>Jacob>Joseph>Moses>King David>EstherI don't know how christians can look at these obvious jewish characters and not think that the old testament is jewish to its core.
>>18248684I don't think there are many people denying that the old testament is jewish to its core.The New Testament isn't (well, for the most part), though I do find it remarkable that the New Testament is full of Paul using 'Circumcised People' as an euphemism for 'Jews', emphatically denies that Christians should be circumcised, and then the Americans decided that circumcision is good, actually.Any circumcised Christian is de facto Jewish. He has submitted to Moses' convenant with God and rejected Jesus' new covenant.
>>18248746>the story about how Yeshua the son of Miriam, the circumcised Rabbi of Nazareth, is the mashiach in fulfilment if Jewish prophecy>not Jewish
>>18248684Those are Scythian characters. The emergence of the Davidian monarchy is right after the fall of the Hittites. The Bible records the emergence of the Scythian Empire.
>>18248746>>18248684as you may know, modern Jews are not the people of the Bible but a cult of inbred south Italians from the Middle Ages. they act nothing like MENA people but everything like Aiyyy Tones.
>>18248755For the most part. The gospels themselves are sort of Jewish, in that they depict a reform Jew going up against the Jewish orthodoxy.Everything after the Gospels is former Jews calling actual Jews filthy hetretics who deserve what they'll get.
>>18248866Why though? Southern Italians... trying to avoid conversion to Christianity? Are we talking about Venetians, even though that's not really southern?I get that there's a genetic affinity between Italians and Jews, but I think the separation is hundreds or thousands of years. The settlers of Italy were Trojans (Hittites), and the Trojans also formed a basis for Scythians and Persians, which is where I think the Jews actually come from.
>>18248866In which case they are not responsible for the death of Chirst.
>>18248684Thr shole Bible is a Jewish book dictating Jewish history that leads up to the death of the Jewish messiah. Really, it was Paul that turned Christianity from a niche sect of Judaism into a relgion for the goyim
>>18248746Americans generally get circumcized for health or aesthetic reasons, we don't see it as a religious thing. You can debate the health and aesthetics factors of course but it isn't usually done as a religious ritual.
>>18249280It took off because insame prods didn't want their sons masturbating, it's absolutely religious in nature
>>18248965In the early years of Christianity, there was a heresy called gnosticism that took on many different forms. They basically made up whatever they want. One of these groups in the 3rd century AD decided they would start calling themselves Jews. Starting in Persia in the city of Babylon, they spread over time their form of gnosticism into the Caucasus and eastern Europe, converting pagan groups to their pseudo-Judaism gnostic cult along the way. Later they spread their cult to other areas as well, gaining converts among the unscrupulous and dishonest members of society. The bulk of them however were pagans from Lithuania and Poland who converted to gnosticism, and then started inaccurately calling themselves "Jews."Many people who converted to this gnostic cult were greedy or low IQ individuals who saw this cult as a way to swindle their neighbor, since its rules allow wicked and deceptive practices. One of the deceptive practices is the (false) excuse "I'm a Jew," as one of the practices often employed by the cult as a way to get out of reckoning for their crimes.These same people may have been involved in the spread of Mahometanism as well, since an early form of this gnostic cult had spread into Arabia by that time, creating even more false ideas and misconceptions. Most retards at the time didn't even stop to question the historical veracity of their claims – whether these people really were who they say they were or whether their claims were historically accurate. Such ideas were not common – even today, most people are like this. They are still falling for the same trick. They believe that these people must be related to the ancient Jews written of in the Bible, just because they say they are.What's ironic is that they've made that false claim central to their identity, making them perhaps the most dishonest and pathetic people on earth.
Why are jews obsessed with dicks?
>>18249379the real original Jews were mostly killed in the Roman revolts which wiped out at least 75% or more of Palestine's population. survivors mostly converted to Christianity and later Islam. a handful of them continued to practice Judaism and their descendants do to this day.
tbqh during the early Zionist movement some rabbis admitted that Palestinian Arabs had much more in common with the Israelites of the Bible than any Pale of Settlement Jew did
>>18249379>>18249388>christians inventing a bunch of bullshit even claiming that jews are gnosfic just not to admit that modern jews are the same or similar scheming kikes as were the ancient judeans who wrote the old testament>>18249395Jews back then were called orientals (meaning middle eastern in that case), they are very similar looking to arabs ans europeans back then saw them and arabs as having a very similar culture. Maybe palestinians are genetically more similar to ancient israelites/judeans but culturally modern jews are still more similar to the judeans.Ashkenazis aren't the only jews out there, the others like sephardis and mizrahis are more similar and some jewish groups are genetically very close to ancient israelites/judeans. Mizrahis and sephardis aren't that different from ashkenazis no matter how much you deny it.
