles (and the prophets) to condemn it. The sons of Abraham are heirs to the covenants, and so we Christians must always bear in mind, but they are the same blood of those who slaughtered the prophets, martyrs, and our Lord himself. When the promise is fulfilled and the Jews are brought to Christ, then shall Zionism make sense from a Christian standpoint.

        1. I don’t hardly know which interpretation is which anymore, what with millennials and amillennials and historicists and futurists…
          I long ago resigned myself to the notion that my mind wouldn’t be the key to unlocking the interpretation of Revelation. I reckon I’ll just avoid getting anything put on or in my hand/forehead and keep a bug-out bag ready to head for the hills if need be.

    2. I’d say it depends on how you read Revelation, if you take it literally then yes, perhaps.
      If however, you read it as an allegory, the argument could be made that the rebuilding of temple signifies a restoration of humanity’s virtue, as applied to their daily lives and actions.

      1. Or it could signify a collection of events. I’ve heard it argued that the replica-beast who smites those he cannot see could represent drones or similar technologies acting on orders from a totalitarian regime (like the one the SJW’s want to create?).

        1. Of course, because if anything, the Bible is an excellent way to understand human nature… which is part of the reason why it’s written the way it is.

      2. Then this entire article could be an interpretation as well, correct or incorrect.

        1. Yeah, I’m betting this whole article is an allegory on how an Christian argument against Zionism could be built. No need to take it too literally.

    3. “Israel” could mean a geographical nation, or it could also mean the people group of those who accept Christ and are now part of God’s Kingdom. The Temple could be a physical building, or refer to a Spiritual Temple being manifested through God’s people. It depends on your ability to interpret symbolism, and I think Revelation contains quite a lot of it.

      1. If that’s true, then the article’s claim is itself interpretation, not a hard statement such as “The Bible does not justify ardent Zionism”

    4. I think the point is that God must direct activity in Israel – not man. It’s ‘Zionism’ for man to claim Israel apart from God. That’s why some Bible-believing Jews are not Zionists. They believe (rightly) that Messiah will come to instantiate new Israel. It’s not for man to do.
      The third temple will indeed be rebuilt. But some future leader of the world will blaspheme God by offering an ‘abomination of desolation’ on the altar. (This is in Daniel and Rev.)
      It’s not according to God’s will, but He will use it to the good in the end.

  4. I’ve been writing a series covering the book of Romans, which I believe details this quite clearly.
    We who are Christians are adopted into the covenant. As Jesus said, “Out of these stones can I make sons of Abraham” (interestingly, some say that “stone” is another slang term for goy). We are grafted to the vine of his mercy, and he has made the Jews to turn away for a time so that the Gospel be spread among all mankind. Not all Jews are sons of Abraham, and not all who share Abraham’s blood are his sons (as Jesus said unto the teachers of the law, “You are sons of your father the devil”).
    Now, he has made promises unto the Jews that he has and will yet fulfill. Among these is a promise that all Jews will return to God at some time in the future (though, I would say as Paul has, that day is not yet come). In that day, it will not be Christians who join with the Jews but rather Jews who come to Christ.

  5. Christians in general are very confused about Israel because they have been told a big lie – that Jesus was a Jew.
    During his lifetime Jesus was known as a “Judean” by his contemporaries and not as a “Jew”, and Jesus referred to himself as a “Judean” and not as a “Jew”. Except for his few followers at that time in Judea, all other Judeans abhorred Jesus and detested His teachings and the things for which he stood.
    In the time of Pontius Pilate, there was no religious, racial or national group in Judea known as “Jews” nor had there been any group so identified anywhere else in the world prior to that time. Jesus abhorred and denounced the form of religious worship practiced in Judea in his lifetime and which is known and practiced today under its new name “Judaism”.

    1. I just knew you’d be all over this article with a fresh bottle of Jergens and plenty of Kleenex.

      1. He’d probably say that Josephus is not a legit historian… even though what he said can be corroborated with roman historians such as Tacitus and whatnot,

        2. Check out some of their other songs. All from 1969 / 1970. Great singer and bass player.



          This music from 48 fucking years ago. And what do we get today? Beyonce and Ariana Grande. What a joke.

        5. Yeah, my dad got Hendrix, Boston, Queen, Waylon Jennings, Charlie Pride, Eddie Rabbitt, the Jackson 5, Styx, Zeppelin…
          We get Justin Bieber.

    3. Jew derives from Judah, as does Judea (that is, the land of Judah). Christ was born a descendent of David, who is himself descended of Judah and Abraham, and so he can be called a Jew in every sense (lived in Judea, was of Abraham, was of Judah).
      It is clear from a plain reading of the words of Jesus and the apostles that the Jewish faith existed in those days and that Jesus and the apostles were of that faith until the new covenant.

      1. It’s fruitless to argue with zealots and idiots, and twice as much so with a zealous idiot.

        1. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
          Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
          Proverbs 26:4-5

        2. And before anyone asks, no it was not Gandhi who said that. It was Billy D. Williams.

        4. I just love the proverbs. That pair, in particular, is interesting – if you argue with fools, you run a great risk of being equally foolish (“wrestling pigs in the mud”, as it were), but if you do not they think they’re wise.

        5. Right, so you just mock them mercilessly for being stupid and then bang their girlfriends.

        6. You can’t argue even if you wanted to. I haven’t read a single comment by you which is not plain chit-chat.

    4. I have to disagree with this. I think there is a ton of Biblical support that Jesus Christ practiced the Old Testament religion perfectly, as did certain other people mentioned throughout time. In fact, one could persuasively argue that modern Christianity is actually what Paul taught, and not what Christ taught. It’s an argument that’s been made by many, many people. I am still torn on it actually, because even though what Paul said was not always correct, a lot of what he said resonates with me powerfully and mirrors my own experience.

      1. Agreed, Paul is the founder of Christianity as we know it. Saul of Tarsus combined Jewish thought with Greek thought, and created something new. He was more than a messianic Jew; he was a visionary innovator.

        1. Paul was a learned Jew and believed himself to be the ‘apostle to the gentiles’.
          As such, his task was to teach Jewish theology to pagan Greek, Roman (and Arab) cultures.
          He didn’t teach anything new from a Jewish perspective. The concept of a dying savior Messiah was already in the Old Testament for a 1000 years. But it was certainly new to the gentiles.

        2. It’s not just the content– but the mode and organization of his ideas. They were a product of Talmudic tradition, but took a more Athenian form of argument. That is why early Christendom laid claim to the Ancients– through Paul (not the pagan Roman Empire), all of the west became athenians.

        3. Interesting thought. “For good and ill, all the west is become Athenian.”
          Athens had its share of madness. Hedonism, immorality, a thirst for conquest both militarily and through manipulation, and periods where philosophy all but diet were not unknown to Athens, and the same is seen in the West.
          Hmm…that could be an interesting premise for an article.

        4. I don’t know what you mean by ‘laid claim to the Ancients’?
          But yeah, the Jews of his time were no strangers to Hellenistic/Greek philosophy and teachings. Certainly Paul was a creature of two cultures and was able to bridge the gap.
          The Talmud itself didn’t exist in Paul’s day – at least not in the form we understand it today. Just was well. As much good thought and ideas as it has. It also has some God-awful, non-biblical teachings.

        5. My understanding is that it’s just what the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law taught the people, bound up in the written word.
          Jesus had words about that…

      2. Nah. That’s History Channel theology.
        Paul taught nothing contrary to the Old Testament or contrary to Jesus.
        If you have an example, I’d love to see it.

        1. I, as well, would like to see it. As the Bereans did when Paul came among them, let us test his words to see if what he said is true.
          “All things to all people” does not mean his teaching deviated from the Gospel. Were that true, the Apostles would surely not have suffered him to undertake his journeys, nor would they have continued to bless him. Luke, who cataloged the Church from the birth of Christ, would surely not have written about him favorably. Barnabas and Silas, known in the Church in Jerusalem for their tremendous faith, surely would not have traveled with him.

        2. Jesus (and James) both taught faith plus works. Paul taught faith alone. Jesus said the gate was narrow, and Paul threw it wide open by preaching that faith alone was required.
          Jesus said not one word of the Old Testament is to be changed until heaven and Earth pass away–and that anyone who taught otherwise was wicked. Paul came along and was like “hey guys that Old Testament stuff is pretty hard to do, so don’t worry about it.”
          That said, my own experience mirrors Paul’s teaching. I was Saved and transformed from the inside out on faith alone, and so have countless people around the world.
          This is one of the trickiest topics for me, since what Paul said contradicts what Christ said but resonates with me so powerfully.
          Also, the fact that only 12 Apostles are mentioned in Revelation makes me think Jesus agreed with me that Paul was teaching something else entirely. Paul was not the 12th Apostle, Mattias was.
          Had Jesus considered Paul an Apostle in Revelation, He would have said there were 13 of them…

        3. Faith leads to works. That’s what everyone taught. Thus if you display no works, then it’s fair to question if you have faith.
          The Old Testament was completely valid, which is why it’s in the Bible. But Jeremiah 31:31 (OT) says a New Covenant/Testament will replace the Law of Moses which required animal sacrifices. Since the sacrifices points to Jesus, after the cross, you don’t need the animals sacrifices anymore.
          Paul was instrumental in helping Jews and Gentiles understand that Jesus changed things. The Messiah dying on a cross and being resurrected marked a new period in God’s relationship to mankind.
          It wasn’t out of the blue. It was all foretold in the OT. But, for those who want to understand the deeper things of God, Paul walks us through it all its sometimes gory detail.
          If I were a Jew, I would want to understand *everything* Paul taught because he was so careful to tell Jews how Messiah changed things – and will again in the future. And marry these teachings back to the OT prophets
          Judas was obviously stricken from the12 disciples and most think that Paul took his place symbolically.

        4. The 11 cast lots and drew out Matthais to replace Judas. Paul was confronted by Christ on the road to Damascus and called to be a Christian and apostle (literally an emissary) to the Gentiles.
          I do wonder which 12 disciples will have their names upon the pillars in the New Jerusalem.

        5. Well, Jesus picks the disciples, not men casting lots.
          Since Matthais is never mentioned after that, some think that indicates that ‘ yeah, thanks everyone for rolling the dice to select Matthias, but I choose Paul for my purposes…’

        6. That’s my guess. The Sons of Zebedee won’t sit at Christ’s right and left hand, so that says a lot about what power men have over God’s decisions (Matthew 20, Mark 10).

        7. Paul never taught against the Torah and he upheld it after the resurrection when he accepted Christ as the messiah.

    5. Sorry Zubaty. Jesus/Yehsua/Joshua was 100% Jewish. Through Mary he is directly descended from King David.
      Jesus totally reaffirmed the teachings of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and said that he was there not to abolish the law of Moses but to fulfill its purpose.
      Jesus had many Jewish followers in Jerusalem and Israel after his departure. They lived and worshipped side by side with non-Messianic Jews. Only after the failed uprising against Rome in 170 AD – or thereabouts – did the two groups of Jews separate. (One thought that their leader Bar Kokba was the Messiah. But the Messianic Jews already know Jesus was their Messiah.)

  6. This is a messy issue because while the argument could be made that the (((chosen people))) should no longer be considered “chosen” since their teachings have rejected Jesus (who is the messiah that their Old testament prophesied about), you could say the same for the various sects of Christianity that interpret the New Testament differently and fight over which one is right.
    It’s complicated for us Catholics too, given that the our institution has differing factions in it, that try to pull the church in one direction or another.

        2. Have you seen the dress he wears? And that hat? Definitely a fag. Plus, all commies are fags.

        4. I don’t know the man’s heart. But that sure looks like Virtue Signaling par excellence.
          ‘ok, are all the cameras on??? ok, now let me kiss those feet’

        5. This would pass just fine for interracial cuckold porn. What is there to know about the man’s heart ?

        6. “By their fruits shall ye know them.” What fruits have we seen from the Pope that suggest he’s anything other than a virtue signaling SJW type?

        9. There would be some Talmudic Rabbi’s still sporting raging hard ons over this that their centuries of subversive diligence has completely cucked out their arch nemesis Catholicism.

    2. Here is the thing to understand about that, which Martin Luther’s writings have helped me with a lot. Even in the Old Testament, the Israelites were never automatically “chosen” simply on account of their bloodline or physical circumcision. It was ALWAYS dependent on being holy and righteous, which they rarely were. Thats why they were punished over and over again. Moses and Jeremiah both chastised the ancient Israelites for not understanding this, and for missing that physical circumcision was supposed to be symbolic of / go along with circumcision of the mind and heart. At no point in the Old Testament does an Israelite automatically receive blessings from God without being pious and God-fearing, but this was lost even on me growing up in Judaism. Being Chosen only matters if you actually behave like a Godly person should.

      1. How does Job fit into your theological framework? He was selected for torture by Jehovah, *because* of his righteousness.
        I think that the OT is clear in its stance that blessings and curses fall upon the righteous and the wicked, alike. You may reject that notion (I don’t), and fine if you do– I am just unclear on your position here.
        But one difference which I felt your article keyed in on is the notion of a personal relationship with God. As a mostly-secular person, I think the most revolutionary thing Christ brought to the Abrahamic faiths was to call God, “Father.”

        1. really interesting issue there of course. Jung’s commentary on job meditates on some of the conundrums here

        2. We’ll let the man answer for himself. But I would say Job was selected by Satan for torture, not by God. Subtle distinction, but important.
          Satan essentially said to God, ‘No one loves you. Job here only worships you because you have blessed him. If you take away the blessing, watch how he will curse you.’
          In other words, the proposition is that humans aren’t really capable of loving God or anyone else for that matter. We are just animals that ‘vote’ for pleasure and against pain.
          The Book of Job is a defense of man and says we are not just animals. We can love in the face of suffering.

        3. I would say he was allowed to suffer (that is, God allowed Satan to torment him), but not that God singled him out per se.
          As to blessings, little makes it clearer than Jesus’s words in Matthew: “He sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.”
          I don’t know if the Jews called God Father (I think there are cases to be made either way), but calling himself the Son of the Father was the crime for which he was crucified.

        4. Note, also, how God always held Satan’s leash. “You may take his property but not touch him,” “You may take his family but not touch him,” “You may give him sores but not take his life.”

        5. Was Job not tested because Satan called God out and said that he was only obedient due to the blessings God had bestowed upon him. And something to the matter of; if you remove said blessings, he’ll surely curse you to your face. So to prove his point that Job was indeed righteous regardless of wealth, health or stature, he allowed Satan first to destroy his livelihood and business, but even that didn’t turn Job away from the Lord. It wasn’t until the second time God allowed Satan to exercise control over his physical health that his heart hardened. Eventually, he repented and died with twice as much as he had in his earlier days when he walked upright with God, before Satan’s permitted intervention.
          I guess come to think of it, your point remains, in the old testament both the righteous and sinful got tested. I think with Job however, God wanted to make Satan look like a fool for claiming he was only obedient due to his wealth and blessings. Proving yet again, that the niceties of this world will never stack up to that of spiritual purity.

        6. Wrong. Jehovah was the author of Job’s torture. Go back and read the scriptures. Satan has to ask permission from God to afflict Job. In fact the satan, or adversary is a servant of God doing the will of God according to the scripture.
          This is why Saul the Pharisee says in Romans that God has made “vessels of wrath fitted for destruction” . Which means to say that this all loving god created men for hell.

        8. That seems like a gnostic interpretation. But in one sense, I agree. Wittingly or not we are all servants of God.
          Satan certainly doesn’t serve him on purpose. Everything he does is to turn creation upside-down. (Feminism, gay marriage, general degradation of man) But, everything he does ultimately serves the purposes of God.
          So, having foreknowledge of Satan’s life-path, God created him anyway. Likewise with Pharoah and others “fitted for destruction”. Yet, it was still their will to rebel…

        9. What’s funny is, when you read Job you notice exactly this every time. She quite literally told Job to curse God and die – what a woman.

        10. But God even says that no man comes to him based on their own will. For it says that no man comes to God unless the father draws him. The word for draw in the Greek is more akin to drag.
          The Bible says explicitly that no man alive can choose god since all men are wicked.
          According to the Bible God is always the one doing the choosing.

        11. Right, it says that: no one comes to God unless drawn.
          In my mind though, I balance that with this: “He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.”
          I personally resolved those two statements like this: He is drawing everyone, but only some choose Him back.
          Now, many spiritually-minded people – and maybe you fall into this category – just think the Creator God is out to get them. Is holding back from them. Hates them.
          This is essentially what Gnosticism is. It also teaches that ‘Lucifer’ is the redeemer of mankind who saves humans from an evil creator…and that he liberated Adam and Eve from God.
          That’s fine. Everyone chooses their own path. I guess it comes down to who you trust. Jesus said, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life.” And he said that Lucifer/Satan, comes to “steal, kill and destroy.”
          So you either believe that or you don’t. If you don’t, then wide is your path as, apparently, most people go this way.

