/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>11876

>>11932

This. Don't let it phase you OP. Read the word of God and let them be if they reject you.

Dude, just become a Catholic. Being protestant is lame, join me in my Polish-Catholic traditions. Honestly, I'm not even necessarily a diehard Christian if I can be completely honest. I mostly like the Saints setup and the feeling… I don't know I just really like the identity.

>>12087

Brah… I don't even know where to start…

Like, your stuff regarding Israel not mixing with the Canaanites is pretty problematic considering "they literally mix with gentiles" in multiple places and God approves of it, thus proving that you can't claim that Canaanite=Gentile.

Moses married a Midianite. Joshua married Rahab. Boaz married Ruth. Taking this even a step farther, Jesus' lineage has Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth in it. Are you now telling me that Jesus' lineage is tainted?

Now, onto your Genesis 6 insanity. "Where in the world" do you get your interpretation that the "sons of God" are Adam and his descendants? How do you get around the fact that, in Hebrew, daughters "of man" is literally daughters "ha-adam," which is directly translated, "of adam"? If these women are not "of adam," even though the text literally says that, where'd they come from?

"Nephilim" actually comes from the root word naphal which means "to fall," which would make considerable sense if the Sons of God who made these Nephilim Fell in some way, shape or form. Maybe from heaven? Who knows! Enoch claims it's true but that's not cannon, so we'll just pat him on the head and move on. Either way, it's not "foreign people." The most divergent interpretation that I've heard was by a prominent scholar who's studied this longer than we've been alive (the guy's 80+) and he argues that the "sons of God" is a reference to the kings of the earth, because all of the ancient kings would talk about themselves as sons of their gods (One king sent out an edict that declared he was the son of over 300 gods. That guy's exceptional, but seriously, pretty much every king in this era of history claimed they were of divine lineage). So, this guy then argues that what we're seeing here is polygamy. The kings of the earth, who have power, see lots of beautiful women and take all of them as wives. This then angered God because that's not His vision for marriage and as these men lived for 500 years+ they simply got more and more evil as they feasted on their own fleshly desires. Therefore, God had to wipe em out, and this is why God then puts a cap on the human lifespan. So, the problem wasn't the nephilim. The problem was men and women living so long and that allowing their evil to grow to immense depths. That's why it literally says, "Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." The problem wasn't, "Wow, they're having sex with other people," but rather, "They're all indulging in sin and not even time is currently keeping their sinful thoughts from growing perfect."

To answer your last point, we only call them giants because of the few that are pointed out in Samuel's day. That's at least 2000 years later. With the way language evolves, it would be easy for people to have read "The sons of God," assume that's divine, and then when they see a giant they go, "Woah. That must be what Genesis 6 is talking about." Therein, they're misinterpreting Genesis 6 and their misinterpretation got recorded in the Text. (Just like all of the Pharisees accusations against Jesus got recorded in the Text. This doesn't invalidate the Word. Rather, it honors it for what it is: a book crafted by God that is true to what occurred.)

>>5976

Considering the numerous times the old testament warns against miscegenation, and the numerous times prominent figures in Christianity had wives of a different race, I think miscegenation should generally be frowned upon but not altogether prohibited. Under certain circumstances I think it's okay, but other times not so much. Exactly what those circumstances are, I'm not sure.

>>12090

>your stuff regarding Israel not mixing with the Canaanites is pretty problematic

>Moses married a Midianite. Joshua married Rahab. Boaz married Ruth. Taking this even a step farther, Jesus' lineage has Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth in it.

Prescriptive will vs sovereign decree. We're called to operate on the basis of the former, not the latter. Through our sin, God still fulfills his good ends. There are countless hybrid races out there and obviously they exist for a reason. That doesn't mean would should endeavor to generate more or enlarge the existing ones.

Deuteronomy 20:16,17

>Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.

>But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you

God also commanded the Israelites to completely annihilate the Canaanites. Has God contradicted himself?

>"sons of God" are Adam and his descendants?

What do you say they are?

>If these women are not "of adam," even though the text literally says that, where'd they come from?

They are descendents of Adam. So were the sons of God.

>"Nephilim" actually comes from the root word naphal which means "to fall,"

There's disagreement on that, but it's neither here nor there. The earliest sources all translate the term to mean giants. Heck, what about the rest of the verse?

>Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

What made them mighty?

>Either way, it's not "foreign people."

Then why does the writer see fit to so strongly differentiate between the two groups? How exactly does one "come in to the daughters of men" if one is already among them?