>>18249285Even that - which I have often heard but never seen a solid source for - wouldn't directly be religious. It would be "this makes him better in life" more than something like "God mandates this"
>>18249420>christians inventing a bunch of bullshit even claiming that jews are gnosfic just not to admit that modern jews are the same or similar scheming kikes as were the ancient judeans who wrote the old testamentif so then you surely have no objection to them reclaiming their ancestral homeland in Palestine?
>>18248866^This. Interact with them enough times and you'll quickly realize that they're the same race as terroni, different religion. Same tastes and aesthetic sense, same attitudes towards business dealings, mostly drawn to the same professions, etc.
>>18249667He is one of their golems.
>>18249681Interact with arabs enough times and you'll quickly realize how similar they are to jews.
>>18249667>if so then you surely have no objection to them reclaiming their ancestral homeland in Palestine?It doesn't matter who owns Palestine. The fight between jews and palestinians is like what if two demon tribes would fight each other. I see them as being equally evil.
>>18248684This was before they decided the age for sex with little girls should be three and wrote extensive fanfics about sodomizing little boys. There's no danger in leaving Moses alone with your kids. People don't like the modern ones because they're gross.
>>18248684>Jews, Jews, Jews!Give it a rest, Kyle.
>>18249819Modern Jews were given a choice between "be normal human beings" and "write lolicon fanfics about the Bible" and woke up and chose violence every time.
>>18249828They're still discussing the three-year-old thing. This is from a modern site. Even the fucking Muslims don't do this.
>>18249831Other faiths don't have an actual doctrine mandating white population replacement with Muslims. I used to laugh at chuds saying they did this until I found the actual verse. Your local Hindu or Christian bring in people to inflate your little girl's asshole with bicycle pumps (an actual event from the Rotherham grooming gang scandal.) They aren't like the Old Testament Jews. I stated studying this stuff originally to argue duty anti-semites because I didn't think they could POSSIBLY be telling the truth. It was the worst mistake of my life.
>>18249844>bring in peopleWON'T bring in people. Typo
>>18249379There are certain periods that are very well-studied and known by amateurs, and there are periods that almost nobody studies because nothing major brings our attention to that time. I think the 3rd century is one of those times, and this may be one reason for the confusion.I know a lot about the periods of time that I'm drawn to and to which I have other significant events to tie things to. Perhaps this is an amateurish way of seeing history, or at least a cognitive bias that may be difficult to overcome.I know about the Jews of 700 BC, of 300 BC, of 1 AD. What I don't know as much about is that 300 AD slot. I know of course that Rome established their brand of Christianity at that time. I know they were in conflict with some gnostics — and increasingly so over the years (they were more tolerant early on, I think). Later on, I know that some people lied about their religious views so as not to draw attention from the Vatican.I know 300 AD was in the early stages of the Sasanian Empire and that the Sasanians brought a severe orthodoxy to Zoroastrianism and made it their official state religion. At the same time, Mithraism was in Rome with a clear eastern influence. It seems as though Christianity has a lot in common with Mithraism, but it's almost like Christianity was chosen in opposition to it. It's as though there were two great empires (not one as the West always tells the story): Rome and whoever ruled Iran (first Parthia in the days of Caesar, then the Sasanian Persians later on). All of the binary religious doctrine seems to stem from this. 1/3
>>18250194Essentially there was a king to be who had royal Scythian blood, which included other significant rulers of the same time period (maybe Cleopatra, Caesar, and others), who was promised to the people living between these two empires. He was to fulfill the prophecy that a leader around the original druid monk hideout would rise up and restart the world age by taking his high status and giving it to the people. That's Jesus, right? Of course, it's exaggerated, but we can at least take parts of it and see it in a handful of real historical people. I don't think the exactness of the text is necessary to understand the point. So, in his time, there were arguably three religions: - Roman religion (Saturnalia was the biggest festival in Rome, but they also praised Ares/Mars significantly — a very martial peoples)- Iranian religion (Zoroastrianism, Mithraism)- Greek religion (for lack of a better term, the temples from Tauric Scythia to Delos to Ephesus to Comana to perhaps Mt Carmel)Really, this "Greek" culture is actually Scythian culture, because that's where the Greeks came from, even though they forgot. Bronze Age Collapse did a real number on them. So, it was Macedonian royal scythians pushing east during Alexander's reign. That's not the Hellenistic age. That's one of the ages of the scythian empire. That is what is encoded in the Bible.