        12. I don’t know who that angel of death was. It doesn’t say. It doesn’t appear to be Satan though. I don’t think Satan takes orders from God. Like us, he has freewill and isn’t a robot.
          Whoever the angel was, he was executing judgment on behalf of God. That angers a lot of people. I get it. Judgment sucks.

        13. Then you agree that God has created most men for hell? How special and better than everyone you must feel having this faith that you indeed are saved while the rest of the world is condemned to hell?
          BTW I’m not a gnostic but a former christian. I received instruction from a highly learned protestant preacher whose method of preaching and biblical exegesis I have not found an equal. I still have a library of books on christian history, interpretation of doctrine and so forth.
          I could discuss with you for a very long time my personal views on the matter but I dont think this is the place for it. However I am of the opinion that you as a white man have done your people a disservice by exalting the jewish god above all else. You look at our ancestral religions and culture with the disdain of a jew and you call it all “pagan” and sinful. Please for the love of god tell me you havent named your children jewish names have you? A shame really to see white men forsake their history, tradition and culture for a jewish one.
          While there are some good qualities I could speak of regarding christendom, I have moved on from that as I dont believe jews, or the christian believer(in the christian sense) are the “chosen” of god. In fact the god of the OT could be considered an entirely different god from that of the NT.
          Christianity inverts all moral teaching from the ancients and exalts the lame beggar, the weakling and the cuck above the strong and capable. This is why that shyster Saul the pharisee says God uses the weak to shame the strong. It is truly a slave religion. Did you know that slavery is condoned by god? Also your god jehovah said to the jews it was permitted for them to loan money to gentiles with usury while not doing so with other jews.
          Saul told his followers who were slaves to be a good slave! That is the religion in a nutshell.

        14. What label would you give your belief system?
          I am German and Italian by blood and am proud of that lineage. If you know the Bible some, you know that God created the nations and peoples – including germany and Italy – after demolishing the globohomo, one world, multicultural tower of babel system.
          What would you have me do, worship Odin, Jupiter or Lucifer? Will that make me more German?
          Does dancing around, celebrating solstice, writing runes, worshipping self-serving demon gods make me more German?
          Christians make bad slaves which is why statists and globalists hate us. We think there is perhaps more to life than being a corporate drone and mindless consumer.
          Most of all, we won’t bow down to the globalist tower of babel they’re building. We’re harder than pagans to control, who are slaves to their sin – which they think is freedom. They love you because you serve them well and they can feed off you.

        15. I think that most men choose separation from God. They don’t want him in this world and they don’t want him in the next.
          You don’t like the God of the Bible. Fine. You don’t have to have anything to do with him.
          Do what thou wilst.
          You aren’t condemned though. You’ve been granted your heart’s desire.
          So, what are you complaining about?

        16. I don’t have any label for my views. There is no absolute certainty that I’m claiming. I’m open to the possibility that I could be wrong. I’m not an atheist.
          Furthermore I’m not attempting to evangelize you or anyone else to my views. Just stating what I’ve discovered. Despite our differing beliefs, I’m not your enemy. In fact our views probably align very closely on many things. I am half Italian myself.
          I enjoy the debate between intelligent men.
          “What would you have me do, worship Odin, Jupiter or Lucifer? Will that make me more German?”
          I wouldn’t have you do anything. You are a man and you’ve chosen where to plant your flag. I only wonder if you have objectively considered opposing views? There is a lot of knowledge out there to discover.
          I hope that you can hear what I’m saying without writing me off as someone beneath you because I don’t share your particular belief system at this time. Though I’m aware that would put you in contradiction to the christian belief structure.

        17. “I think that most men choose separation from God.”
          The point I was attempting to illustrate to you is that all throughout the bible it makes a point to tell mankind that he has no free will. God chooses whom he wills and it is by election. Accordingly man cannot “choose” to believe in god or not. He makes it clear that anything you do that is accounted as “righteousness” is the express will of god doing it through you. However anything you do that is “sinful” is of course all your fault or the fact that god had made you a “vessel of wrath”.
          These are not my words, this is what is in the bible.
          I assume you are a protestant. In which case you believe in sola scriptura correct?

        18. The book of Job is a particularly bad indictment of christianity.
          Job has to endure untold suffering and loss because ” god ” and satan made a bet.
          A supposed loving heavenly father rained ruin upon an admittedly faithful servant to make a point.
          The book of Job suggests that ” god “is a woman after all, the better you are , the more ” god ” will shit test you.
          I have never been a big George Carlin fan, but he had it right when he said religion is the biggest bullshit of all.

        19. Wow, you sound just like me, my background is very similar to yous.
          Thanks for you excellent points, Sir.

        20. The complaint is the christian attitude that they are the only ones who are right and they must use the government to force compliance with their opinions, then they bitch and whine and point fingers when muslims do the same.
          Christians whine about their rights being attacked, then attack the rights of others.
          Christians think constitutional rights are only for them.
          Christians think religious freedom means the right to take away freedom from those who have a different way of life.
          Christians think the secular government is the churches enforcement arm, but demand religious exemptions.
          Christians oppose abortion, but have no problem killing millions of adults.
          Christians talk big about obedience, but think they are exempt from obeying both the law and the scripture.
          Christians think hate is a ” family value “.
          Christians think public schools brainwash kids, then they brainwash them in home schools.
          Christians want prayer in school, then throw a fit when a non christian wants to pray.
          Christians say there is no separation of church and state, until a different sect from theirs wants to influence the government
          ad nauseam
          Hypocrite, thy name is christian.

        21. The fact remains that Job, an innocent man, was persecuted so that ” god ” could make a point and win a bet with satan.
          Any ” god ” that would do this is not worthy of worship.
          The book of Job is very good evidence that the christian god is either false or a complete asshole.

        22. According to book of Job, god did not single out Job, Satan did, god just did not have the backbone or honor to standup for his faithful servant.

        23. I have no idea what God was playing there, which is the whole point of the book. I mean, Job spends the whole book asking for answers, and God shows up at the end to say “Why do I have to answer to you?”.

        24. I guess we just respectfully disagree. I believe in the freewill of man. It’s quite literally everywhere in the Bible, starting from the choice to eat of the fruit in the Garden. Jesus said:
          “For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened”
          I think that means a man can ask or not ask. Seek or not seek. knock or not knock.
          There most definitely is a tension between the sovereignty of God and man’s freewill. But I think we’re taught they both exist in some cosmic interplay that we don’t entirely understand.

        25. Well, the West is mostly devoid now of Christianity in its governing sphere and in its public discourse. You must be happy.
          Regarding Christian attitude problems…I mean, we can be assholes like anyone else. What did you expect? Are you mad that we don’t shit rainbows and float on clouds?

        26. Yes, I go to a non-denomination church that bases its teaching on the Bible.
          I like to read about occult and gnostic thought too though. Not because I am one, but because understanding their position sheds light on various teachings in the Bible.

      2. True, god didn’t chose the Jews because they are the holiest, as they are not, he chose them because they needed it the most.

        2. Well, first you only have to look at their actions. They do not have any propensity to be the chosen followers aside from how much they need it.
          Also, as Jesus is god’s son it can be said that he acts according to his doctrine. It is very notable here that he didn’t go to people that can be said to be somewhat righteous but he surrounded himself with thieves and criminals and all the others.

        3. fair enough. Someone else on this board asked a question to the effect ‘chosen to do what?’ which I thought was quite perspicacious. ‘Chosen’ is usually (i.e. amongst gentiles at least) seen as something implying favour or even righteousness, but one can also look at it as relating to some kind of historical task that needs to be performed. I think the messianic side of judaism (where it exists) is often very aware of this kind of historical mission, whether it is to bring about the age of redemption, the messiah, or some other kind of peace, social justice or ‘jewish utopia’. I think in other words that the concept needs to be unscrambled to be fully intelligible

      4. You are quite correct, Sir.
        The same thing can be said about christians.
        Being ” chosen ” only matters if you actually behave like a godly person, which christians seldom do.
        By their fruits ye shall know them.

      1. The similarities between the Nazi Nuremberg Laws and Judaism are more similar than people realize.
        Everyone was up in arms over the Nazis declaring that Germans were forbidden from marrying Jews, but the Jews have believed the same damn thing (Jews can’t marry non-Jews under Jewish law) since ancient times, and no one seemed to care.

      1. Gay fashion critic: “You’re a mess. You’re wearing white socks with blacks shoes and a chef’s hat and a bathrobe … what message are you trying to make?”

    3. That is a typical London street, Jews in Israel as a whole do not look and dress like that

  9. As a outsider to Christianity and Judaism, this is the one thing I find very weird of some Christians. There was an article here on RoK on how some modern Christians have been tricked into supporting Israel by taking verses from the Bible out of context and brainwashing adherents with false understanding of the religion.
    Some of them fanatically support Israel and Jews and they can be found aplenty in places like Breitbart. It’s as if they have a physiological blind-spot and can’t see that many of the ills of modern society that have been institutionalized that they’re fighting against were actually crafted and implemented by (((them))) in the first place.

    1. The type of Christian you are referring to is essentially brainwashed by mainstream conservative media. They simply spout the Republican Party line.
      Christians need to remember that we have our own ideals and a particular party may not have anything to do with them.

      1. Agreed, people should objectively study their books and history on their own and put their faith in them only. Unfortunately, most people just take other people’s word for granted, not knowing they’re being lead astray.
        If Church/Priest/Congregation is saying and doing things that go against doctrine, then the person should willing to leave and to go a traditionalist Church instead.

  10. Jews were the (((chosesn))) people because they are the worst of gods creation.
    So Jesus brought the Israelites gods (theos) word (logos).
    In easy to understand allegories. One could call it a philosophy.
    But instead (((they))) began debating, hence, that’s why they are so fantastic layers today … and why (((the jewdacabra))) is a type of a vampire.

    1. And that’s why they pushed Esperanto – an idiotic language – but are quite cool with English, because it is a wonderful language to debate.

      1. So wonderful, it is even easy to create new ‘religions/idologies” like atheism, skepticism or liberalism all designed to be endless debatable.
        Before that (((they))) did it from the other side and it was called critical theory (as an attack on Kritik der kritischen Vernunft, ask a Marxists how and why they hate Immanuel Kant).

      1. Parents HAVE TO care for the most fukked up of their offspring the most. <- fixed that for you

  11. No one’s more zealous than a convert. I don’t mean that as criticism, it just seems to me that you are very concerned with Israel, and if you were not a former Jew, you would probably be more neutral with regards to Israel.
    The fact that you’re looking for religious justification to bash Israel rather than political, social or even personal preference is very telling in my opinion.
    It sounds to me that you’ve just decided that Israel = Bad and now you’re looking for whichever religious text or theory would validate that sentiment.
    I think I may have mentioned before that reform Jews have always had a problem with Israel, ADL and J-Street have always been Obama / Clinton supporters, Palestinian and LGBT supporters etc. so while you are entitled to your opinion, I think it bears mentioning that you may be a bit biased.
    I know that there have been recent arguments between reform and conservative Jews with regards to prayers, the Western Wall and wedding arrangements, so your article, at least to me, seems to be written out of spite.
    It’s also telling that when discussing Israel you chose to include only pictures of Hassiddim and conservative religious Jews, very stereotypical looking, but neglect to mention that these are a minority in Israel and most are simple, secular hard working people, as I’m sure you’ve seen on your Taglit trip.
    Where are the Kibbutznikim, the Russian immigrants, the high-tech engineers, the soldiers etc.? You chose to only show a stereotypical “Happy Merchant” Jew and I think that is disingenuous.

    2. A. The only images I contributed to this article were the main image–since Christians United For Israel is the group I’m targeting–and the image of St. Paul. The ones you’re complaining about were inserted by an ROK editor, so you’ll have to take it up with him/them.
      B. I am not “against Israel.” As mentioned, I believe every group has a right to a homeland. I have no problem with Israel being a Jewish homeland, and I enjoyed my time in the country. In fact, one of my closest friends on Earth is an Israeli Jew I met on Birthright. What I am against is the Israeli government using the American military as their attack dog. I am tired of American soldiers fighting in dying in Israel’s wars, which in no way, shape or form benefit our country. That is why…
      C. I believe it is incredibly important for Christians to stop blindly supporting the Israeli government and its expansion efforts into the surrounding region. It is not our fight, not our business, and without our support they probably wouldn’t be able to do it in the first place. America must put our own interests above those of foreign nations, and we already know all the screeching about “WMDs” in the countries around Israel were propaganda meant to destabilize and balkanize the region. Iraq did not have “WMDs,” and I seriously doubt Iran does either. That’s the next target, by the way. They’ll try to get us into war with Iran. Watch.

      1. A. Understood, my apologies for assuming.
        B. OK I can dig that, although from what I recall from recent conflicts it was Israeli soldiers dying in their own wars unnecessarily, due to stopping the attack to satisfy American “ceasefire” efforts which Hamas / Hezbollah used to then seize the initiative and launch surprise attacks.
        Not sure how American soldiers are dying in “Israel’s wars” but I guess we’ll just disagree on that.
        C.As I said you’re entitled to your opinion, I just don’t get trying to dig up any possible religious justifications and formulas to support your opinion, rather than just saying you disagree with Israeli policy.
        The US has some serious unfinished business with Homeini’s Iran and their terrorist proxies. not every war is for the benefit of Israel.

        1. As far as I can tell, it in no way benefits America to keep the Middle Eastern nations in shambles. It helps Israel a lot, however. And given that we know our invasion of Iraq (for example) was based on completely false pretenses / heavily lobbied-for by Zionists and their agents, I’m just putting the pieces together as best I can.

        2. As far as I can see, Shia Muslims are way more peaceable than Sunni Muslims. The Shia are always getting blown up by Sunnis in mosques and in pilgrimages here or there.
          Iran talks tough against the US and the West, but they aren’t the ones attacking us. They just aren’t.
          They are, however, in a place to threaten Israel.

        3. They (or their proxies) bombed the American embassy in Beirut.
          They took US soldiers captive, not to mention storming the US embassy in Tehran.
          The Military apparatus in the US still holds a grudge and looking for payback.
          I tend to think of Israel as a proxy of the big superpowers in the Middle East, rather than the other way around.

        4. Well, if Israel is our proxy, then they should do our fighting – not we theirs.
          Yes, Shia bombed us in Beirut and took us hostages in Tehran. But why were we there in Beirut in the first place? And why did we support the overthrowing of the Shah in Iran?
          The founding fathers wanted us not to get entangled in foreign conflicts. And who here would say they were wrong?

        5. “Well, if Israel is our proxy, then they should do our fighting – not we theirs.”
          I always figured we took out threats to Israel because we were afraid they might start nuking their enemies, whom they are surrounded by. As long as we keep them from feeling too threatened, they won’t take matters into their own hands an start WWIII.

        6. Yeah, that’s the underlying rationalization we’ve been sold.
          But it amounts to little more than extortion. ‘Do what we say or we’ll blow up the world.’
          Oddly enough, this is where I feel a kinship to liberal Jews. They tend to see this as it is and not go along with every war we’re sold.

        7. *Shrugs shoulders*
          We’ve got a country founded by Holocaust survivors and surrounded and outnumbered by Muslim nations that have been trying to wipe them out since the nation’s founding. Either we let them handle their problems (and no complaining about their methods), or deal with their problems for them. Trying to micromanage their actions isn’t going to end well for anyone, least of all us.

        8. I vote for ‘let them handle their problems’. Now where do I drop off my ballot?

        9. Sounds good to me too. Then again, I wouldn’t throw a fit if Israel upped and nuked Iran. Let them fight it out until the people itching for war are dead.

        10. I reserve the right to throw a fit.
          Sometimes you have to kill people in war, yes, but you better have a damn good reason for it with a rock-solid moral defense. And the killing better be in proportion to those damn good reasons.

        11. Aaaaand then we start trying to tell them how much force they can use, a.k.a. micromanaging. As I said, either we let them do it their way or we do it for them.

        12. Nah. They can do whatever they want.
          And the rest of the world can think and do whatever we want.
          Nobody can tell anyone else what to think. Everybody controls their own conscience.

        3. But, and I might be mistaken here, Joseph had one that chased the snakes away.

        5. this is a guy who God loved and would have given anything, and what did he ask for: a faggy musical?

        6. i can’t improve on this comment mobius. I am gonna let it sit there just winning the fucking interwebs

    2. Sure, but you could also argue that was God’s plan to prevent them from starving later. Remember (if you take that story literally) that the whole region would have starved to death if Joseph hadn’t been elevated in the Egyptian hierarchy when the famine came.