>he argues that the "sons of God" is a reference to the kings of the earth

That's a new one to me. Source please?

>One king sent out an edict that declared he was the son of over 300 gods.

You're telling me we have still-intact antediluvian royal decrees? Or are you trying to anachronistically apply Bronze Age royal tendencies to rulers in Noah's day? You realize that most of the people alive would have known Adam, right? Maybe not personally, but still. If a bunch of self-important hooligans were running around claiming to be God's sons, don't you think Adam would have weighed in on it before he died? And don't you think the word of the guy that named all the animals and happens to be everyone's greatest grandpa and eldest relative might've had some sway with his many grandchildren?

>So, this guy then argues that what we're seeing here is polygamy.

>This then angered God because that's not His vision for marriage

Okay, but then why did God gift David with a bunch of wives later on if he had already revealed to man the true nature of marriage? If we were talking about something post-resurrection, then that argument would have legs, but not before God even issued laws about this stuff.

>>12089

>I mostly like the Saints setup and the feeling…

Yeah, that's pretty much what Roman Catholicism is all about. The pretty buildings, the sense of grandeur and tradition are the main draws. But if you're looking for something consistent, you won't find it there. That's the problem.

>>12095

>Exactly what those circumstances are, I'm not sure.

The cutoff criteria seems to be based on similarity. Too dissimilar = outbreeding. It can result in all of the same problems that one gets when inbreeding. So as long as the parties in question are sufficiently similar, there's no biological danger to a Ukrainian marrying a Swede or a Pakistani marrying an Indian.

Ultimately, Christianity is supposed to be about finding salvation through Christ. It's not about temporal causes that don't influence your salvation, and may hinder it anyway because it tempts you to judge and criticize those around you (who believe differently). There is no real such thing as legacy- we'll all be dead and forgotten in 2 generations or so. Beliefs aren't a heritable thing either. Future generations will procreate with whoever they please, and you won't be able to have a say in the matter because you'll be dead. Your "work" can be undone with one person and your bloodline could change overnight- so what are you really fighting for? Will you ever accomplish anything lasting or are you relying on too many "ifS"? Rather run your own race.

>>8019

I'm mixed and feel the same. Plus, they come with a whole lot of attitude problems and I'm in no mood for that.

>>12098

I'm actually gonna start with the "Kings of the earth idea."

>This article actually breaks it all down quite well http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/ot-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/gen-64-who-or-what-were-the-nephilim/

It's Walter Kaiser (Citation 7) who I heard in person when he explained his view.

>Don't you think the word of the guy that named all the animals and happens to be everyone's greatest grandpa and eldest relative might've had some sway with his many grandchildren?

Actually, I seriously doubt that they would have listened to him considering he's the original person who seriously learned the "don't sin" lesson, meaning that he would have preached a "don't sin" lesson until he died, yet everyone was so busy sinning that it entirely consumed them. Noah, who Peter says preached righteousness, appears to have been the only person who would have listened to Adam.

> Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.What made them mighty?

Well, if you look into mythology, you find that the "mighty men of old," tend to be demigods, half-god half-human spawn, virtually always spawned by a male god inseminating a female human rather than a female god giving birth to the child of a human male. So, this part of it actually reinforces the idea that these spawn were children of some sort of divine beings. That's why I skipped it, I didn't want to hit that argument, but that's the way that part of the verse comes in. That verse is especially problematic if we're thinking mixed-children because mixed-kids aren't any mightier than normal kids.

> Then why does the writer see fit to so strongly differentiate between the two groups? How exactly does one "come in to the daughters of men" if one is already among them?

Read the article I gave as a source and it'll help. But, even just looking to the Old Testament, we find another of the most ancient texts of the Bible, Job, utilizing the phrase "sons of God" to refer to divine begins in 1:6 and 2:1 (wherein Satan is included. Whether or not you want to decide if he's an actual person or an idea is up to you. But whoever this "adversary" [direct translation of the Hebrew word] is, he's one of the sons of God who's summoned in to come before the throne of God without dying, which Exodus 33:20 says is impossible for men to do), and in 38 where a plurality of these Sons are present during the creation of the world, before Adam was formed. (I'm not trying to say you should believe this view, I'm just saying it's the most Biblical view of a very minor, minor topic, and at the least, your view is not tenable from the text.)

> Okay, but then why did God gift David with a bunch of wives later on if he had already revealed to man the true nature of marriage? If we were talking about something post-resurrection, then that argument would have legs, but not before God even issued laws about this stuff.