>>18250198Anyway, the other two religions had their own perspective on the same events. Romans had a very martial response (of course). Iranians claimed bloodlines, and that's where I think this "true Jew" thing kind of kicks off. They set their own criteria (blood purity), and perhaps a small number of them initially met that criteria. However, that's obviously not what defines a Jew today, so there's much more to the story. To your point, it spread from that very small number to a larger number, simply based on its genetic fitness in the game of ideas. Maybe I'm still giving them too much credit to say that there was ever any of them who might have had claims to royalty, but I think classical Parthia was full of that. There was a large class of nobility. It's not too far fetched to think that they could have started adopting a Jewish identity in the 3rd century simply because Rome was adopting the Christian one, and they needed a counter balance (just like the Romans wanted the counter balance to Mithraism).I'm talking out of my ass a bit though because, like I said, this time period is not my strong suit, particularly in the east where we have just a handful of historians that have surviving works and are translated to English. Even with Moses of Chorene, I can't find anything well-formatted to read.
>>18250198>That's one of the ages of the scythian empire. That is what is encoded in the Bible.I don't really see it. The book of Daniel simply calls them the Grecians and their kingdom Grecia (literally "Javan," the Ionians or descendants of Japeth).They also mention the Romans as "Chittim" (colonies, named primarily after the colony of the Cyprians that they established on Cyprus, but meant to include colonies in general) in the book of Daniel. This is who is said to stop Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel 11:30. This is the famous incident where the envoy of Rome drew a circle in the sand around him demanding he give an answer before leaving it, as an ultimatum.>>18250199>it spread from that very small number to a larger number, simply based on its genetic fitness in the game of ideas.I believe this stuff spreads because Christianity already exists and it tries to clumsily subvert or co-opt the ideas from the Bible that already exists. It's similar to Mormonism or other pseudo-Christian cults that deliberately appear on the surface to be one thing (to help their survival), but in the substance they are entirely alien to the Biblical faith. Beyond the surface level subconscious appearance, which has allowed them to blend in among their host nation, their understanding of the actual meaning behind what they emulate (i.e. Biblical Christianity) is basically zero. It's kind of a bizarre, twisted joke.The people who call themselves Jews today take it to another level, since they rest their claims completely on being something they are not, and which they do not even have a basic understanding of, i.e. the biblical Israel.>It's not too far fetched to think that they could have started adopting a Jewish identity in the 3rd century simply because Rome was adopting the Christian one,Rome didn't become officially tolerant of Christianity until the 4th century, after the Diocletianic persecutions. Mani and these other gnostics existed before that.
>>18249828They a bunch of weird cults like they always do and one of these managed to become popular among non-jews (christianity), then like jews always do the infighting over that cult lead to a lot of blood being spilled.
>>18251429*created
>>18248866This explains why I get along with Jews so well
>>18251437>Then how do you explain...Why does it make you so mad that I'm calling these people liars, anon? You're the one who seems to be believing them.
>>18250213I'm going to respond to the rest of this, but I need to think about it more.First of all, how did you learn that a variant of Gnosticism lead to Judaism? It makes sense (loosely) from my view, but I'd love to know what dots you connected.
>>18249280Mate don't lie to yourself lol.You're the cattle of the sacrifice.
>>18252495>First of all, how did you learn that a variant of Gnosticism lead to Judaism? It makes sense (loosely) from my view, but I'd love to know what dots you connected.First of all, there's the circumstances. The Babylonian Talmud (Mishnah + Gemara) was written in Babylon from the 3rd century AD to the end of the 5th century AD. This is an area of the world where gnosticism was running rampant. You had the syncretist Manichaeism spreading rapidly starting in the 3rd century AD with Mani. Seemingly he was influenced by the Elcesaites. You had Marcion's cult, you had the Valentinians, the Ebionites all running around in the Middle East region. By comparison, the less populated regions of the known world were more rustic or primitive. The cancer had not spread as much there perhaps because they rely on biblical Christianity already existing in a place before moving in themselves. There were also strongholds of various Christological and Theological heresies in the near eastern region as well, like Sabellianism. During the Arian controversy in the 4th century (which ultimately converted Constantine and his immediate successors to semi-Arianism), the easternmost provinces of Rome were the stronghold where most of the Arians came from. All of this was primarily based in the Middle East region of the world, the Levant and Mesopotamia, which are the borderlands between late classical Rome and Persia. Vast numbers in the Middle East were becoming Manichaeans at this time. Manichaeism is another religion that, like Mormonism and JW today, plagiarized many ideas extensively from the Bible while corrupting its real meaning (similar also to Mahometism which didn't exist yet). So, it was in this setting, where Manichaeism was rapidly growing to become the dominant popular religion that "Talmudism" also first emerged.Now, you can note that Talmudic ideology has a dualistic cosmology (see pic) where light and darkness are presented as equal and opposite forces. (1/2)