    3. They weren’t slaves to start with. The slavery part came well after Joseph was dead and ignored.

  13. The article’s theology is sketchy at best, but I do agree with the overall thesis that Christians need not support Israel.
    Reason #1: Israel was created and is today in apostasy. Jesus himself said if you don’t know me you don’t know the Father.
    Reason #2: According to the Old Testament, Israel was to be recreated by Messiah himself (not by human effort.) This is why some Jews are not Zionists. They understand, and to their credit, follow the Old Testament.
    Reason #3: The surrounding Muslim people are loved by God every bit as much as the Jews in Israel. However, they are both separate from God and neither has some special dispensation to treat the other as animals.
    Reason #4: Jesus seemed to indicate that some future group of people would claim to be Jews, but were not. “…the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars.” (Rev 3)
    He could certainly have been referring to the people who created modern Israel and run it now in apostasy. Certainly they aren’t spiritual Jews having rejected their own Messiah. But they may not be physical Jews either by lineage.
    Reason #5: Prophecy (Old and New Testaments) teach that the main purpose of the coming Great Tribulation is to chasten Israel for its apostasy. And it also teaches that when they accept their Messiah they will be restored: ” They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” (Zechariah 12:12)
    In the meantime, Christians can pray for Israeli Jews and the surrounding Muslim peoples to know Christ.

    1. There is a theological school of thought popular in fundie/Pentecostal circles called dual covenant theology. Basically it theorizes that Jews made their own separate covenant with God via Abraham so they need not accept Christ for salvation. Very controversial.

      2. Anyone who believes that is not Christian. “Jews made their own separate covenant with God via Abraham so they need not accept Christ for salvation.” This is called run of the mill Judaism.

      3. Yeah, that’s pretty obviously false. When it comes to salvation and grace, the author’s quote rules, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    2. I’m still baffled by the so-called “Star of David.” It brings to mind the prophet Amos, who spoke of the “star of their gods which you made for themselves.” (echoed in Acts 7).

      1. You probably know this, but the symbol called the “Star of David” has nothing to do with David. And it’s horrible that his name and memory is dragged through the mud by being associated with it.
        It’s an age-old symbol used by many pagan peoples to worship Saturn / Satan.
        It’s important to note that the Jewish people as a whole did not agree to this symbol to represent them. Rather some powerful people decided this during the founding.
        At this point, there’s really no excuse for people not to know this. And the Jewish people should lobby to have that star replaced by something more representative of them like a menorah.

        2. Yeah, I think it means more than that too.
          One meaning is actual ‘wanka wanka…getting it ON’. Downward triangle representing woman and upward triangle representing men.
          And then the hexagon in the middle looks like the south pole of Saturn….

    1. can you explain the connections so we don’t have to buy your book before we have a clear idea whether the argument is coherent

      1. You can read my article for free: http://testosteronecivilization.com/sex-wars-the-fall-of-western-dominance-2/
        Psychology professor Jordan Peterson discusses human dominance hierarchies and how they shape our ideologies in his theory of archetypes, a collectively-inherited unconscious idea, or image that is universally present in individual psyches, as in Jungian psychology. These archetypal or mythical elements unconsciously shape the mindset of each member of our social groups. For instance, the ideal of God the Father as the ultimate patriarch, taking care of his children—mankind—in the philosophy of ancient Hebrew Scripture, suggests that it is the peak-testosterone point in the evolution of our Western Judeo-Christian civilization. Likewise, art historian and self-described lesbian, transgender and dissident feminist, Camille Paglia captures the essence of sex in structuring the personality through human history in her masterpiece, Sexual Personae:
        Sex is the point of contact between man and nature, where morality and good intentions fall to primitive urges. I call it an Intersection.
        Judaism, Christianity’s parent sect, is Sex Wars: The Fall Of Western Dominancethe most powerful of protests against nature. The Old Testament asserts that a father god made nature and that the differentiation into objects and gender was after the fact of his maleness.

        2. The author of this artcile identifies as a Cathar which is satanic cult
          The idea of two Gods or principles, one being good and the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good God was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, contrasted with the evil Old Testament God—the creator of the physical world whom many Cathars, and particularly their persecutors, identified as Satan.[
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

        3. It is neither satanic, nor a cult. Catharism is the Christian reconciliation of Reason and Faith.

        4. Cathars got a bad rap because they tapped into some serious hyperdimensional realities which opened doorways to the godhead. The establishment couldn’t have that, now, could they…I wouldn’t give $2 for anything Wikipedia had to say. Maybe fifty cents, but not $2.

        6. Great word. That and “galactically”. “She was galactically stupid.” I think Tom Cruise used that in, “A Few Good Men”. Tom is the man. Scientology and all. Even though he’s 5′-6″. He gets more pussy rubbing up against him than a stripper pole. Or something like that…

        7. You know, I’m a fan (also of that movie!) He gets a lot of shit from people, but as an action move actor he’s superb. Really seems to give his all.

        8. You gotta give credit where credit is due. He’s the Energizer Bunny, for sure. If somebody doesn’t like that, well…”You can’t handle the truth.” Yeah. It’s like that.

        9. thanks for the reply. I will have a look at the article when I get a chance. Didn’t know Peterson was some kind of Jungian.
          Also, I didn’t quite understand your last paragraph, but maybe your article will shed some light

        11. What little I know about Cathars is that they were gnostics, were originally a really hot fad in Bulgaria, and that they seemed to a) have their leaders avoid all sex and b) be fond as a group of anal sex. And they are the origin of the reason why the English using “Bugger” so much in conversation.

        13. “Bugger” comes from “Bogomil,” a Gnostic predecessor to the Cathars, and in both cases there is no evidence of any sodomite practices. It was fake news they were labelled with by the Catholic Church as a way of stamping out the Cathars, because the Catholics were butthurt (pun intended) that the Cathars kept beating them in debate and winning converts.

        14. Interesting. Parallels to Wilhelm Reich there, in terms of how they were categorized historically. The thing about this, is that we would have had to live among them, back in the day, to be totally sure. I don’t know for sure what their deal was; it all depends on which version of “his-story” a guy wants to embrace. If I can get in the Wayback Machine, and go check it out, I will report back, for sure…

        15. Heh, history seems to suggest that the Catholics came out on top of that little muss.

        16. Yes, having a Marxist pope whose aides are getting arrested for drug-fueled orgies has certainly shown the world the virtues of Catholicism.

        17. Yeah, because they ignored what Jesus said and went on a genocidal rampage instead. Ironically, their actions proved exactly what the Cathars were saying about them in the first place.

        18. Seems to me that I hear the same kind of antagonism from every sect of every religion towards every other sect of every other religion I tend to be skeptical of such proclamations and history writing, personally.

        19. Does he really? Well that explains his bizarre theology.
          Something doesn’t feel right about his posturing. Seems too try-hard.

        20. Honestly, you should have mentioned being a Cathar.
          I mean, be whatever you want. But don’t pose as a mainstream Christian.
          That’s like a Buddhist telling a Muslim how to interpret the Koran.

        21. I’m pretty sure now he’s said elsewhere that he believes the God of the OT is not the same God as the NT, but don’t quote me on that.

      1. Catherism is based on Manichaism, a dualistic theology associating existence and the God of creation with Satan, which influenced Saint Augustine’s Dark Age doctrine of Original Sin, equating sex, the flesh and procreation with sin, and leading to falling fertility rates. This is in contrast to Genesis 1, in which God commands, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…”
        Testosterone Collapse leads to the fall of civilization back to the Dark Ages!
        History repeats in hormonal cycles…

  15. Haven’t read the article yet, but it doesn’t seem as though anyone has mentioned the Scofield Bible yet

    1. I wasn’t aware of the Scofield Bible until after I submitted this article and kept researching the topic, but you bring up a great point. It’s a very important piece of this puzzle.

      1. it’s an interesting and not necessarily edifying episode in modern christian history. Check out untermyer’s role as well. The man got himself around

  16. There are 11 more tribes. Why do jews and christians alike, always seem to gloss over this fact? Hint………… Find the other eleven tribes and you’ll find the rest of the chosen people. They are not from Asia, Africa nor South America and they cannot be arabs (Esau). So. Who wants to guess where they went ?

    1. THIS. There is a fair amount of speculation that the majority of the American colonists were the descendants of Ephraim (being from England, Ireland, North and Western Europe). These people were scattered a little over 100 years before the Babylonian captivity of Judah (ca. 589 B.C.).
      Isaiah says that there will come a time when Ephraim will no longer envy Judah, and Judah will no longer vex Ephraim. I would suggest that that time has not come yet.
      As for the thrust of this article- yeah, the tribe of Judah is only “God’s chosen people” when it keeps His chosen commandments. There are blessings promised but they are contingent upon keeping the commandments. The OT is mostly a greatest hits record of the Pride cycle as it relates to the descendants of Jacob (Israel).

      1. Bingo. Hence, we’re just as “chosen” and they are…. and we’re at least trying (with all our faults) to follow Jesus.

    2. I hope we’re not venturing into the theological wasteland called “Christian Identity.” That’s just cloud-cuckoo land.

      1. I think the perv thing might have been way overblown, and spread around by the MSM to discredit him. Lasha Darkmoon wrote an article on Reich, damning him for his allegedly pervy nature, and she’s an agent, so… Anyway, his books were burned, banned, etc. In Germany and the United States. The word “orgone” (which he coined) was expressly forbidden and was actually outlawed in the U.S. until at least 1970. He made the big boys really, really nervous. He figured out how to cure cancer among other things. They couldn’t have that…oh no. Here’s some interesting stuff on Reich and other hidden pioneers in the field of microbiology, for anybody who is interested:
        http://www.whale.to/p/bird.html

        1. thanks for the link. I didn’t know he’s books were burned or banned. Presumably for the sexual ideas rather the dodgy politics? From memory didn’t woody allen base his orgasmatron on the orgone theory or something. I might have just made that up. I don’t recall whether I’ve read anything about him by Lasha Darkmoon, Are you saying she is the source of the idea that he wanted to have a threesome with his mother and her lover?
          Also, I seem to remember Reich believed in matriarchy. Did he invent a cure for that cancer?

        2. Glad to share. I really don’t care about his politics or his sexual leanings. That’s of no interest to me, but I can see why others would want to blackwash his accomplishments solely based on sketchy biographical information. It’s a common deal.
          His books were banned and burned because the medical establishment freaked-the-fuck-out about his discoveries. He discovered what he termed as being “bions” – which were the indestructible wellsprings of life itself. He found out that disease came from within, not from without. This disrupted the “It’s the germs” crowd, which was comprised of all the Rockefeller-funded doctors, researchers, et al, and their overlords, the AMA. He was one interesting dude.
          Here a link to more articles about Reich –
          http://www.whale.to/b/reich.html

        3. thanks, lot of info there. I actually had his mass psychology of fascism but never got to reading it. Did he think fascism came from within? Probably. I’ve heard of bions, and more generally a lot of good things about his ideas. But while I don’t really know enough to form a strong opinion on the subject it’s often the case that the politics and the ideas are too intimately related to be separated. I think Orgone theory was as with Freud about sexual energy as a fundamental force in the universe. That probably reflects his background and would fit with the anti-repressive bent of those who sought to meld psychoanalysis and marxism.

        4. I understand that perspective. And it’s tempting to embrace it without delving into the details. But having researched Reich’s findings, and having compared them to other suppressed findings by several other pioneers in the field, most of whom had as much affiliation with “Cultural Marxism” as bandicoots had with dinosaurs, an open mind can discern a definite pattern emerging: The suppression of perception-shattering discoveries that, had they gotten out via the MSM’s octopus-like tentacles, would have destroyed the twin con games of the scientific and medical establishments.
          Wilhelm Reich, Dr. Royal Raymond Rife, Rene Caisse, Dr. Hulda Clark, Gaston Naessens, Antoine Béchamp, Guenther Endedein, Robert O. Becker, the list goes on and on. Every single one of them was excoriated in the press, and jumped on with jackboots by the scientific and medical establishments. Clark was run out of the USA. Becker was threatened with prison and attacked by various Federal agencies. Rife’s life was destroyed, his lab was burned to the ground, and he died broke and an alcoholic. Reich was basically killed in prison. Which means they all discovered something that the Power Structure wanted to remain hidden. Either that, or they were all quacks and charlatans. I guess a guy wouldn’t know for sure, how to read the tea leaves there, unless he researched all of those people and their findings.
          I’ve done that, and I can say with nearly 100% certainty that they were most definitely on to something that would have put modern science and its modern medical cartels out of business. (But I was wrong once before. It was in the third grade, and she wasn’t in love with me.)
          Seriously, though, I suggest that anyone who is interested in this subject, would be doing themselves a great favor by researching these people. Otherwise we’re all going to be reduced to dropping all of them into an MSM-established slot, that is captioned, “These fuckers were pedos and Cultural Marxists and worse, and you’d better not read anything at all about them from other sources other than ours, or you’ll put your eye out, kid.”

        5. You make an interesting case, although I can’t really comment on most of the other names you mention as I am unfamiliar with most of them. Reich clearly stands apart from the group of academics who are most associated with ‘cultural marxism’, which is no doubt a fairly crude term designed to get across a nonetheless important message, that marxism, or at least something designed to collapse bourgeois institutions mutated after the bolshevik revolution and refocussed its energies on culture and above all sex / sex repression. Reich is far too interesting and original a thinker to be dismissed on such grounds, and I have no doubt that he was capable of great innovations such as you’ve suggested but even if he had no other connection and interest to that school of thinking he is still advancing some complementary ideas to that wider (and arguably subversive) project – sexual liberation in particular whether it is good or bad did have an erosive effect, and evolved into the 60s counter-culture which provided the ground bed for much of our troubles today. So my (not entirely informed) view would be that one should certainly take Reich seriously as one would any important and original thinker, but just be aware of where he may fit in in the wider picture.
          As for repression, censorhip and persecution of figures who may have been fighting against the establishment and against big pharma or whatever (I can only go by the information you have provided) its worth remember that the MSM, the establishment, the medical establishment etc wasn’t necessarily constituted or aligned in the same way as today. In the 50s we had the cold war, mccarthyism and the venona project, and new ideas – including potentially important ideas – may not always have been easily distinguished from subversion by an establishment that was still in parts conservative and reactionary. None of that excuses the persecution of scientists and visionaries or whatever but it does help to contextualise it, while also distinguishing the continuities (vested interests in the establishment punishing innovation etc) from discontinuities (the conservative power structure is no longer in place for the most part)
          So I am all for reading these guys and rediscovering what they had to say but with regard to their alleged paedo-marxism (a term I think should catch on) I’d say read them yourself by all menas but don’t be too quick to let them babysit your kids

        6. Agreed. As I mentioned, I don’t care about their politics or they sexual leanings. But I wouldn’t let ’em near my offspring (if I had any). There were a lot of wacky ideas and practices in the sexual arena back then, just as now. Reich was big on the alleged power of the orgasm, etc. Okay, maybe he’s right, but that part of his philosophy doesn’t interest me either. What he discovered about “bions” was really staggering though. What bugs me is, nobody has been allowed to follow up on that, without incurring severe hardships. If I had an extra life, I’d spend it following up on his research. Maybe somebody will come along and do that (I’m sure others have, probably more than we will ever know). The cancer issue bugs me the most. Many scientists/microbiologists have found a way to wipe it out. But they are suppressed and/or eliminated faster than you can say, “Big Pharma”. So it goes. A guy has to do his own research, I guess, and protect himself as best he can, by standing on the shoulders of giants while sifting through the clues they left behind…

        7. He does see to have had a hard time of it to say the least. The persecution he suffered at the hands of the FDA & judicial system is appalling and would appear to have been without any real justification – if there can be justification for book burning.
          I am in two minds though about his work. There is no doubt that he was a profoundly original thinker, but having read up a little about him now he also appears to have made profound claims about the universe and about sex and nature that he promoted in a practical as much as theoretical way. It seems as though they were able to get him because he was selling and manufacturing ‘orgone accumulators’, sold on the idea that they would have therapeutic purpose, and the FDA appears as far as I can tell to have argued that this amounted to fraud and that his books were designed to push that fraud.
          Now I don’t defend that for a moment, nor am I qualified as a non-scientist to comment on the validity of his work (although his rain making cloud accumulator devices or whatever are sufficiently out there to raise an eye-brow or two). What I would say though is that even if one could replicate and thereby substantiate his work on bions or t. baccilli (re. as an agent of cancer in the human body) it’s difficult not to see all of this work as being part of a greater package i.e. an over-arching philosophy and conception of the universe albeit – for a free-love supporting commie – a pretty benign one.
          From the brief acquaintance with his work I now have he strikes me as something of a modern alchemist, with all the overtones of un-orthodoxy that implies. Moreover from what I understand all his theories appear to be grounded in his quasi spiritual belief in orgone energy. I would agree that his marxism is probably for the most part tangential but his beliefs in orgone energy as a fundamental sexual energy force in the universe – which he appears to have equated almost with God Himself – does see to have profound implications, and his persecution and status as scientifically out on a limb probably reflect this. Reich thought he could heal people by unblocking them sexually (his psychoanalytic practice / orgone accumulators etc) and his work on bions and cancer as a result of the depletion of orgone energy in the cell seems to depend on this very idiosyncratic conception of the universe. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong, or is necessarily a crank as opposed to a genius, it just means we do need to approach him with a degree of caution. It’s difficult not to have sympathy with the guy though, and it wouldn’t surprise me if there was something in his ideas.
          Ultimately what we see with Reich’s fates at the hands of the authorities appears to reflect a a deep clash in ideologies. But while his persecution might be seen to position him as the hero and the good guy in all of this, its difficult not to think that in that ideological sense – as opposed to with regard to his specific ideas which remain herem so to speak – his anti-repression sexual politics have indeed triumphed in today’s world and one might wonder if that is necessarily a good thing.