2 Samuel 12:8 is a cultural reference, and even beyond that, the wives are /highly/ relevant considering God is actively rebuking David for taking another man's wife.

1. The cultural reference is that, when one king would kill another king, he'd take his wives. Having the royal wives was like having the throne. This is why Adonijah tries to get Abishag the Shunammite as a wife and Solomon kills him for it (1 kings 2). If you have the wives, you have the kingdom, if you don't have the wives, you don't have the kingdom. God isn't specifying, "I gave you lots of women," as much as he's saying, "I gave you the kingdom, I can give you more, why on earth did you do this?"

2. Even on top of that cultural reference, God is even then saying, "You have multiple women. How could to dare to commit adultery and then kill a man for his wife when you have so many at home?"

3. We know all of this because God cannot contradict Himself and he specifies in Deut. 17 that the king Must not multiply wives for himself. (There's a variety of ways that David sins and God's forgiveness is in no way endorsement. This is why David is one of the greatest examples for us in the Old Testament. He wasn't perfect. Rather, he was quick to repent. We too must be quick to Genuinely repent.)

Going back to the Canaanites

> God also commanded the Israelites to completely annihilate the Canaanites. Has God contradicted himself?

There's actually a lot to get into about Joshua and the literary genre that it is. But, putting that aside, we don't technically know for a fact that Rahab was Canaanite, just that she wasn't Hebrew. Further, she gives a pretty strong, "YHWH is the true God" speech to the spies, akin to the, "May my your God be my God and your people be my people," that Ruth spoke, so it could be that God considered her part of the Jewish people because of her confession of faith (seeing as Paul argues that inclusion into the true Israel has always been about faith, ever since Abraham).

Any more questions?

>>12108

>Your "work" can be undone with one person and your bloodline could change overnight- so what are you really fighting for?

The reason you're white, black, Han, Japanese, Abo, Eskimo, or whatever, is because for thousands of years your ancestors bred within a limited group. Every once in awhile a deviant will break off and form its own pack, so to speak, but by and large people overwhelmingly breed within their own group and continue to do so consistently. Also if you're doing what God said, being fruitful and multiplying, then one branch on your tree breaking off isn't going to "undo" your line. God has put powerful instincts into place to prevent the mixing of the races. If he didn't, then where did these forces come from?

>>8019

>Because I'm black and don't find black women attractive

>>12108

>I'm mixed and feel the same. Plus, they come with a whole lot of attitude problems and I'm in no mood for that.

Guys… Real talk. First of all, yes, women of any race come with their own particular "attitudes", thought patterns, and behavior patterns… But the big problem with modern black women, socially speaking, is the same problem that is afflicting many white women, creating feminists. Agenda-driven Jews have systematically destroyed the black family unit with government handouts and all-out cultural attack through the media. They do it to whites too, but with different messages.

Let me be very clear: I do not hate you, nor do I bear you ill will. To the contrary, I want you to be happy. To find real happiness, you need to find a decent woman of your own race. They are out there, I've met them, and I promise you that they can make you happier than a woman of any other race possibly could because they share the instincts which compliment your own as a man.

Instead of trying to leave your people, build your people. If you are really of a higher moral character than other members of your race, then now is the time that they need you the most. Don't abandon them. Be an example for them to strive toward. Heaven knows that young black men in America have a shortage of strong, black father figures to lead them.

>>12123

You realize that marrying outside of your "race" doesn't mean you've left your race, right? Like, you can be a "strong, black father figure," even if you've married a white, asian, or hispanic chick.

>If he didn't, then where did these forces come from?

https: //w ww.am azon.com/Study-Culture-L-Langness/dp/0883165740

Pick this book up, it'll explain it to you.

Outside of the West, there's really not a strong incentive to "keep the bloodline pure." In most of Southeast Asia, other than Indonesia, they actually prefer marrying white folk. Your ideas are incredibly post-1900-Western-World-Centric

>>12124

> However I will respond to his objections to the traditional view that "sons of God" refers to Seth's lineage.

As I expressed in my earlier post, this is actually a conversation I wanted to avoid. However, if you insist, I'll talk it out with you

1. Solid point, which is why I didn't say I totally agreed with the article, I just referenced it for greater knowledge and so you could see where I got the source you requested. Furthermore, if "men" in verses 1 and 2 is only the sons of Cain, then why doesn't it stay that way throughout the whole chapter? If it does, then why is it that God's limitation of 120 years on the sons of Cain affects everyone?

