Why did God choose the Jews to be the main characters of the bible?
>>16883724Abraham was his friend.
The idea of jews being special or chosen by "God" is one of the oldest heresies in judaism. The authors of the Torah did not think this way. They thought each nation was allotted its own deity, and it just so happened that Yahweh was given Israel, but Yahweh wasn't THE God, or El Elyon (the highest god). He was a son of God, like all the other deities. Later jews edited the Torah to hide facts such as these, but it's obvious that Yahweh has always been a local patron deity rather than a universal god.Deuteronomy 32[1]8.>When Elyon (the Most High) bequeathed the nations as an inheritance,>when he separated the sons of mankind,>he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of [the] gods (elohim).9.>For YHWH’s portion was his people;>Jacob was the lot of his inheritance.[1] 4Q37 Deutʲhttp://dssenglishbible.com/scroll4Q37.htmp. 320. footnote 12. Codex 85. https://archive.org/details/origenis-hexaplorum-t.-1-1875/page/320/p. 85 https://doi.org/10.26015/adwdocs-347J. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (Atlanta, GA, 1995), p. 513https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvfrxqp9
>>16883724Because the Torah is made up bullshit written by unhinged ethnic chauvinists.
>>16883724Why is this particular image so popular on /his/?
If you read the biblical more closely you find actually Anglo-Saxons are the true isrealites and Gods chosen people
>>16883745>Because the Torah is made up bullshit written by unhinged ethnic chauvinists.Except they were so unhinged they made up a whole new nation and ethnos out of nowhere
>>16883724>Why did God choose the Jews to be the main characters of the bible?They are not. Jews (Pharisees) are LATE arrival character in the New Testament.
>>16883843
>>16883724stop noticing things, goy
>>16883859This is actually true, Pharisees means separatist. In the Nag Hammadis there's literally a Pharisee named after the evil deity in Zoroastrianism and his whole argument is for racist-ethnic ideas and he's clearly the villain.>>16883861The tribes of Europe and Anatolia came to the Levant. Dan clearly comes from the Greek Danaoi and Egyptian Denyen.
>>1688374399.9% true. The only misleading thing in your entire post is this:>Later jews edited the Torah to hide facts such as theseBecause it implies that the Torah wasn't a compilation of texts written by human beings to begin with. Every religious text has been produced and edited by human beings. Otherwise, the fundamental point you are making is totally correct. Judaism started as a henotheistic outgrowth of Canaanite pagan tradition, and it took a long time before this henotheism was transformed into monotheism.
>>16883886The Antichrist comes from the Tribe of Dan.
>>16883890Nope the saviour will come from the Danes. Rudolf Hess is under the Heel stone.
>>16883724>why does jew religion say jews are extra specialA mystery
>>16883887>99.9% true. The only misleading thing in your entire post is this:>Later jews edited the Torah to hide facts such as these>Because it implies that the Torah wasn't a compilation of texts written by human beings to begin with.I was referring to the fact that the original phrase "sons of [the] god(s)" was changed to "sons of Israel" in the Masoretic textual tradition in disagreement with the Septuagint and DSS textual traditions.I should be fair and adjust my claims though, because I recall reading about how the Masoretic textual variant could have been an honest mistake, but I wasn't thinking about that at the time I wrote that paragraph.One theory is the text originally had no spaces (scriptio continua) and had the archaic phrase>בנישראל>sons-of-bull-elLater when this text was being copied and updated, "bull-el" had already become somewhat obscure. (Alternatively, they wanted to censor the archaism.) Notice that this phrase is extremely similar to another phrase:>בניישראל>sons-of-israelSo in other words, a scribe could have easily thought a י was missing in בנישראל and remedied the "mistake". This scenario is not terribly unlikely. The Shapira Scrolls demonstrate that Deuteronomy really did have editions in scriptio continua, but the phrase "bull el" is harder to prove. However, "bull el" has been suggested as an original reading elsewhere even though current manuscripts do not attest to it directly.