        8. I don’t personally subscribe to every single thing that any so-called genius has to say. I think that’s a wise way to go, just as you do. For example, I noticed that Reich worked with Freud. That’s a major red flag. But…if you start looking at the work done by the other pioneers I mentioned, you see a pattern. They start sniffing around the secrets to the mysteries of disease, and they are shot down by the establishment. Royal Raymond Rife was one such guy. Now, Reich was no doubt a really outside-the-box thinker, but Reich kind of looked at himself as a guy who noticed some interesting things, but figured others would come along and flesh it all out, after the fact. Royal Rife made Reich look like an amateur, in my opinion. What happened to Rife was just as dastardly as what happened to Reich. Originally, after Rife started curing basically all known diseases, he was heralded as a genius – even in the MSM. Then, the AMA started going after him. If only a couple of guys had this happen, that would be one thing. But there were scores of them.
          Rife theorized that, yes, illness was caused by bacteria and viruses. So he built a microscope that was powerful enough to isolate these critters to the point where they were visible. Then, he deduced that all living things vibrate at a certain rate of frequency. He then built what I believe was referred to as a “plasma generator”. He would dial the generator to the specific frequency of the parasite involved, and aim it at the patient. The bacteria or virus would die, leaving the remaining healthy tissue and the human organism intact. That’s from my memory as I’m too busy to back and review at the moment. After this happened, scientists descended upon his lab, checked him out, and were amazed. But then…the medical cartels couldn’t have that sort of thing available to the public, could they now. So he was eventually discredited and ruined. As has been the case for anyone else who made similar discoveries, and attempted to get them out to the public at large.
          This link is really interesting. It’s a link to screen shots of articles from the San Diego Evening Tribune, touting Rife as a major player in the field of microbiology and the treatment of disease –
          https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=royal%20raymond%20rife%20san%20diego%20evening%20tribune&qs=n&form=QBIR&sp=-1&pq=royal%20raymond%20rife%20san%20diego%20evening%20tribune&sc=0-43&sk=&cvid=C724198C27484CB78E7D16868A0BA630
          Here’s a link to some interesting info on Rife (it’s a PDF file) –
          http://www.healthrecoverysystems.co.nz/images/File/Rife%20story.pdf

        9. I’d never heard of Raymond Rife but he seems like another interesting guy, though I don’t know quite what to make of the claims about him. Looks like his ‘living virus’ microsopes were legit and ahead of their time, but I can’t see much corroboration of the claims to have cured cancer and pretty much everything else. Again there is something slightly ‘occult’ about his approach insofar as it proceeds from the (not unsubstantiated) idea that the universe is vibrational. Beyond that I’m going to have to reserve judgement. It is certainly not beyond possibility that financially vested interests in the establishment might have felt threatened by his work, and the prospect of being put out of business by what amounts to a universal cure for disease, but on the other hand there doesn’t seem to be much out there to support the claims made.
          The other day someone on these boards (in relation to the caduceus) pointed out to me that modern medicine was about treating but not necessarily curing (it was Varox……) and medical conspiracy theories seem to bear out this idea of modern medicine as something that is potentially both iatrogenic (the disease may in part be caused by the treatment) and designed in the aggregate to perpetuate rather cure illness. I don’t know what to think about that, beyond the likelihood that there is a kernel of truth in the idea that all of the helping industries are necessarily parasitic upon the object of their concern.
          Having said that it would probably again be advisable to approach with caution. A google scholar search of his name brings up very little contemporary, and nothing academically contemporary. The nature of the claims themselves are also so grandiose that to bear such claims out there would need to be very substantial trials, something which would be difficult to
          do particularly with serious / potentially terminal diseases such as cancer. More seriously following a revival of interest in Rife’s work in the 80s there are claims that Rife machines were sold and used as an alternative treatment for cancer to say chemo, and that claims of health fraud followed. Maybe that’s just the medical establishment scuppering a rival again but absent solid proof to the contrary I think the work of someone like Rife needs to be approached tentatively. If his theories could be proven though by independent experts in the modern world that would indeed be paradigm shattering

        10. Here’s some information about Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, who is curing cancer even as we speak – something that Federal prosecutors even admitted to – and yet, he has been receiving the same treatment that Reich and Rife received:
          https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/dr-burzynski-trial-update/
          They’ve been after this guy for years. He was acquitted. But they keep coming after him.
          Same pattern, over and over.
          A guy finds a cure for cancer, initially there is some minor media attention (filled with skepticism), his patients crow about being cured, the media ignores it, and then the FDA lapdogs start barkin’ and go after him.
          Here are some of Dr. Royal Raymond Rife’s lab reports, for anybody who’s interested, along with links to other interesting facets of his experiments, etc.:
          http://www.rife.org/rifeslab.html
          Here’s a screen shot of a newspaper article about the Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski case:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f0df613d15c824b8aaaaa47da9fe73150dbba695ea32c6a00d08cfde5c25186b.jpg

        11. I think the problem with all of these guys is that it’s very difficult for a layman and non-scientist to see past the controversies or make a balanced assessment. Burzynski appears to be another guy making claims that haven’t been proven to the standard required for therapies of that sort. Again it would be lovely to think that he really had come up with a cure, and to reiterate my position on this matter I have no doubt that there are powerful vested interests keen to ensure business stays good, but as with most of these kinds of claims and practical treatments without the right kind of support from approved clinical trial evidence how can one persuade vulnerable patients that they should stop conventional therapies in favour of something more radical. With the best of intentions it’s a catch 22. I can see from a brief search that Burzynski has had his supporters including amongst those whom his therapy didn’t succeed and from some for whom it may have succeeded, as well as a sympathetic panorama report, but that there are also some quite a few worried sceptics. I am going to stay on the fence on this one, while agreeing the point that there are powerful vested interests who really don’t want progress on therapies that would diminish their revenues

      2. I enjoy a lot of your comments as you are a deep thinker, but what do you mean by “a bit of a marxist,” or “a complete perv.” The latter might not be a problem when it comes to his take on the world.

        1. Thanks. Re. your question: well he was a communist I believe, and as far as I can tell became a communist largely because he believed communism was about the promotion of free-love. I suppose the ‘bit of a marxist’ applies because a) he doesn’t appear to have been that militant in his revolutionary politics (at least not directly) and b) because he got expelled from at least one communist party he had joined. My slandering as a complete perv might be unfair, but I am not entirely sure it is: he was certainly suspects of being a perv on account of his orgone accumulator and the hand-son frock off therapy he practised with his patients, but whether that was related to kinkiness or just to his conception of the universe as governed by orgone energy that needed for the purpose of ‘healing’ to be unblocked is moot perhaps. I think it would be fair to say that sex was at the centre of his thinking, and there seems to have been a practical aspect to that

    2. Good quote from a brilliant man, but be careful. Reich was one of (((those))) so he might not be popular on this forum.

  18. We need to support and defend Israel to matter what. Israel’s existence must be ensured for the future.
    We need someplace to deport all of the Jews to.

    1. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !aw143d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !aw143d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash433FinderLittlePay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!aw143l..,..

  19. The Old and New Testaments unequivocally say that Jews are God’s chosen people. So we must ask:
    Chosen for what?
    Primarily they were chosen to birth the Messiah and to embody a human culture – separate from the pagan gentiles – in which he could be understood.
    But, as in the Old Testament, Jews were often in rebellion against God and were punished accordingly. Today, they are also in rebellion. So, saying they were chosen for this purpose (and others of course) does NOT mean they are gods on earth who must be supported in anything they do.

    1. If the Jews are god’s chosen people, god must be one greedy, materialistic sumbitch…

        1. All depends on the perspective one takes, eh…angles, angles, it’s all about the angles. Er, I mean, the angels.

        2. “Many of the truths we cling to depend upon a certain point of view”
          -O.W. Kenobi (while bullshitting his way out of a lie)

        3. “He clung to his beliefs like a virgin clings to her panties.” – Sum Dim Ho

        4. Recall the prophet Hosea, who was told to marry a whore in order to symbolize God’s figurative marriage with the children of Israel.

        2. There’s enough sparks for everyone. You just have to smoke enough kelipot

    2. very good question. In Exsodus Kubrick’s Moses as I remember describes the name Israel as ‘he who struggles with God’ or something to that effect. What does that mean? On what basis do we (or just jews?) struggle with God. Is such struggle a prelude to ‘submission’ or something else? There is a long tradition of anti-nomianism in judaism (in particular).
      The jewish sense of historical destiny is a hugely complex one, and one which requires careful attention.
      “Primarily they were chosen to birth the Messiah”
      Some people just can’t handel the truth. Jewish messianism is a strange and complex thing. Largely opaque to outsiders

      1. And those are some good follow-up questions..
        I think that everyone does struggle individually with God. And submission is the goal – and the main obstacle. No one likes to submit their own will to anything or anyone. It’s really hard and many people don’t want anything to do with it.
        Jesus blew the paradigm because he asked for our submission, but also said he was our ‘friend’. That’s very personal to the point that’s it’s shocking. Who am I to be your ‘friend’? Nobody. “Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls.”
        My take is that Judaism veered away from the centrality of Messiah because Jesus complicated things enormously. To the point that many branches of Judaism just said, ‘yeah, well we don’t need no stinkin’ messiah anyway!’
        A lot in modern Judaism is “strange and complex” more than it needs to be. The Talmud is a vast and complex replacement for the Tanakh (Old Testament). I think if they focused more on the Tanakh, some simple things could be made simple again.
        If you are Jewish, what have you been taught regarding Messiah?

        1. Interesting thoughts. I’m not jewish myself but I have read up a fair bit on jewish ideas, and I’m quite interested in the wider debate if you like ‘between the religions’ – that’s to say the debate that you could see happening under the surface. Between Islam, Christianity and Judaism you have three rather different takes on submission and worship. Is it good to submit, and if so on what basis. Arguably there may be paradoxes involved: at the risk of metaphysics if one submits too readily is one doing God’s will? If one revolts is one going against it? Likewise with respect to separation from / union with God (or the idea of God).
          Re. messianism, the history here is rather complex. No doubt christianity did sour things for jewish messianism for a while, but as 50 jewish messiahs makes clear the idea of the messiah did not disappear at all, indeed in the last few centuries (since the ‘false’ messiahship of Shabbatai Tzvi it has become a quite central concept even arguably amongst the non-religious, and has certainly informed the progress of zionism. https://www.amazon.com/50-Jewish-Messiahs-Stories-Christian/dp/9652292885
          As for ‘strange and complex’ and the relationship of the talmud / tanakh I’m not sure judaism is supposed to be transparent. There are beliefs that ground this opaqueness, although it’s probably best not to generalise between say orthodox and modern reform judaism etc which may approach things very differently

      2. It refers to the story of Jacob (son of Isaac son of Abraham) who supposedly wrestled and held his own against a man who unknowingly to Jacob was one of God’s angels and was testing him, thus his name was changed to Isra El (Struggles against God).
        Metaphorically it could refer to the Jewish / Israelite nature of being stubborn and unruly in following the Lord’s commands.
        In the Old Testament Moses often complains that he is struggling to implement God’s word and make a nation out of the Israelite rabble, because the people are constantly griping and complaining, looking for the easy way of doing things and slipping back into their heathen ways when left unchecked (for example, making and worshipping a golden calf while Moses is inscribing the 10 commandments for 40 days and nights).

        1. Not to be smarmy, but I think Jacob means ‘supplanter’ and Israel more closely means ‘Governed by God’.
          So, as Jacob wrestled with this angel, he was brought to a point of submission – and yet victory – by the angle crippling his thigh. And he went from being self-willed to God-ruled.

        2. “Metaphorically it could refer to the Jewish / Israelite nature of being stubborn and unruly in following the Lord’s commands.” I think that metaphorical sense is strongly implied. Jacob’s struggle with the angel is certainly more obviously intelligible on such a metaphorical basis than as a literal description of human-angelic wrestling. Likewise I think your description of the struggle between the imperative of righteousness (mitvzot etc) and backsliding, transgression etc is correct, but probably means different things in different contexts. I haven’t read the talmud etc but one often hears of rabbis ‘interpreting’ torah in a somewhat contentious (or legalalistic) way rather than simply with the desire to observe. In the more modern age the struggle seems to take place more obviously against the jewish commandments / mitzvot themselves, whether it’s about worshipping golden calves (gold?) or transgressing sexual / dietary codes.

    3. It’s not just the Jews, Christians often do a horrible job of following God as well. If anything, God’s choice of the Jews is consistent with His plan for salvation through Christ in that those chosen have no particularly redeeming features.

    4. “The Old and New Testaments unequivocally say that Jews are God’s chosen people.”
      You are incorrect. Scripture defines God’s people as those who are credited with righteousness on account of their Faith, not their DNA. Only those who are in Christ are heirs of the promises made to Abraham. It is a Spiritual proposition. Not one of flesh.

      1. There are covenants given unto Abraham’s descendents that mean little to the Christian. For example, the promise Paul brings up in Romans 11: “There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.”
        This would seem to say that the children of Jacob (Israel) will be brought to God in Christ Jesus in due time. The Gentile does not necessarily partake of this covenant, if the plain words are to be believed.
        Note how Jesus and Paul speak so heavily of the flesh? It is my understanding that a common Jewish teaching is that the blood of their father Abraham saves them, and so Jesus and Paul both focus a great deal on the falsehood of such teaching.

      2. You’re right of course in the sense you speak of it.
        Still, the promises God made to Israel alone, will be fulfilled in them alone. As a nation they have blessings and curses unique to themselves. The Church never negates God’s promises to the nation of Israel.

    5. My conclusion is that god chose them because they needed it the most.
      That goes in line with what Jesus did as he also was around the people who needed saving the most.

    6. Do you or any other christians ever think to yourself
      ” So a bunch of jews wrote some books claiming they are chosen by god. There certainly isn’t any bias here! Its not like jews are known for lying right?”

      1. What lends credibility is that no nation would choose to paint itself in such an overwhelmingly negative light. It is the most pessimistic true to life painting of the human condition ever written. Whether you believe in it or not is beside the point. It describes mankind dead to rights.

        1. But you must also consider that while parts of it could possibly be putting Jews in a negative light, it is under the context of god’s little darling children whom he chose above all others.
          Surely as a red pill man you know about how to “frame” things. Also consider that the Talmud is thought to be more authoritive than even the Torah by practicing Jews and in it there is all kinds of hateful invectives against Gentiles and all manner self important verses for Jews. As a Christian you tend to think just in terms of the Bible. This however is not the only playbook that Jews use.

        2. “it is under the context of god’s little darling children whom he chose above all others.”
          In order for being “chosen” to actually benefit you, you had to do what God said. Otherwise being chosen was a curse (as Israel discovered time and again).
          “As a Christian you tend to think just in terms of the Bible. This however is not the only playbook that Jews use.”
          Christians are not Jews. Christians diverged when they embraced Jesus as the Messiah and the Jews rejected Him. One would expect the resulting Jewish playbook to be…interesting.

        3. “Christians are not Jews”
          Yet it is unequivocally stated in the NT that the christian believer must become of the seed of abraham. Whether this is done through faith is irrelevant since the ending result is that, presto! You’re now a jew!
          Saul the pharisee says that the christian believer has been “grafted into the vine”. Which vine is this? Oh yea, the jewish one! Indeed Saul says that the christian believer is now the “real” jew because he is a “spiritual jew”.
          Also how is it jews are cursed by god when at this very moment they are arguably the strongest and most powerful ethnic group in the modern world? Jehovah is apparently not the best at this whole cursing people thing.

      2. Yeah, I do think that to myself.
        First, see discussion below about ‘chosen for what’. It doesn’t make them infallible masters of the universe. It just means that God has some specific tasks for them as a nation to accomplish.
        Two, the Bible itself, while written by Jewish prophets, isn’t really very complimentary to Jews. They are seen time and time again in rank rebellion, making a mess of things and getting corrected by God.