2. Where do you get the idea that the sons of Seth were big bois? Like, you really gotta read that into the text, considering the sons of God aren't spoken of as giants, only their children.

3. I'm glad you noticed the connection between Jude and 2 Peter 2 but you have two things you have to work with on that. (1) Both Jude and 2 Peter 2 are eluding to Enoch (Feel free to go check it out. I'm not saying it's cannon, but it's a text that influenced their writing) (2) The bigger issue, as it's textual, is the inclusio that Peter uses with the word God [Theos]. Peter states it first in verse 4 and then again at the end of 5, bracketing the concepts in-between together (This is actually how the Greek language works. It's really cool stuff. Kinda wish we could emphasize like this in English). So, stated clearly, Peter's putting "angels who sinned" into the Noah story by utilizing the inclusio. [If Peter didn't want to emphasize this, he could have continued to refer to God as "he," as Peter normally does, he could have utilized the term "Lord," or he could have written it in the opposite direction, "God - Angels - God - Noah" [The second half could have been as simple of a change as, "And God did not spare," but he could have even flipped the entire second verse around, "and when God brought the flood he did not spare the entire world but for Noah and seven others." So, textually, Peter's intentionally bracketing the Angels and Noah together

>Anthropology matters.

Sure it does. And anthropologically, no one would have been listening to him, which was the point of that sentence.

> To quote Calvin's commentary on this passage

I'm sorry but when did we start moving away from the Bible into honoring the opinion of a 16th century preacher over what the Bible says?

Currently, any Atheist will tell you, "concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious."

This leads me to another question, are you amillennial?

/1

>>12124

> Actually I was referring to the several women in 1 Chronicles 3

Where in 1 Chronicles 3 does it say that God gave those women to him so that he'd marry all of them?

>1 Chronicles 3

Since you brought it up: If you are to claim that God gave him all of those wives because it was good to marry all of them, what do you do with the fact that a lot of them are foreign? The most prominent being "Maacah, the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur"? Like, I don't agree with you that that passage says God gave those women to David, which is how you're arguing that God isn't anti-polygamy, but if I were to, I then immediately an argument that God promotes the mixing of races

> Well said, therefore Exodus 21:10

You're completely missing the point of that passage. It's entirely about protecting women, which is why the first wife can legally leave if the man isn't still taking care of her. Just as divorce was given, "because of the hardness of your hearts," rather than because God promotes the idea, this law is given to protect women in the midst of sinful men who rule in a cultural patriarchy where women are virtually objects (which is why it says she can leave "italics" without payment "italics")

It could even be that God established this verse because of the way that the kings pre-flood were just taking woman after woman instead of caring for them.

> Why is God making rules about polygamy if he didn't allow for it during this period? If he allowed for it during this period, then where's the former prohibition against it?

First off, see my point above.

Second off, so you're pro-slavery now, seeing as God has rules about how it should function? You're also pro-women marrying their rapists? Also, let's go there, Leviticus 19:19 straight up bans clothes made out of mixed materials. Do you only wear garments made out of a single material? I've digressed into this not just for fun, but specifically to highlight how these Laws were written to a particular people in a particular time. Jesus brought the full clarity of the intentions of God in His ministry when He reinforced marriage between one man and one woman, and the church recognized that by limiting their leaders to only being one man one woman relationships. Which the fact that they had to specify points out that there were polygamists in the church at that time, yet they understood that this was not God's desire for marriage. Therein, they understood that the polygamous "italics" must stay married to all of his wives upon conversion "italics" for the sake of caring for them, which agrees with the heart of the Mosaic Law and the fruits of the Spirit (kindness, specifically). While, at the same time, they condemn polygamy by disallowing that man from becoming a leader in the church.

/2

>>12127

Someone told me how to italics on another page but apparently I can't figure it out… Maybe they have to touch? "italics"italics"italics"

>>12128

Nope… Anyone wanna help a brother out?

>>12123

Anon, we see the world, and Christianity in two different ways. I don't care for the Jewish question, don't care for who's destroying civilization, which party is guilty for that, etc. I just want to be close to Jesus and be saved- I don't see any of the aforementioned things helping me in reaching that. On another note, if you believe in racial differences, why would you try to pass your own definition of happiness on to me- we're not alike and don't "share the same instincts", racially or culturally, so that doesn't make sense. I'm guessing you're more concerned about trying to protect the numbers of your own race.