>>18252495Cont'd from above.Talmudism has reincarnation and purgatory (see pic again). And damningly, the Talmud also mentions a demigod "deity" figure named "Metatron," which had already appeared earlier in a gnostic work called 3 Enoch, but it's nowhere in the Bible.Also from the Wikipedia page on another apocryphal, or gnostic book, the "Book of Giants":>The text relates how some giants, named Ohya, Hahya and Mahway, sons of the fallen angels, have some dreams that foresee the biblical Flood. A brief mention of the giant Ohya (Ohyah), is found in the Babylonian Talmud (Nidah, Ch 9), which gives the following: "סיחון ועוג אחי הוו דאמר מר סיחון ועוג בני אחיה בר שמחזאי הוו" ("Sihon and Og [from the Book of Numbers] were brothers, as they were the sons of Ohia the son of Samhazai [alternately, 'Semihazah' or 'Semiazus,' chieftain of the fallen angels in the Book of Enoch].") Thus are provided, it would seem, the names of the sons of Ohyah, grandsons of Semihazah.[2]So, the gnostic books of 3 Enoch and the "Book of Giants" were written. Then later, Mani took the book of Giants as one of his books, and the Talmud later copied names of "spiritual entities" from both gnostic books. In addition to the gnostic dualist cosmology in the Talmud and the belief in purgatory and reincarnation, and based on where and when it originated in Babylon, it is safe to classify Talmudism as such, as a gnostic spinoff. It has nothing actually to do with the Bible. Like most gnostic works, it ignorantly presumes and presents itself to be related to the Bible. And like most gnostic works, it latches onto the Christian Bible, plagiarizing from it and using it as its source of supposed legitimacy. Just as Mormons and JW and others do today, pretending to be something on the surface that they actually are not. They have no idea what the Bible actually teaches. Nor do they actually follow its actual precepts. In reality however, these cults all ONLY follow their own manmade traditions.
>>18252667Are you suggesting that gnosticism is fundamentally wrong, and if so, why?I understand that "it was all a dream" isn't exactly a great basis for governing people and land, but I think gnostic esotericism is essentially a more truthful telling of the story. It's not about literal replacement (biblical creation story vs gnostic creation story). It's developing an understanding of allegory and metaphor. It's not that the real world is illusory (common gnostic misunderstanding). It's that the mind encounters illusions, which may be due to incomplete information about the outside world or internally-created information (usually both).
>>18252699>It's that the mind encounters illusions, which may be due to incomplete information about the outside world or internally-created information (usually both).What you describe is more in line with different philosophical positions on epistemology. That's quite different from being a dogmatic gnostic or neoplatonist.
>>18252716I think I am mostly pro-gnosticism insofar as it balances the anti-gnosticism crowd. Sometimes I may steelman Plato a little too much, although I don't concern myself too much with what authorities think.
Plato was a fucking RETARD>>18252817
>>18252716>dogmatic gnosticHow can we possibly know what people really meant by words in the past? You write down a metaphor, and it reads exactly like a literal thing. You defend the metaphor on principle, and it looks exactly like a crazy zealot in history books?That being said, we're talking about 2000 years ago, and just 300 years of time after that would be enough for 2000 years ago to be a historical period for the people of 1700 years ago.
>>18253317If you want to ask me about metaphors in the Bible for example, the Bible does have a number of them. So you won't find me objecting to the idea of metaphors in principle. But metaphors, allegories and so forth are clearly distinguishable as such by the way the language is used, much like in other languages that exist. There are places where the Bible is speaking of fact, and Jesus Christ later treats them that way in the New Testament. I would simply be against turning everything into an allegory, even where it was meant to communicate direct indicative statements about the way things are (or were). If I don't like something, I don't avoid dealing with it by trying to force it to be an allegory, or turn the entire thing into an allegory for no real reason. Sadly, that's what a lot of people do, regardless of whether they are gnostics or not.Historical gnosticism is really more defined by its cosmology, which is in sharp contrast to Theism with monotheistic "creatio ex nihilo" cosmology. It usually has a dualistic cosmology based on either a universe that has always existed or a cosmology of emanations from a distant "Monad" entity (which is basically pantheism). To properly characterize historical Gnosticism a bit further, it also tends to be more occultic (like a so-called mystery religion with secret artifacts and messages), rather than being the same truth for everybody, like the New Testament Gospel is supposed to be.This is more how the two belief systems contrast.Both are capable of comprehending allegory and metaphor. I don't think one side has exclusive use of it. But what you bring up is really more a question of philosophical views on epistemology. Though I can get how you might (mistakenly) think the specific term "gnosticism" has something to do with a different philosophical view of knowledge itself (i.e., a different epistemological approach), rather than the reality, which is that they are simply people who claim "secret knowledge."
>>18253317>>18252716>dogmatic gnosticThis is an oxymoron. The wide variety of gnostic "schools" found together at Nad Hammadi attests to the fact that they were neither dogmatic nor strictly sectarian.
>>18249285Kellogg didnt just invent the horse food that people put in their milk, he also invented genital mutilation for women and men, because he was a priest or some shit.