      3. Christians like to bash the Jews, but base their religion on Jewish books.
        Protestants like to bash the Catholic church, but consider the bible that Catholic church compiled as the ” inspired, inerrant, holy word of God. ”
        Catholics think protestants are heretics, but think church traditions have more authority that scripture does.
        Everyone agrees that the Mormons and JW’s are cults, right ?
        The KJV only crowd say the mormons are a satanic cult, but use the same bible the mormons do. Protestants say the Mormons and JW’s are not ” saved “, but the Mormons and JW’s use the same same salvation doctrine as everybody else.
        Baptists call Pentecostals holy rollers, Pentecostals call baptists the frozen chosen.
        Protestants think the JW bible is false because Hort and Wescott were demon possessed, and then issue a dozen new translations based on the work of guess who ? Hort and Wescott.
        Protestants say the Mormons have changed the bible, which they have not, but the KJV has been changed over 1100 times by the protestants.
        DO ANY CHRISTIANS EVER THINK ?

    7. From a theological standpoint do you think the Talmud and Marxism is the ultimate Jewish rebellion against god?
      Do you think its possible they or atleast from the top down, modern Jews now serve Lucifer?
      What greater way to spite god than to destroy his chosen people and turn them into servants of his bidding.

      2. Man, it’s not for me to say something so drastic. Isaiah said this:
        “All of us, like sheep, have strayed away.
            We have left God’s paths to follow our own.”
        I think that can be applied to modern day Israel, and America too for that matter.
        I will say that there is a sense that a few powerful Gnostic/Luciferian people influenced modern Israel from the beginning to spite God.
        The whole reforming of Israel without Messiah is hugely problemattic to begin with.
        And then, as if to underscore that point, the so-called star of David – an ancient symbol of Saturn/Satan worship – is put on their flag…a huge insult and taunt to God.
        It’s like saying, your people, the Jews, and your nation, Israel, are mine now. That’s pretty aweful.
        Certainly the Jewish people are a juicy target. But we are told they will fight through the physical and spiritual battle to find Messiah in the end.
        What do you think?

        1. Thanks for your insight man, appreciate it.
          I’m not completely sure what I think at the moment but Its something I have relatively recently pondered and become curious about.

    8. You have an excellent point here, but the bible does teach to support the jews.
      Something to effect of , I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.
      I do not remember the exact quotation, and I do not feel like looking it up.

      1. Yeah, good point. I think you can bless people and pray for their well being without condoning or supporting any wrongs they are comitting.

    9. Maybe chosen as examples of how to live and how not to live. A grand social experiment spanning millennia.

  20. The level of theological misunderstanding between the Old and New Testaments in this article is breathtaking. I’m not saying that the overlying premise that it is wrong for Christians to be knee-jerk zionists is wrong. But seeing something at odds with what Christ taught (pre-crucifixion) and what Paul taught (post-crucifixion) shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the impact of the Cross.
    The Cross is pivotal. Christ’s teaching were before the Cross, and He was the One fulfilling the Law. Also, the Abrahamic Covenant predates the Old Testament Covenant of the Law (Mt. Sinai), and was never abrogated. The author also doesn’t understand the physical impact of a “blessing.”
    It would more than a few words to explain. But this author doesn’t understand the Old or New Testaments of the Bible.
    This is what Paul wrote of the Israelites in Romans 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.

    1. Paul was, by his own admission, a liar who changed his message depending on the audience receiving it. He (again, by his own admission) said more or less whatever he thought would win them over, and taking his words as absolute truth–devoid of context–is a mistake.
      I agree with a lot of what he said, but he was also wrong a lot (for example, saying “none are righteous, no, not one” when the Bible clearly describes several people as righteous) and his contradicting himself in the quote you mentioned is not surprising.
      This, of course, is ignoring the fact that many of “Paul’s” letters were pseudepigrapha in the first place. But all of this is beyond the thinking level of most Churchgoers–it takes an independent mind to parse truth from falsehood.

        2. Paul, like every other person, was a flawed being. I think it took real integrity for him to admit it, and that it’s an important part of the Christian path to be aware of one’s own failings and weaknesses.
          Despite Paul’s admissions, most Christians seem to take the words which he wrote (or in many cases, the words which he did not write but are attributed to him) as some kind of infallible truth. I do not understand why this is the case, but I assume it’s part of the modern American “muh Biblical inerrancy” movement that discounts history, textual criticism, and critical thinking altogether.

        3. “Paul, like every other person, was a flawed being. I think it took real
          integrity for him to admit it, and that it’s an important part of the
          Christian path to be aware of one’s own failings and weaknesses.”
          Then he shouldn’t have tried to speak for God or offer advice to the different churches he started on said lies, and the Apostles shouldn’t have let him keep his fraudulent ministry going. You’ve basically put him on level with every 2-bit televangelist who gets caught snorting coke or using donations for a sex-change operation. If this is indeed an accurate picture of Paul then it reflects less on him and more on the Church leadership that did not deal with him properly.

        5. If being perfect were a prerequisite for talking about God and preaching the Gospel, not one single pastor would exist on Planet Earth.

        7. Paul admits to sin like every other prophet in the Old and New Testaments.
          Moses murdered an Egyptian. David murdered one of his best soldiers and slept with his wife. Matthew was a sell-out tax collector for the Romans. His fellow Jews rightly hated his guts. Paul hunted down Christians and – it is thought – participated in their executions.
          That’s the point. Everyone is crap and needs a little, err help, from God. Even the great prophets.
          But admitting even gross sin is different than saying you’re lying about what you’re writing. It just means you’re being honest.
          The larger point is that God saves. You don’t save yourself.

        8. Well, I mean, if you don’t believe the Bible, then what are you doing?
          What basis do you have to believe Moses versus Jesus versus Paul versus Daniel?
          It’s actually very modern to NOT believe the black and white words in the Bible, which is how we get Feminist Christians…or God’s ok with abortion…or gay marriage is super fantastic!

        9. Yeah, we do take it as infallible truth, that’s what the Bible is. If you knew as much as you claim about textual criticism and history you’d know that huge chunks of textual criticism are just as assumptive and dishonest as you claim us to be. It’s not an “American” thing, it’s the universal opinion of the church.
          There may be arguments about the best source material, but there is no argument in orthodox Christianity about what the Bible is.

        10. Believing in the “inerrancy of the Bible” is in no way, shape, or form necessary to be saved and walk with Jesus. You may have noticed this by the fact that not one single Christian–for 300 years after the death of Christ–had a copy of it.

        11. Well, they weren’t able to buy the Bible off Amazon.
          But they had the Old Testament and many of the letters that would become part of the New Testament. The NT didn’t fall out of the sky in 300 AD.

        13. That’s orthodox Christian doctrine, I don’t know what to tell you. Not saying that passages can’t be mysterious or metaphorical, but that’s what it is.
          A great number of scholars have been verifying and cross checking for centuries. No one has been able to find an internal contradiction that will stand up in court. That’s arguably miraculous on its own.
          If it’s not infallible then it’s not a very strong vessel to trust in.

        14. Well stated. I am of the same mind. These “biblical literalists”, like a lot of the born-agains are so very wrong. I tell them the bible is a product of flawed humans, so it CANT be perfect of infallible. Divinely inspired, I’ll allow, but it cant be perfect.

        15. Meet me at the corner of 1st ave and 1st street…you have no idea how deep this goes….

        16. The Bible doesn’t even mention abortion. Yet the literalists and fundies have their knickers in a knot over it.

      2. None are righteous apart from faith. That’s what he’s saying. Which is consistent with the Old Testament’s “We are all infected and impure with sin” (Isaiah 64) and why everyone needs Messiah bar none. It’s all the same message.
        It’s crazy to say Paul’s an _admitted_ liar. Have you been reading Muslim critiques of the New Testament? That’s exactly the kind of thing I’ve seen before from Muslims.
        Honestly, writing Paul off as some lying quack makes you seem like a Muslim posing as a Christian. I have no idea where you’re coming from, but no branch of Christianity for 2000 years believes this.
        I have also seen this line of thinking on the History Channel. And you know you can rely on Hollywood to depict Christianity fairly….

        1. “Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us”–Deuteronomy 6:25
          Noah, Job, Zechariah and Elizabeth are all listed as righteous in the Bible as well, justified by works and the Law–the same Law that Paul refers to as “a curse” and “the law of death.”
          “If the truth of God has been spread by my lie, then why am I judged a sinner.”–Romans 3:7, in which Paul admits he is a liar.
          What lie is he telling? He answers that too…
          “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those without the Law I became like one without the Law (though I am not outside the law of God but am under the law of Christ), to win those without the Law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.”–1 Corinthians 9:20-22, in which Paul admits he is basically a chameleon who pretends to be what he is not, in order to try and win converts.
          Jesus and the 12 Apostles never did anything like this. They did not shape-shift according to their audience. Further, Paul is always talking about how he can’t stop doing all the things he is telling everyone else not to do–including hypocrisy, dishonesty, and (we have to assume) fleshly things as well.
          If you read the New Testament and came away with the understanding that Paul was a perfect and upright man, it’s time to re-read it more carefully.

        2. Come on man…here’s the context. Paul is play-acting a debate:
          “But,” someone might still argue, “how can God condemn me as a sinner if my dishonesty highlights his truthfulness and brings him more glory?” And some people even slander us by claiming that we say, “The more we sin, the better it is!” Those who say such things deserve to be condemned.
          He said ‘someone might argue’ that dishonesty is good. But “people who say such things deserver to be condemned.”
          Lying is bad everywhere in the Bible – front to back. Paul agrees.
          Read the whole chapter to get the whole context.

        3. RE shapeshifting. He’s relating to his audience by meeting them where they are intellectually and spiritually.
          That’s not dishonesty. It’s just good practice for anyone talking to a crowd. “Know your audience!” is general wisdom for giving presentations.
          It’s also empathetic. For example, some guy was going through a tough divorce at work. I tried to help him by first understanding where he was emotionally. That way I didn’t hurt him unintentionally or give him bad advice at the wrong time. I became like him by empathizing with him.

        4. OK, I did read the first chapter of Romans. I’ll grant you that I was wrong about Paul’s statement in verse 7. However, Paul is still wrong when he says this in verse 20:
          “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.”
          I already listed just a few of the people in both the Old and New Testaments were considered righteous in God’s eyes by observing the Law–sometimes in that exact wording or close to it.
          Either way, just because Paul (or whoever was writing under his name) said something doesn’t make it important to me.
          Paul isn’t Jesus. Some of what he said I agree with, other stuff I don’t. Paul is a flawed human being. He is not the Son of God. People who accept the words of a flawed human being as if he were the Son of God are committing idolatry and poor reading comprehension.
          Plus, as I keep pointing out (which you have no addressed) a lot of what is attributed to Paul is now considered pseudepigrapha by scholars on the topic. So not only are you taking the words of a flawed human being as if they were the words of the Son of God, but we don’t even know who that human being was.
          Paul’s letters should be considered commentary with some useful ideas, not the absolute truth.

        5. All the prophets were flawed human beings. So I suppose we should throw out Moses’ Torah, and Davids’ psalms and Paul’s letters and John and Ezekiel and Daniel and Matthew and Isaiah….the whole damn thing.
          But I suppose that is your goal as a Cathar.
          Honestly, if you made your argument against mindless Christian support for Israel using actual Christian theology, that’s cool. That’s what I did in my post.
          But you’re also trying to undermine Christianity itself. And thus your original goal falls on its face.

        7. So lying for jesus is ok ?
          Dammit, you just inspired met to get a bible out.

        8. Wonderful. Why don’t you start a campaign to rewrite the Bible to suit your beliefs while you’re at it?

      3. Nope.
        Have you ever tailored a message to an audience? That isn’t lying that’s common sense.
        Your minds so independent it ran away with your reason. There are depths of meaning to righteous. How righteous and in what context. A man can be righteous without being 100% righteous because that describes all of us.
        Not to mention everything you mentioned has been wrestled with and answered for over 1000 years at this point by men smarter than you or I.
        Paul didn’t contradict himself at all. My company signs new contracts all the time and it doesn’t invalidate our old ones. We also have contracts where the conditions are fulfilled and the terms no longer pertain.
        Finally, the church was ruthless about screening the NT for authenticity. They were also much closer to events at the time, and again smarter men than you or I have fought their way to the most accurate position more than a thousand years ago.

  21. In fact, I was not Saved by the Lord Jesus Christ to become Born-Again until after I’d been through an atheist phase, a New Age phase, and even a brief Luciferian phase.

    You realize that Christianity makes no sense even given its own assumptions, don’t you? Orthodox Christian theology teaches that God’s earliest creatures rebelled against him, and the religion has no explanation for why this can’t happen again and again and again. What keeps Christians in heaven from rebelling against God, for example?

    1. None of this religion stuff makes any sense to me, but I understand why it’s useful in controlling the masses and especially women.

    2. If God launches another great flood upon humanity , will we be spared ? Like really , he should advice Roosh on building the Great ROK Boat.

    3. Christians in Heaven are supposed to have been changed. There’s references in the NT to becoming something different after going to Heaven.

    4. Man, you always come through with some hard hitters. Props to you.
      When I was a kid, in a split-up family, there were 2 Sunday routines. With my mom’s side, we went to a pretty great church, the same one I’d gone to all my life, same one she’d gone to all her life, and the same one my grandparents had gone to all their lives. It was a chill place, everyone was happy & cool to one another, the sermons were uplifting & decidedly un-crazy, and most of the other church members were respected townspeople.
      My dad however remarried a crazy bitch & she drug us to many, many churches too. Each one would be stranger than the one before. Speaking in tongues, the laying-of-hands, ppl passing out in the aisles; and the sermons always seemed way scarier to me than those I was used to from my “regular” church.
      The main difference between the two, though — I realized around age 13… The ppl at the laid back, milquetoast church – like I said, they all seemed to be good townspeople. The mailman, the mayor, a few of my schoolteachers, a couple of cops, etc. But whenever I’d get to know somebody from those other churches, my stepmom’s churches….it almost never failed – they had all had some kind of “hitting rock-bottom” experience before they found Jesus and got born again.
      I’m not perfect and I don’t want to sound like one or the other was the bad or the good team. All I can say is one side creeped me way out as a kid, and the other did not. And doesn’t Jesus say something about becoming like little children again?

  22. Jesus-era post-exilic Pharisee Jews and the never-left Samaritans = the people chosen to have the Son of God come among them and nothing more.
    God has no preferred peoples.

    Jesus: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up; so that all believing in Him may have eternal life.” ~ Jesus in John 3:14-15
    John the Baptist: “Every believer in the Son possesses everlasting life”
    John, Jesus’ beloved: “For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that every one believing in Him should not be lost, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son to the world that He might condemn the world; but that He might save the world through Him. The believer in Him will not be condemned; whoever does not trust however, is already convicted because he has not confided on the only begotten Son of God.”

    As to Paul, Paul? No one needs Paul.
    Not one man who has ever lived or will ever live can rely upon Paul for anything. Paul worked as a free-agent evangelist. Paul was not an apostle. Paul was not among the 12.
    Further, none of the apostles can save you or anyone else. Only one’s belief in Jesus as the Son of God can do that.
    All anyone needs is the words of Jesus. So really, all anyone needs is Jesus words in John, Matthew and maybe Mark.
    Jesus condemns no one, ever.

    “I Myself condemn none. Yet even if I should condemn, My decision would nevertheless valid; because I am not alone, but I and He Who sent Me.” ~ Jesus in John 8:15-16
    “And if any one should hear My statements, and fail to observe them, I do not condemn him; because I do not come to the world to condemn the world, but so that I might save the world.” ~ Jesus in John 12:47

    So even if anyone slips up and fails at the commandments, that one isn’t condemned.
    God, through the sacrifice of his son, has put away the sin of the world, of every individual of the world. The good telling, the good spell — the gospel — is the declaration to all that God loves us and has washed away our sins in the life, death and resurrection of his son.
    No man needs to be a possessor of any particular quality. Whatever qualities a man possesses or lacks, however sinful, this forgiveness of sins already has happened through Jesus and it comes to us as truth from God.
    WHY JESUS? WHAT IS THE TRUE GOSPEL? HERE IS THE ONLY GOSPEL FOR EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD

    1. You’ve got an intriguing take. I’d buy you a beer & shoot the shit for sure. Let me ask you something real quick though. You seem to discount Paul – and I’m inclined to mostly agree, btw – but doing so sort of implicitly makes you a non-literalist in terms of how you take the Bible (if there’s more official or accurate terms for these ideas, sorry. I just don’t know them). So my question is, how do you decide what scriptures to take as certitudes, and what not to?
      And seriously, I’m not trying to pick a fight, I just genuinely wonder bc you seem pretty based.