It may be beneficial for you to revisit the story of the Tower of Babel and seek to clarify why God split us up there. And if you choose to continuing to believe what you believe, that's cool, though focus on your own salvation and spiritual journey- that's what matters. The white race won't be there to bolster your case on Judgement day, your wife, regardless of her race, won't be there to answer positively for you, and neither will your children be there to do the same. It'll come down to your relationship and growth with God. You were given life so that you can place eternal things in your spiritual bank for the next life.

>>12132

>he's part of their family now

She's part of his family now, is what I meant. Said it backwards.

>>12132

I think I've realized something, you're not Christian are you?

You ever read Ephesians 2, where Paul talks about how God has brought together Jew and Gentile for the sake of His glory?

You ever read the entirety of the book of Romans, where Paul argues that the sole purpose of his ministry is to see the Hebrew people come to Christ, but because God has blinded them until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, Paul ministers to Gentiles to fulfill their fulness for the sake of the Jews' eyes being opened?

You ever read Jesus' own words to the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, where He knits His return to their vocal acceptance of Him?

You ever read about /Any/ of God's faithfulness to Abraham throughout the entirety of the Old Testament and how He prophesies that He'll be faithful to Abraham's children, even with Jesus saying that not one dot or tittle of the Law will be left undone?

Did you not notice that while Jesus spoke to the Pharisees /who rejected him/ saying, "You are not of Abraham but of your father the devil," he then looked at all of his Jewish disciples, even the Apostles, saying that they were of Abraham?

Have you not read that Jesus sent the Disciples to minister to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles, forming the pattern after which Paul performed his ministry, as Paul was a servant of Christ rather than himself?

I'm real serious about this. Have you read the Bible?

Like, part of me wants to move on to break down all of the problems in the rest of your text but, all of that is just philosophy, ideas that you or others have contrived. The Bible clearly dictates that there is one race, the descendants of Adam, and through Christ, the second Adam, we are made a new creation. Therein, just as Paul said, "There are no Jews or Gentiles," if you are a Christian, your race is now irrelevant. There are no white Christians, only Christians. There are no black Christians, only Christians. There are no asian Christians, only Christians. There are no latino Christians, only Christians. Just as Christ said, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple," therefore, one is not about their own race, but about Christ's family. This echoes Psalm 45 which speaks to the Bride of Christ, Christians, about how they are to pursue Christ, "Listen, O daughter, give attention and incline your ear: Forget your people and your father's house, Then the King will desire your beauty. Because He is your Lord, bow down to Him." Let me reiterate, "Forget your people and your father's house." This is the call of God to any who would desire to follow Him. If you are in Christ, your race is no longer relevant. If your race is relevant, you are no longer in Christ, as race is the idol at which you worship.

I would apologize for coming off strong but I'm not repentant about the Gospel.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on these Scriptures.

>>12125

>In most of Southeast Asia, other than Indonesia, they actually prefer marrying white folk.

I'm sure the inclination of Chinese men to marry laowai that has nothing to do with the one child policy and the consequent lack of available women in general. In Japan, you'd better believe there's a stigma against marrying gaijin. I've not heard of South Koreans being particularly attracted to the oekuk-saram, so you'll have to fill me in on that.

>>12126

>Furthermore, if "men" in verses 1 and 2 is only the sons of Cain, then why doesn't it stay that way throughout the whole chapter?

It does.

>If it does, then why is it that God's limitation of 120 years on the sons of Cain affects everyone?

This is where racial thinking comes in handy. When Seth's descendents bred with Cain's descendents, the offspring becomes Cain's descendents. They fell from their father's status as sons of God, now sons of Cain. I'm sure most of Seth's descendents would be well past the age of 120 when God made that declaration, so it wouldn't apply to them obviously, though they too would be wiped out in the coming judgment. But the hybrid children? They would diminished lifespans.

>Where do you get the idea that the sons of Seth were big bois?

Because it's logically necessary. If they weren't big bois, then there's no reason for the children to be either.

Let's do a thought experiment here:

You've got a town. A bunch of holy rollers stroll in and decide that your daughters are looking mighty fine and they're going to take them and make some babies. What are you going to do? Are you going to go, "YEP, HAVE AT EM, STRANGERS!" Probably not. Obviously the children of Seth, who had been kept away from Cain's offspring, would have to be intimidating enough that the men either wouldn't fight them or were happy with the arrangement. And considering how common the practice was of selling off your daughters in the old world? Something tells me that giving up their daughers wasn't voluntary.