      1. Your question is fine. There is no need to offer apology for your word coining.
        It’s so unlikely that Jesus carried “pocket” versions of the Torah, the Nevi’im and the Ketuvim. These were scrolls.
        Jesus taught to people who had better things to do than nitpick over the writings of the Tanakh. Jesus didn’t teach to scribes and the literate.
        For me, merely the words attributed to Jesus count. The words relating the events of Jesus count. Nothing else matters to me.
        As to the New Testament works, the works have been attributed to persons. John is an apostle. Matthew is an apostle. Mark is the apostle Peter’s companion.
        Luke, well, Luke was Paul’s assistant. And as Paul isn’t an apostle, Luke lacks relevance to me.
        Paul’s letters lack relevance to me. John’s letters seem relevant. Peter’s letter seems relevant and so does James.
        Consider this as well. Among the early people who might adopt The Way as it was then-called (Paul said so), most, if not all, would have heard about Jesus only through a line of one or two apostles (as they went in pairs). So many in one area only would have heard about Jesus through John. Others would have learned about Jesus through Matthew or even the unpublished apostles — Andrew, James (the son of Zebedee), Philip, Bartholomew/Nathanael, Thomas, James (the son of Alphaeus), Thaddaeus/Jude, and Simon the Zealot.
        Jesus asserted. Jesus never engaged in apologetics. Jesus never first proved the existence of God. Merely, Jesus asserted God’s existence.
        So it lacks relevance to me when others debate what should be read, if all should be read.
        I take my cues from Jesus. And I am confident that even if I am wrong, if the words be true in John, that’s all right. Jesus has my back.
        Cheers!

        1. Cool, I like that & I tend to agree with you. You can probably see that I’m asking your opinion in order to come to a better understanding of some of my own.
          So as you said, you focus mainly on the words & teachings of Jesus. As do I. But sometimes I’ve read those red-font words & thought, the same guy couldn’t have said X who just said Y five chapters ago. Do you ever run into that feeling? If so, how do you reconcile it? Hell, how do you reconcile at all the suspicion that 2,000 years-worth of sketchy dudes haven’t dramatically alterred even the actual words, sermons, parables or accounts of Jesus & his actions? What do you think about any or all of the Gnostic or apocryphal books that were chopped out by the early church?
          I suppose that’s a lot to ask in one day but you know, if you get a few minutes, I’d appreciate your perspective on it. Peaceyweace

        2. What I understand of the Gnostic gospels is that they are much like Deepak Chopra’s books about Jesus – books written by non-believers long after Christ’s life and death. If you look to the teachings of the gnostics, you will find practices condemned by the Old Testament and the New, alike.
          I say this having read a few of these books in my youth.

        3. I think you’re right, I skimmed one or two of them & they seemed mostly hokey. But the question still remains — bc as I’ve also heard, none of the 4 gospels were written within Jesus lifetime either. I’ve heard things like 30 – 200 years after his death. And on top of that, there are the variances between their stories (but those are even outside the scope of my “jesus’s actual words” idea)
          At any rate I appreciate the shit out of all my fellow lowlifes here. I miss the good old days when I had more time to chat.

        4. The upper limits, there, were proposed by a Marxist organization of scholars that has managed to gain popularity in many seminaries today. There is a copy of the gospel of John dated to around AD 70 (ish), which would indicate that at least one gospel could have been written as a first-hand account (John, himself, died several years after that).
          There is a popular “Q Theory” that supposes all the gospels were written based on some word-of-mouth text, but the long accepted histories of the gospels place them with contemporary authors and sources (e.g. Mark was written by John Mark based on Peter’s recollections, John was written by John the brother of James, Luke was written by the physician Luke to catalog the stories of many who walked with Jesus for his master, Theophilus).

        5. I like the Gnostic texts that support or explain Cathar ideas, but the Gnostic Gospels are trash. They’re Neoplatonic texts covered with a thin veil of Christianity to give them “authority,” which is to say, to subvert the true teachings of Jesus Christ and mislead those who lack discernment.

        6. Oh, Jesus seems to be practical and straightforward. I like him. So no, I’ve not run into that feeling.
          I totally get Jesus when he said,

          “What a skeptical race!” He exclaimed, in reply. “Until when must I remain with you? Until when must I be burdened with you?” ~ Jesus in Mark 9:19

          I’m not with the Gnostics. Also, there are many translations of the Gospels. And yet, from the earliest extant works, there have been word for word translations, which I have found better for me.

        7. And I like that Q theory. It’s certainly the one I want to put the most faith in.
          Like over to the East, you have the million texts of Buddhism – but really only one book that i know of which claims to be a transcript of Buddha’s actual teachings, written down by one if his actual disciples. And it’s remarkably down-to-earth, plain & simple.
          That’s the kind of thing I need. Clear, simple, common-sense teachings that passed through as few hands as possible after leaving their source. It’s amazing how the game if telephone can warp a religion if people let it.

        8. The thing is, the Q theory only holds if the books were written either long after the Apostles passed or by people other than those proclaimed to have written them. If Luke really did go to the living witnesses as he claimed, then he didn’t need a fifth ‘Q’ document – he met the people he was writing about. If Peter dictated Mark, then he’s an original witness and doesn’t need a Q, either. (Interestingly, the word Quran is a Syriac word meaning “lectionary” or collection of oral traditions…)
          You see the problem, here. If they were authored as we believed for over a thousand years then there is no room for Q, and if there is a Q then the entire text is suspect (in which case, how do we know anything about Jesus?).

        9. Jesus said if you don’t believe Moses you can’t believe Him. John 5:45-47.
          Paul is also explicitly an apostle as I recall. And had enough rank to call Peter on the carpet.
          We are also explicitly told to have a reason ready to answer for our hope.
          If you take your cues from Jesus, you take your cues from those He sent us and from His words before the incarnation.

        10. 1. What you recall is irrelevant. Paul proclaimed himself as an apostle. Jesus didn’t choose him.
          2. Your statement is wrong, way wrong: “Jesus said if you don’t believe Moses you can’t believe Him. “
          The snippet you present isn’t even the words said and you fail to provide the context. In the entire passage, Jesus is talking about testimony about who he is and that if he had testified about himself, his evidence would not be reliable.
          Jesus goes on to say that John the Baptist has given evidence but even his evidence is merely a man’s.
          Jesus then says:

          “Do not imagine, however, that I will accuse you before the Father. But one accuses you: Moses, in whom you trust! For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me; for he wrote about Me.”

          So here, Jesus has said that Moses foretold about Jesus. So if you believe Moses, then why don’t you believe who Jesus is as Moses foretold.
          Read the gospels more. Argue much less with others.
          Good luck!

        11. It’s right there man, Moses wrote of Jesus! How is Moses not from God then? Or have I misunderstand you? If you believe in Moses, you end up believing in Jesus. They didn’t believe Moses, so they didn’t believe in Jesus. Jesus also tells the disciples to observe whatever they bid you observe for they sit in Moses seat, Matt. 23:2. Moses is obviously not just some guy that we can ignore.
          “What you recall is irrelevant”, fair point I guess. Of course Luke in Acts says Jesus chose Paul, so if it goes out the window too, how do you justify what you keep in and what you throw out?
          I’ll take your advice under consideration and thank you for the well wishes. I suppose wishing someone well is part of the Bible you decided to leave in.

        12. You (false): “Jesus said if you don’t believe Moses you can’t believe Him. John 5:45-47.”
          Gospel of John: “Do not imagine, however, that I will accuse you before the Father. But one accuses you: Moses, in whom you trust! For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me; for he wrote about Me.”
          You have misunderstood me. Where have I written Moses is not from God?
          You (false): “They didn’t believe Moses, so they didn’t believe in Jesus.”
          Reality: Of course, Jews did. They believe in the 10 Commandments. They were given them by Moses.
          You: ” Of course Luke in Acts says Jesus chose Paul”
          Reality: And who was Luke? Paul was Luke’s employer.
          You: “I suppose wishing someone well is part of the Bible you decided to leave in.”
          Reality: Men assembled the Bible. Jesus didn’t. In the early days of The Way, the good news spread by word-of-mouth. No one would have read any of the gospels, much less Paul’s letters.
          Are you saying that people who learned of Jesus by word-of-mouth actually weren’t saved for believing merely because they didn’t read Luke? That seems to be your error-riddled belief.
          Good luck!

        13. You keep wishing me luck, but honestly it seems insincere. I’m not the only person with reading comprehension it seems, in your provided quote it says “if you had”. If, because they didn’t believe Moses, not really.
          You sounded like a red letter “ignore the OT” guy when I read you, so I misread. For that I honestly do apologize.
          Of course they were saved, why do you think I think otherwise?
          Reality: God assembled the Bible, God used men for His purposes to do so.
          I may have another misreading coming, what do you mean nobody would have read Paul’s letters? Who was he writing to? Did he just put the letters in a box?
          Finally, the vast majority of Christians have at all places and at all times accepted the 27 books of the NT as scripture including the writings of Paul. We also have more of a historical record than is commonly recognized, with scripture fragments dating from the 2nd century.Any criticism that can be leveled at that, how can it not be leveled against your own position? Did they all lack God’s guidance and were merely waiting for someone with holy scissors to come in and start snipping?

        14. What you believe about me lacks relevancy. Good luck with that if you believe I should think it otherwise
          You (a-hole-ish): “Of course they were saved, why do you think I think otherwise?”
          Reality: It’s you who has implied people are somehow incomplete if they reject Paul. Those are you thoughts and not mine. Why attribute those to me?
          Facts remain. Paul is no apostle. Jesus didn’t appoint him. The only people who claimed that Paul was an apostle were Paul and Luke.
          Paul is not Jesus. Luke is not Jesus.
          You (silly-minded): “what do you mean nobody would have read Paul’s letters? Who was he writing to? Did he just put the letters in a box?”
          Reality: Likely, the ones who read Paul’s letters were local church elders and their inner circle staffers in Corinth, etc.
          So? Who cares. Paul is not Jesus.
          You’re arguing thus: GK Chesterton is a godly man, a self-appointed evangelical. He wrote letters to people. Thus, you can’t be a Christian if you fail to read GK Chesterton’s letters.
          Is GK Chesterton Jesus? Why should anyone accept his views? Jesus didn’t appoint GK Chesterton to be an apostle.
          You: “… the vast majority of Christians have at all places and at all times accepted the 27 books of the NT as scripture including the writings of Paul. “
          Reality: English has a word for the clumsy phrase vast majority. That word is most.
          It’s irrelevant that most Christians in the days of publishing have accepted X.
          In the early days of Christianity, people accepted by word-of-mouth, the good spell as told by one or two apostles and later others from a line of descendant disciples.
          I’ll pull a you here: You seem to be a Pharisee legalist and not a follower of Jesus.
          You’re hung up on religion. Yet, Jesus was irreligious, clearly. Jesus routinely violated the practices of the post-exilic Jew religion and that is what brought trouble to him.
          Demanding that people must believe in Paul’s letters is merely a position of someone trying to protect his particular sect or religi-business itself.
          Jesus made no demands on the people.
          All are saved regardless of being a homo, a Muzzie, an atheist, a Jew, a Hindu, and so on. But only those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God whom God sacrificed us to save us of our sins gets everlasting life.
          No one needs to read any stupid letters of Paul or even any of the Gospels to be saved or to have everlasting life.
          Yet, here you are. Paul’s letters are merely weapons for argument for people like you. The entirety of Jesus seems to have flown right past you.
          Good luck!

        15. Is it relevant that God said He would guide us? Us only or Christians in general? You bet it’s relevant.
          That’s not what you said, you said I believed people couldn’t be saved by word of mouth that they had to have Paul at the time. Leaving your libel to one side…
          I am not arguing “thus”. I am saying Paul claimed to have a calling from God and to be teaching doctrine. I am also saying his words have been accepted as scripture and it had better be relevant what Christians believe or God is not guiding us.
          Vast majority implies a large majority. Most can mean half plus one. That’s what words mean in English, it allows us to make distinctions that matter.
          Jesus was irreligious? By no means and by His own words. He just didn’t take to putting the commandments of men over God, He even reproved the Samaritan woman for bad DOCTRINE, for worshipping at the WRONG PLACE.
          Prove I’m a Pharisee legalist and prove your own position while you’re at it. You use the words of reason like “relevant” and “thus” but it’s playing pretend for you. You make proclamations and follow it up with simile. That is not reason. There are no therefores or “all x are y”. Just proclamation, simile, and a pose.
          Why should I accept your cut and paste Bible? I’m a Pharisee while you take it upon yourself to carve up the word of God and act shocked when someone balks at this?

        16. You (wrongly): ”
          Reality: Most is an Old English word mast meaning greatest number, amount, extent.
          You (disingenuously): “Is it relevant that God said He would guide us?”
          I’ve not made that claim.
          You: ” I am saying Paul claimed to have a calling from God and to be teaching doctrine. I am also saying his words have been accepted as scripture and it had better be relevant what Christians believe or God is not guiding us.”

          “Most assuredly I tell you,” replied Jesus, “that unless any one is born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” John 3:3
          “Most assuredly I tell you,” replied Jesus, “that if a man is not born from water and Spirit, he is unable to enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born from the flesh is flesh; and that which is born from the Spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The Spirit indeed, breathes where He pleases and you hear His voice; but yet you neither see where He comes from, nor where He goes: so it is with all born of the Spirit. John 3:5-8

          What do yo believe Jesus was talking about here? Religion is born of the flesh.
          No one can be born again who relies upon man-made religion. No one can cleanse himself of his false beliefs (water) and fails to worship in spirit (be loving, without man-made religion).
          Until men reject man-made religion and ask for the living water, they can not be born again. Until they become born from water (become cleansed from man-made religion) and spirit (become loving as God is spirit, God is love), they will not experience the truth, the life and the way.

          “The time will come, however, and is even now here, when the real worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; because, indeed, the Father desires such to be His worshippers. God is Spirit; and those worshipping Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:23-24

          Religious indoctrinates can bible-thump over the scriptures, but they will not find life in them. Jesus said so.

          “You search the Scriptures, because you imagine in them to have eternal life; and they are the witnesses about Me: yet you do not desire to come to Me, so that you might have life.” Jesus in John 5:39-40

          It’s not about books and religion. The irreligious Jesus never created religion. The guy hated religion so much so that he violated the rules consistently and on purpose to provoke the ire of religious zealots.

          “Whoever is not on My side, is against Me; and whoever does not gather with Me, scatters.” ~ Jesus in Matthew 12:30
          “Not every one who says to Me, ‘Master Master!’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but only those who do the will of My Father Who is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Master Master!’ have we not preached in Your Name? and have we not cast out demons in Your Name? and in Your Name have we not done many wonders?’ And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you traders in lawlessness!’ ~ Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23

          You will fail to gather if you bible-thump. And what is the law again? LOVING.

          Jesus answered him “LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL AND WITH ALL YOUR INTELLECT. That command is first, and most important. But the second is equal to it: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF. In these two commands are comprised the whole law and the prophets.” ~ Jesus in Matthew 22:27-39

          “The first,” answered Jesus, “is, ISRAEL, LISTEN! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND ALL YOUR SOUL, AND ALL YOUR INTELLECT, AND ALL YOUR STRENGTH. That is the first command; and the second is like it, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOUR OWN SELF. No other commands are greater than these.” Jesus in Mark 12:29-31

          “If you establish yourselves in My doctrine, you will in reality be My disciples; and you will recognise the truth, and the truth will set you free.” ~ Jesus in John 8:31

          “If, therefore, any one shall make light of one of the least of its commands, and shall teach men so, he shall be declared the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever teaches them and acts up to them, he shall be great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that if your righteousness does not surpass that of the professors and Pharisees, you can by no means enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” ~ Jesus in Matthew 5:19-20
          You (stupidly): Jesus was irreligious? By no means and by His own words.”
          What’s next? Are you going to tell us Jesus was a Jew. For if you do and if you believe Jesus as the Son of God, then you are forced to claim God is a Jew. And it’s so unlikely for he omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the universe to need religion.
          The irreligious Jesus never created religion. The guy hated religion so much so that he violated the rules consistently and on purpose to provoke the ire of religious zealots.
          Jesus mocked religion. Jesus broke all of the Jews’ rules. Why do you think they killed him?
          Good luck!

        17. You (wrongly): “Vast majority implies a large majority. Most can mean half plus one. That’s what words mean in English…”
          Reality: Most is an Old English word mast meaning greatest number, amount, extent. Both vast and majority are Latinate words.
          Vast entered English in the 1570s from the Old French. It means being of great extent or size. Majority entered English in the 1550s from Old French. It means condition of being greater, superiority. So vast majority is a redundant phrase.
          English speakers have one word to express this concept. That word is most.
          You (disingenuously): “Is it relevant that God said He would guide us?”
          I’ve not made that claim.
          You: ” I am saying Paul claimed to have a calling from God and to be teaching doctrine. I am also saying his words have been accepted as scripture and it had better be relevant what Christians believe or God is not guiding us.”

          “Most assuredly I tell you,” replied Jesus, “that unless any one is born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” John 3:3
          “Most assuredly I tell you,” replied Jesus, “that if a man is not born from water and Spirit, he is unable to enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born from the flesh is flesh; and that which is born from the Spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The Spirit indeed, breathes where He pleases and you hear His voice; but yet you neither see where He comes from, nor where He goes: so it is with all born of the Spirit. John 3:5-8

          What do yo believe Jesus was talking about here? Religion is born of the flesh.
          No one can be born again who relies upon man-made religion. No one can cleanse himself of his false beliefs (water) and fails to worship in spirit (be loving, without man-made religion).
          Until men reject man-made religion and ask for the living water, they can not be born again. Until they become born from water (become cleansed from man-made religion) and spirit (become loving as God is spirit, God is love), they will not experience the truth, the life and the way.

          “The time will come, however, and is even now here, when the real worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; because, indeed, the Father desires such to be His worshippers. God is Spirit; and those worshipping Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:23-24

          Religious indoctrinates can bible-thump over the scriptures, but they will not find life in them. Jesus said so.

          “You search the Scriptures, because you imagine in them to have eternal life; and they are the witnesses about Me: yet you do not desire to come to Me, so that you might have life.” Jesus in John 5:39-40

          It’s not about books and religion. The irreligious Jesus never created religion. The guy hated religion so much so that he violated the rules consistently and on purpose to provoke the ire of religious zealots.

          “Whoever is not on My side, is against Me; and whoever does not gather with Me, scatters.” ~ Jesus in Matthew 12:30
          “Not every one who says to Me, ‘Master Master!’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but only those who do the will of My Father Who is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Master Master!’ have we not preached in Your Name? and have we not cast out demons in Your Name? and in Your Name have we not done many wonders?’ And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you traders in lawlessness!’ ~ Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23

          You will fail to gather if you bible-thump. And what is the law again? LOVING.

          Jesus answered him “LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL AND WITH ALL YOUR INTELLECT. That command is first, and most important. But the second is equal to it: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF. In these two commands are comprised the whole law and the prophets.” ~ Jesus in Matthew 22:27-39

          “The first,” answered Jesus, “is, ISRAEL, LISTEN! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND ALL YOUR SOUL, AND ALL YOUR INTELLECT, AND ALL YOUR STRENGTH. That is the first command; and the second is like it, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOUR OWN SELF. No other commands are greater than these.” Jesus in Mark 12:29-31

          “If you establish yourselves in My doctrine, you will in reality be My disciples; and you will recognise the truth, and the truth will set you free.” ~ Jesus in John 8:31

          “If, therefore, any one shall make light of one of the least of its commands, and shall teach men so, he shall be declared the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever teaches them and acts up to them, he shall be great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that if your righteousness does not surpass that of the professors and Pharisees, you can by no means enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” ~ Jesus in Matthew 5:19-20
          You (stupidly): Jesus was irreligious? By no means and by His own words.”
          What’s next? Are you going to tell us Jesus was a Jew. For if you do and if you believe Jesus as the Son of God, then you are forced to claim God is a Jew. And it’s so unlikely for he omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the universe to need religion.
          The irreligious Jesus never created religion. The guy hated religion so much so that he violated the rules consistently and on purpose to provoke the ire of religious zealots.
          Jesus mocked religion. Jesus broke all of the Jews’ rules. Why do you think they killed him?
          Good luck!

        18. I believe in every verse you cited, you’re arguing against someone who isn’t me and isn’t here. Salvation is through faith in Christ, the actual living Christ. Our argument is that I’m saying my religion isn’t man made it’s God made. While you sit in judgement over what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t on your own judgement, you have the audacity to claim my religion is man made?
          Greatest number versus far greatest number. My point still stands and you still can’t read. Greatest means biggest 51 is greater than 49. 99 is vastly greater than 1.
          You lost me on the last bit, of course Jesus was a Jew. Jewish mom, circumcised, worshipped in a temple and a synagogue. He was Incarnated as a Jew. The God portion incarnated into a human person that was Jewish.
          So the bits where Jesus praises the commandments, tells a woman to worship at Jerusalem, and tells his disciples to observe the guy in Moses’ seat all get the axe too? It might be simpler for you to tell us what’s left in your matchbook scripture.

        19. You: “Our argument …”
          Who comprise our? It’s merely me and you.
          Should I pull an alike lame attempt at rhetoric and claim everyone but you is with me?
          You: …I’m saying my religion isn’t man made it’s God made.”
          Reality: If you’re a church goer, your religion is man-made. That is inescapable fact. Men devised all of the rites and rituals.
          God did not. Jesus did not.
          You: “While you sit in judgement over what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t…”
          Reality: Men assembled the bible by accepting some works and rejecting others.
          Yet, facts remain. No one need ever see a bible to be forgiven for sin (all are already, regardless of anything) and those who accept that Jesus is the Son of God who is why they have been saved get everlasting life. There are no exceptions to this.
          You: …you still can’t read.
          Reality: Someone has shitty English skills, but that one isn’t me. Most trumps the idiot’s way of saying it “vast majority”.
          Those who try to impress speak clumsy Latinate English. They say stupid expressions such as multiple gunshots rather than more than one gunshot or merely gunshots. The ‘s’ at the end of gunshots implies more than one.
          You: “…of course Jesus was a Jew. Jewish mom…
          Jesus was not Jew. If Jesus were a Jew, he was a failure of a Jew, a horrible failure. Jesus violated the tenets of Jews, repeatedly and consistently. The Jews killed him for it.
          Jesus worked on the Sabbath healing people. Jesus provoked the Pharisee Jews. Jesus disturbed the flow of activity in the Jew temples.
          To claim Jesus was a Jew is to claim that an atheist raised by strict Catholic parents who sent the atheist to church on Sundays and Sunday school and later Catholic high school is still a Catholic.
          As the son of God, Jesus was not a Jew. Those who claim Jesus was a Jew and also is the son of God are forced to claim that God is a Jew. It is laughable to believe that God, the all-creator of everything has religion.
          Jesus was the son of God. Jesus had no religion. Jesus was against religion. Jesus was irreligious. Jesus opposed religion outright.
          Jesus did not need religion. Why would the perfect Jesus need religion? Why would Jesus being fully in union with God need religion?
          Men make religion for men. You would have the world believe that Jesus was a Jew and if Jesus were perfect (he was), then Jesus would have gone around saying, “Score yourself a good Tanakh and follow religion like the hypocrites.”
          Jesus was thorough irreligious. Jesus preached a message against being religious (Matthew 6:5-6).
          You (delusionally): “It might be simpler for you to tell us what’s left in your matchbook scripture.
          Reality: You have been so schooled at every turn.
          Good luck bible-thumper!

        20. I meant our as in me and you.
          They didn’t kill Jesus for violating the law THEY VIOLATED THE LAW TO KILL JESUS.
          Being a Jew is a physical ethnicity as well as a religion. There are atheist Jews but no atheist Catholics.
          You’re using a definition of religion you’ve made up.
          Have I been schooled? I mean have I really? Exactly how? Shouting the same thing over and over like a zealous Muslim is “schooling” me?
          Reality: you won an imaginary fist fight in your own mind.

        21. You: “They didn’t kill Jesus for violating the law THEY VIOLATED THE LAW TO KILL JESUS.”
          Reality: They killed Jesus for breaking the Jew rules, e.g., healing on the Sabbath.
          Reality: You lost an imaginary fist fight in your own mind.
          Better luck next time!

        22. Then why did they need false witnesses who contradict? If he was guilty?
          Prove your point, you’re just pontificating. Prove it I dare you.
          And drop the passive aggressive good luck, honesty might suit you.

        24. Why could not people of the 1940s follow Hitler and Stalin? Why can’t someone follow capitalism and socialism?
          Jesus is the Son of God. Paul is merely some guy.
          Good luck trying to follow both.

        25. Where does Paul contradict Christ? Not trying to argue just asking a honest question. Paul never broke from Torah even after coming to Christ.

    2. Saved by grace and faith. But one does need to repent their sins. No free sin binge passes.

      1. So you say. Show me where Jesus said that.
        Would Jesus prefer that all stop sinning. Sure, that is likely.
        If men do not, does that erase what Jesus has done for mankind? No.
        Facts remain. God sacrificed Jesus for the sins of mankind. And all who believe in Jesus get everlasting life. There are no exceptions.
        Jesus: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up; so that all believing in Him may have eternal life.”
        Jesus doesn’t also say, oh and if you read the fine print, you would know you can’t sin from the moment you learn about me.
        They are getting that everlasting life not matter what, whether or not you believe they are.
        If you doubt, you are convicted. John the Beloved told you so.
        John, Jesus’ beloved: “For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that every one believing in Him should not be lost, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son to the world that He might condemn the world; but that He might save the world through Him. The believer in Him will not be condemned; whoever does not trust however, is already convicted because he has not confided on the only begotten Son of God.”
        What about all of those “Christians” who cheat on their spouses right up to their deaths? If they believe in Jesus are they denied everlasting life? After all, Jesus already covered for their sins.
        If you claim they are denied everlasting life, you stand against Jesus, John the Baptist testifying about Jesus and John, Jesus’ beloved also testifying about Jesus.
        And what about all those “Christians” who took up arms during war and who murdered others of mankind, even other Christians. Did Jesus lie to them and not give them everlasting life?
        Good luck!

        1. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you can accept Christ and continue to sin habitually. The word repent means “to change” so if you honestly repent of your sins then you change your ways. It doesn’t mean you’re perfect though. In Matthew Christ is telling would be believers to depart from him because they kept sinning and didn’t actually repent.
          Matthew 7:21-23New King James Version (NKJV)
          I Never Knew You
          21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

        2. So you have sinned since learning about Jesus? Are you sinless right now? Oops. By your belief, you’re going to hell.
          “Not every one who says to Me, ‘Master Master!’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but only those who do the will of My Father Who is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Master Master!’ have we not preached in Your Name? and have we not cast out demons in Your Name? and in Your Name have we not done many wonders?’ And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you traders in lawlessness!’ ~ Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23
          And what is the law again? LOVING. What does Jesus command of you?

          Jesus answered him “LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL AND WITH ALL YOUR INTELLECT. That command is first, and most important. But the second is equal to it: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF. In these two commands are comprised the whole law and the prophets.” ~ Jesus in Matthew 22:27-39

          “The first,” answered Jesus, “is, ISRAEL, LISTEN! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND ALL YOUR SOUL, AND ALL YOUR INTELLECT, AND ALL YOUR STRENGTH. That is the first command; and the second is like it, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOUR OWN SELF. No other commands are greater than these.” Jesus in Mark 12:29-31

          Jesus has taken care of all sins for all time, past, present and future. You are powerless to do what Jesus has done.
          If you believe that Jesus has done so, you get everlasting life. Otherwise, you’re a practical atheist.
          Good luck!

        3. Everybody sins, I said we weren’t made perfect but you can’t continue to willfully sin.
          Hebrew 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins
          Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
          You can’t say “well I’m a nice guy and love people” and keep doing the things above and expect Christ to accept you with open arms.

        4. Who has claimed you can keep willfully sinning? Where can I read that in these comments?
          Hebrews is irrelevant. If Jesus didn’t say it, it doesn’t count.
          Do you believe Jesus left you the task of finishing redeeming yourself?
          Jesus put away your sins already. Jesus did all the work, already. You have a free, no-strings pardon of all your sins.
          You get everlasting life if you believe that Jesus is the son of God and why you have pardon for your sins. You die to eternity if you don’t.
          Those who tell you that you will gain pardon because you believe or do something, have misled you. By following them, to gain pardon then, you must have confidence in yourself to achieve. You must cling to yourself, glorifying yourself should you believe you have succeeded.
          Isn’t true right now that you believe that if you do rituals, prayers and other sacrifices, you will have kept your part of the bargain? And so, isn’t this what drives you to church and to do all of your rituals and prayers? Isn’t this what comforts you? Isn’t this what makes you believe your brand of religion is right?
          Jesus said, “Reflect! you have been made well; sin no more, so that nothing worse may come to you .” Is it likely that Jesus would have liked for all men to stop sinning, sure.
          Facts remain. God sacrificed Jesus for the sins of mankind. And all who believe in Jesus get everlasting life. There are no exceptions.
          The good spell (gospel) from John is clear:
          • God so loved the world
          • God gave us Jesus
          • All who believe in Jesus are not lost but have everlasting life
          • Once you come to believe in Jesus, Jesus won’t lose you
          • Jesus isn’t here to condemn the world and wipe it away
          • Jesus is here even now to save the world
          • Those who don’t believe in Jesus and thus don’t trust Jesus have been convicted and will get justice
          • Those who trust in Jesus and believe in Jesus say so freely to any and thus let their conduct be seen because they have come to the light, which is God.
          • It is the design, purpose, aim, object, will of God for everyone of mankind who understands, experience, receive Jesus himself should have everlasting life
          • The word of God alone, that which is loving is what gives life and life everlasting, for God is love (“The Spirit is the life-giver”)
          • Religion, religious teaching and being pious to religious teaching is worth nothing as (“the body is worth nothing”)
          • Religious, attending temple, following ritual in no way gets anyone to God and fails to yield everlasting life.
          • Only through Jesus himself and his word and belief in Jesus by which anyone gets everlasting life because the “it” Jesus talks about is the word given by Jesus and not the teaching of men in temples and synagogues precisely because Jesus has the word directly from God.
          Dude, you have made your position known to me. There is little reason to keep repeating yourself.
          Good luck!

        5. That makes no sense to say once you accept Christ you can do whatever you like considering he preached following the Torah, which is a guide to living and what sin is. We are told to be like Christ, Christ followed the Torah. People shouldn’t willfully sin because they believe grace covers all.

        6. Again, who has claimed you can keep willfully sinning? Where can I read that in these comments?
          I agree. You are told by other men to be like Christ. Jesus didn’t tell you that, however.
          Follow your men. I’ll follow Jesus.
          Jesus told anyone who would listen this:

          Jesus answered him “LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL AND WITH ALL YOUR INTELLECT. That command is first, and most important. But the second is equal to it: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF. In these two commands are comprised the whole law and the prophets.” ~ Jesus in Matthew 22:27-39
          “The first,” answered Jesus, “is, ISRAEL, LISTEN! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND ALL YOUR SOUL, AND ALL YOUR INTELLECT, AND ALL YOUR STRENGTH. That is the first command; and the second is like it, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOUR OWN SELF. No other commands are greater than these.” Jesus in Mark 12:29-31

          Good luck!

  23. Jews have propagandized the dispensationalist nonsense to American Christians that Israel fulfills some spooky “bible prophecy,” when it shows instead the ordinary reality that people get ideas from books. They have done this to make it easier to play these Christians for suckers so that these believers will support giving Israel more gibs.

    1. As if they don’t already get enough money from our government, they’ve made commercials with the audacity to ask Christians to send them money directly to pay for, I think it was hungry children, due to the ongoing conflicts with the Palestinians. They are literally one of the richest countries per capita on the earth, getting huge sums of money from our government, with the most vibrant entreprenuer culture in the world, and they ask Christians for more money, for literally no reason.

  24. It’s the born again Christian movement in America that’s rabidly pro-Israel. The Catholic and Orthodox churches don’t turn a blind eye to Israel’s conduct.
    It was mostly the Evangelicals who supported a horrific foreign policy but now many Evangelicals are finally waking up to the fact that it’s not all good to blindly support Israel.

    1. Although they seem to turn a blind eye to Palestinian conduct and the conduct of Muslims against their brothers and sisters. The Archbishop of Canterbury has been strongest about this and I never would have guessed it in a million years.

    2. I do not understand why we should support palestinian murders.
      It is not Israel that sends terrorists all over the world to kill innocent people.
      Again, by their fruits ye shall know them.

    1. I do wonder about the fixation on Jews. It doesn’t exactly fit with the site’s masculine self improvement mission.

        2. I suspect all tits of mind control.

        4. You know they’re monster with a name like Ashley. Otherwise her plume handle would be something like ‘flat skrillex bitch’.

      2. As you speak, jews are busy chopping dickheads. This subject ain’t done and overwith. Ooh no. There’s more poking at the jews to come. We have yet to begin poking at the jews. Muzzie dickwhacks go on to whack big heads too. This puzzle is no where near to being put together.

      3. Yeah don’t bother learning game. The reason you’re not getting laid or money is because of the Jews… seems like an excuse to me. It’s either the Jew or the black guy or the woman. How is it alpha to blame others and whine? I thought the neomasculine guy takes his destiny in his own hands?

      4. RoK seems to have given up on the getting game and being fit narrative and has begun to flirt … no wait, enter into a long-term relationship with the alt.right. Look out for Pepe the Frog and anime girls wearing SS uniforms. After all, it’s all about da (((jooz))).

    2. It’s like a nervous tic, the minute Israel comes up they agree with the hard Left. They’re wrong about everything but that one thing.

  27. He talks about supporting Israel, “no matter what” implying horrors. Like what? Beheadings? Flying airplanes into buildings? Why can’t Israel still be the chosen race? Wasn’t St Paul addressing gentiles in his writings? He is known as the Apostle to the gentiles, and was always defending them from those in the Church who wanted to make them like Jews
    I too, am pro-Israel, and so I shall remain, unless given serious reason to change

    1. How bout “even though they mooch billions in foreign aid despite giving nothing back” and “local variants overwhelmingly and consistently voting for recognizably civilization-destroying goals”?

    2. It is interesting that you chose “flying airplanes into buildings” as an example.

  28. Religion of any sort is generally a crutch and used to keep the peasants in check. Not a popular opinion on ROK I know.

    2. I wanna know what happened to ROK in general… It’s become too much about politics and less about self-improvement.

        1. Yes, so I’m going to submit an article titled “Why the Flat Earth theory is the truth and proves that Galileo was a globalist mangina cuck.”

        2. I doubt it…you seem more like the “criticize from the sidelines” type than the “put yourself in the arena” type.

    3. Crutch makes sense when you’re a cripple. And manlier men than me have seen the need for it.

    1. They do on mine as well. My point was only that what he preached was and remains controversial in regards to his views on the Old Testament.

      1. I see. Unable to speak to that, as I’ve only read the wisdom books of the OT. Nonetheless, zionist influence is interesting and eye – opening subject. Looking forward to more of your perspective. Don’t hold back, brother.

        1. The wisdom books pretty much can’t be beat, but the prophets are a worthwhile read. I’d recommend Isaiah to start, then move your way around (just keep away from Ezekiel until you’re ready – it’s a weird book).
          It’s worthwhile to have some kind of history book handy when you’re reading the prophets. The historical situation of Israel and the Middle East as a whole was different when each was written, and that historical insight can help out a lot when it comes to understanding.

  31. Good effort by the author, but he’s spinning his wheels, I’m afraid. I’ve tried many times to break down this heresy in those you subscribe to it — call it what you will: Christian Zionism, Dispensationalism, Darbyism, Scofieldism, etc. — and have used about every argument available to me, but I don’t think I’ve ever made a dent in anyone who adheres to such beliefs. Israel and Jews are objects of idolatry for these hayseed heretics.

  32. Guys, welcome to Islam, we follow the correct covenant from the one Lord. You get to love Jesus and meet him soon too

  33. Sorry if I jump the gun here, I had to post before even finishing the article as I am very passionate on this matter. If you are born again, follower of Yehushua Hamasiach, Christ the Lord, creator and master of all – you ARE THE CHOSEN PPL. YOU ARE THE ISRAELITES. There is neither Greek (gentile) or Jew in the kingdom of God. But all are spiritually born as Israelites.
    Christians who advocate Israel first or Zionism are CUCKS. Might as well watch their wives get reamed out by rapacious migrants and be told to be grateful for the experience. If you foolish “Churchianity Christians” don’t wake up – read about sabbatai zevi and his anointed successor Jacob frank. And yes, it does tie in with the Illuminati

  34. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !aw143d:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    !aw143d:
    ➽➽
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash433FinderLittlePay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!aw143l..,…

  35. – Neo-cons
    – Main advocates for abortion
    – Main advocates of homosexuality/transgender rights
    – Hollywood
    – promoters of racial movements like BLM
    – promoters of sexually explicit, racial and explicit music such as rap
    – Biggest gambling moguls.
    – Parasitic billionaire philanthropists like M Soros.
    – Wall Street
    – 9/11?
    You cannot just brush all this aside without asking yourself who’s running the whole show and who’s been destroying the west, its values and its youth for the last 70 years?

  37. michael w. – you’ve written a book on freemasonry from the looks of it. Can you say how if at all that fits into the evolution of your thoughts?

    1. I thoroughly enjoyed my time in Masonry, and even wrote a book about its symbolism before I left. However, I became Born Again after a couple years in the Lodge–at which point I decided to leave and pursue Jesus instead, and unpublished my book. My time there had a very positive effect on the development of my mind and character.

      1. Thanks for your forthright reply. You must know some of the things that are said about masonry (or some branches / lodges) i.e. that (leaving aside the more garish claims) there is an esoteric side to some masonic ideas. Did you find it challenging to negotiate a path from masonry to christianity or was it a non-issue (I am aware masonry is supposed to be theistic but otherwise non-judgemental)

        1. Masonry, to me, is kind of like “Christianity without Christ.” It teaches brotherly love, treating people well, upright conduct, and faith in God. It was exactly what I was looking for at the time when I joined.
          However, once my relationship with Jesus began and I started to study the Christian life and what it meant, I felt that I could not necessarily agree with some of the more “universalist” aspects of Freemasonry. I now believe that universalism is simply not compatible with the statement in which Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.”
          The most difficult part of the transition was having to find a new social circle, since nearly all my social time was spent at the Lodge. Other than that it was a non-issue.

        2. thanks for explaining. Sounds like your path was clear for you and it was a fairly natural evolution. You did mention you something about a Luciferian stage so I was wondering whether that was during your masonic phase, but from your description it doesn’t sound like it. I imagine masonry can provide one with a degree of camaraderie, but as you indicate it is a somewhat broad church without actually being a church.

  38. Very good article. I for one am sick of the western world constantly pandering to the whims of an obnoxious Jewish state that very ironically is pursuing its own holocaust against its neighbors in a bid to create living space for its population by expanding its borders since its inception.
    Israel was an ill thought out idea and was not an adequate final solution to the worlds jewish problem.

    1. Geopolitical insight from the guy who thought it was a good idea to open a second front against Russia…during winter…

      1. This is not Adolf Hitler of the 3rd Reich..
        He had better ideas on what to do with problematic Jews though than anything in the last 70 years.
        The Russians had a few good ideas as themselves , I believe up until 1917 Jews could not work in hospitals but unfortunately they did not continue in this vein.

  39. There would be so much less conflict in the world if the jews had been given half of Utah to share with the Mormons instead of putting Israel in the middle east.

  42. In my country (Brazil) christian believe Jews are a cursed people who betrayed and murdered the Son of God. There’s absolutely no reason for a christian to support Jews any more than they support any infidel. That’s right, Jews are infidels and they should be treated as such.
    Should they have their own homeland? Of course, we need a place to deport them.

    1. Really I thought Brazil was more enslaved by multiculturalism than the US and Europe.

      1. I know all of this. You’re right to think that south americans are multicultural people, and that is natural giving the fact that we’re all mongrels. I, for instance, have italian, dutch, african and nativa brazilian blood in my veins. Most people can’t define my etnicity just by looking at me.
        But we’ve been like this since the beginning, since the colonization times. We never had a national racial or cultural identity, instead we’re a bunch of microsocieties whithin a nation, united only by religion and language.
        We assimiled aspects of every culture who colonized us, from Germans to Africans, and even though we have all the problems you can imagine caused by multiculturalism, we will end up adapting to it because the logical result of diverse societies is all diversity being destroyed, since the groups are constantly mixing up and assimilating.
        North Americans and Europeans, on the other hand, with their strong racial and cultural identities, will never adapt to a multicultural enviroment. You will either be wiped out (this is already happening, as the goal of mass immigration is white genocide), or you will start a race war. In this dire situation, the races will divide, like it happens in prisons, and claim different territories to prepare for the eventual battles between the different etinic groups.
        You won’t become like Brazil because there’s no room for adaptation. Your people won’t assimilate the culture of those who are migrating there, and vice versa. It is impossible to adapt the western cultural identity to multiculturalism. Instead, the western culture will be replaced by the cultures of those who are migrating there. So I think by 2042 Europe will look more like the Middle East and Africa, while Brazil will be on the process to built national cultural and racial identity.
        Your people are being replaced, the best you can do to fight this is to breeding white children and raising them under your values.

  43. “The red sea pedestrians know. Gimme the keys to the camel.”
    – Ghandi

  44. Israel was established in the 40s. Any Christian that believes that it’s biblical is a cuckservative pussy cake one step away from accepting drag queens and other communist liberal bullshit.

  45. I wish the Israeilis all the best, and if they want to treat the Palestinians the way the SS and NKVD treated the Poles I won’t shed a single tear.
    But if they are going to do that they need to do it by themselves and with their own blood, not ours. Half of our foreign policy problems are because of the Israelis so we need to untie that damned boulder from our necks.
    The Israelis are perfectly capable of defending themselves. Just take the Six Day War for example; they destoyed four different air forces on the ground in less than five hours and then beat the piss out of the Arab armies until we made them stop. And you are telling me that this same military, that now has nuclear weapons, needs us to hold their hand?

  46. White people are so easy to trick. It’s just hilarious. Just like this guy, who suddenly becomes a devote Christian.
    Jesus was a Jew and used his knowledge to start a new religion. This religion was spread by violence and forced conversions. The Jews saw him as a scammer. The Romans saw him as a scammer. Even the native Europeans were suspicious about this new religion from the desert.
    And then came Muhammad. Another magical desert dweller who claimed to be the true Messenger of God. Of course ‘God’ wanted him to convert people, otherwise he had the right to kill, rape and plunder these non-believers.
    I don’t think Christianity is 100% fake, since it’s derived from older religions, but people should realize that the first Bibles stated that the Earth was flat and stoning women was an appropriate punishment according to God. It’s Semitic savagery at it’s finest.

  47. Jesus said “I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law”. God laid down His rules in the Old Testament. But of course, it’s impossible as a human to live a completely sinless life. Basically before Christ, there was zero chance of anyone making it to heaven. So God delivered a Messiah, and he used the Jews at that time to do so. The Jews didn’t understand what God’s definition of a Messiah was. The Jews of whom only saw things from the perspective of the current material world were expecting a warrior king that was going to destroy Rome and take over the world. Jesus came as a Messiah to bring about the possibility to humans of salvation. Forgiveness. This salvation could then unlock the gates of heaven for a sinful imperfect human as long as they make the effort to continue to follow God’s laws, but live a life of repentance for their sins. The Jews didn’t understand that concept at that time and were disappointed. The Pharisees, of whom were really just evil men that really just wanted to keep their powerful positions in society, probably did not want any Messiah. They were typically wealthy men with high positions in society. They saw Jesus as an imposter that could ruin that along with the fact that Jesus had already chosen his apostles and not them, so they had the guy killed. Of course satan was spiritually working through the jewish priests and Judas to murder Jesus as well.
    The Catholic Church is the new Israel. It is the oldest existing organization in the world. But there is still an ongoing satanic effort (a spiritual war) to bring down the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church as been infiltrated by marxists. The past several centuries were spent destroying the Catholic monarchies and plunging nations into societies based on secular humanism.
    What’s the difference between the Catholic Church and any other non-denominational Christian church? Only an ordained Catholic priest has the supernatural power to transform bread into the body of Christ; the Eucharist, Transubstantiation.
    The good news: The Catholic Church will reign once again through the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart. All democracies and republics will fall. Along with that, jewish money power will collapse. FEMINISM will be eliminated. Natural law will be restored and women will once again need to depend upon men as God intended rather than the state as satan intends, of which is thievery and redistribution of wealth from men to women through welfare, affirmative action, “woman’s rights, etc.

  48. I bought into the whole “Israel is the good guys and the Arabs are just
    hatefull assholes” narriative for a long time. Then I listened to a
    balanced history of the Zionist & Arab conflict starting around
    1870. It changed everything I ever thought about the whole issue. If
    anyone is interested it is a podcast called MartyrMade by Darryl Cooper.
    Fear & Loathing in the New Jerusalem.

    1. I used to as well but then I saw Jews were supporting Muslim mass immigration to the West, both Jews in Israel and Western countries support this meanwhile Israel has the harshest and most discriminatory immigration policies on Earth.
      One of the underlying reasons why most Western people support Israel is because they consider Israel “white” and the Arabs are colored. The reality is different.

  49. “Marching to Zion”, free on Youtube, is a must-watch documentary debunking every theological belief that cuckservative evangelicals hold regarding Israel. Christian love for Israel comes from fundamental misunderstandings and misinterpretations about their own religious tenets, and an ignorance of Jewish religious tenets. Highly recommended.
    To the author: Thanks for your response to this comment in the past, glad you got some use out of the video

  50. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee
    Mainstream American Christians have been blessing Modern Israel since it’s inception. It’s practically all you see on Sunday Sermon Shows.
    So, Tell me America, how have the last 50-60 years been treating you?
    Feeling Blessed yet?

    1. The Good Ship Ideology crashes–over and over–against the sharp, jagged edge of Reality Island.

  51. Yes, you did discuss the question NO you didn’t quote from Torah or the Brit Chadeshah. And your statement, “They are correct in their assertion that Paul believed the Old Testament had no further
    meaning or purpose after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ” is false. The reference to the law is salvation through the law NOT obedience to the law. You neglected to mention that some laws refer to being in the land, some laws refer to a priesthood, some laws refer to the temple and temple worship. All those are not germaine to the top because many (I for one) are not in the land, not a Cohen, and there is no temple.

  52. Yea, no… Jesus was a Jew, King of Jews, and NEVER said SQUAT about starting his own Church, that was ALL Paul and/or Peter’s Invention! Don’t EVEN get me STARTED on HOW F**KED UP Paul’s Thinking WAS! The Fact that you EVEN mention Paul shows me you have a biased opinion somewhere or that you lack a depth of understanding in Western Religious Studies. Most modern Christian Churches are just the Roman Mystery Cult of Sun Worship with other Ancient Pagan Rites/Rituals mixed-in, Christ wasn’t born in December either. Thank the Lord I grew up in a Church that kept the Old Testament Truths while still accepting Christ as our Savior. We kept their Dietary Laws, Old Testament Customs, and Religious Holidays, and didn’t keep the Pagan ones like Xmas, Halloween and Easter, though July 4th, Thanksgiving and Birthdays were acceptable. We weren’t Jewish and didn’t celebrate any particular Jewish Holidays or customs and we read the New Testament often as well as the Old. Throwing away the whole Old Testament is pretty immature, sure it has a lot of crazy shit in it, but you need to appreciate the time those people lived in and the severity of life in the way-old days. The biggest reason most Christians are so Lame and most Jews are so severe is most likely probably due to their specific focus on their preferred Testaments to Read and Practice. Old is all about punishment and redemption through suffering, New is all about forgiveness and compassion, so Jews are seen as stern and rigid penny-pinchers and Christians as bleeding-heart pacifists. Personally, most of my favorite movies, games, and many scientific breakthroughs were made and done by Jews. They’ve also put up with enough hatred over the Centuries of Time just because they didn’t, “fit-in” and liked to keep to themselves, kept their own separate religious practices while not participating in the local ones in the area they lived in. This naturally made people suspicious, sometimes jealous, because we all desire to have a close-knit circle of loved-ones or companions, and like the weird or new-kid at school, they have always been singled out to be picked on. Funny though is that they were barred form owning land in the Middle Centuries and so could only be Doctors, Lawyers and Accountants, professions that didn’t make much when compared to farmers, builders, and people involved in the military. However, once the Victorian Age set-in, things started to slowly change until the 20th Century when Doctors, Lawyers and Accountants now became very well paid professions and farmers, workers in industries, and military professions started to pay less and less. So now they have become a successful and powerful force in the World and the same jealousy and suspicion has again reared it’s ugly head. If you don’t want to stand-up for Jews, Judaism, or Judea/Israel, that’s fine, but don’t act like just because or if you’re a, ‘Christian’ that you should be compelled NOT to support them, their cause, or their homeland because if you actually read the whole bible and half a working brain then you would most likely think the exact opposite.

  53. Ugh… Paul was wrong on sooo many levels XP I’m sorry you had to be saved, you must of been really lost. As much as I respect your writings, I’m a little bit hesitant to trust your words now for this reason and because you went against the Religion you were Raised and Brought Up in. If you were once lost how do I know you will not be so again? Don’t give me an answer with, ‘Jesus’ anywhere in it if you want me to take it seriously.. I consider myself a Christian, though unbaptized, but I realize the man may have never existed at all. However, it doesn’t mean I don’t find Value in the message, I just don’t trust any outside interpretation of what Jesus said and meant outside of the first few books of the New Testament. For all I know, Paul could have made shit-up and many argue he did. Not to mention a whole lot of other facts about him that seem funny at best ;P

  54. Jews believe in the old testament, and thus jews think that they have the religious right to the land. Jews also believe (with strong falsifiable evidence) that they are the descendants of those ancient israelites, both culturally and racially. Israel is the homeland of the jewish people, and jews like anyone else deserve to have a nation state in their homeland.
    That does not mean that they are free from any criticism. Far from it. But the right of the state of israel to exist should not be up for debate, and for some reason it is in the world today.

Comments are closed.