>Both Jude and 2 Peter 2 are eluding to Enoch (Feel free to go check it out.

I have no problem with Jude making a cultural reference to Enoch, but he doesn't bring up anything Enochian until verse 14.

>the inclusio that Peter uses with the word God [Theos]. Peter states it first in verse 4 and then again at the end of 5, bracketing the concepts in-between together

>So, stated clearly, Peter's putting "angels who sinned" into the Noah story by utilizing the inclusio.

I had to go find some sort of commentary on this in order to figure out what you were saying. Again, if you're going to try to say that, because of the inclusio, the Angels in v4 are being chronologically aligned with Noah in v5, then you also have to say that Sodom and Gomorrah, along with Lot, took place during Noah's time as well. I see no grammatical reason in either Greek or English to interpret this as Peter saying these events took place during the same time period. It's a list of different things that are being used to make a point.

I also see no reason to believe that Peter was referencing Enoch either. In Jude 14, he's clearly talking about humans, and that's where the quotation of Enoch is. Jude 6, which shares similar language to 2 Peter 2:4, is clearly talking about something entirely different and has no connection to Enoch whatsoever.

>>12126

>I'm sorry but when did we start moving away from the Bible into honoring the opinion of a 16th century preacher over what the Bible says?

To quote Jacob Arminius:

>After the Holy Scriptures, I exhort the students to read the Commentaries of Calvin. . . . I tell them that he is incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture; and that his Commentaries ought to be held in greater estimation than all that is delivered to us in the writings of the ancient Christian Fathers

In Calvin's biblical scholarly opinion, the idea that the bible was trying to communicate that angels bred with humans is laughable. Plus I just happened to have several commentaries up while responding to your previous post and I found that excerpt pretty funny. I absolutely love that a centuries old French lawyer was mocking what modern fundamentalism has collapsed into. Angel sex.

>This leads me to another question, are you amillennial?

Yes, optimistic.

>Where in 1 Chronicles 3 does it say that God gave those women to him so that he'd marry all of them?

Where does God chastise David for having them, like he did with Uriah's wife? Why does God strike Nabal dead after he wrongs David in 1 Samuel 25, which directly resulted in Abigail becoming his second wife? Verse 43 even says

>David had also taken Ahinoam of Jezreel, and they both became his wives.

so that's 3 wives at once, even though Michal was temporarily given away by Saul after pushing David out. Show me the rebuke.

>I then immediately an argument that God promotes the mixing of races

I have no idea what you're saying here.

>You're completely missing the point of that passage. It's entirely about protecting women

No, I got that. My point is that, unlike with adultery, fornication, and sodomy, God hasn't outlined a penalty for polygamy. He outlines rules for the Israelites on how to do polygamy.

>sinful men who rule in a cultural patriarchy where women are virtually objects

Sounding a little Woke there.

>the kings pre-flood were just taking woman after woman instead of caring for them.

That has yet to be established.

>>12129

Apostrophes, not quotation marks.

>>12130

>we're not alike and don't "share the same instincts", racially or culturally, so that doesn't make sense.

Do I need to think like an eagle to know that an eagle won't be happy in a cage? My argument is based on the reality that there is a God ordained order to the way the world works. Do I really need to go fetch any of countless stories by interracially married men and women where they explain some of the fundamental incompatibilities that exist in their relationship, which make them miserable or at least greatly unsatisfied?

This is not an attack on you. I'm just warning you about the experiences of countless others who went down that path. Even in my church right now I'm having to watch the consequences of micegenation play out. Divorce is extremely messy stuff, and what of the children? It isn't worth it.

>I'm guessing you're more concerned about trying to protect the numbers of your own race.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.

>It may be beneficial for you to revisit the story of the Tower of Babel and seek to clarify why God split us up there.

My argument with the other guy was that God had already done a lesser split prior to the flood. (Seth vs Cain.) I also think there's been further splits since then.

>The white race won't be there to bolster your case on Judgement day

Are you really making this a salvation issue? Because I don't think you have a theological basis for doing so.

>You were given life so that you can place eternal things in your spiritual bank for the next life.

My life is not about me or my bank account, spiritual or otherwise. I'm here to glorify and honor my creator. Speaking unpopular truths is one of the ways that I do that.

Continuing >>12149

>>12146

>I think I've realized something, you're not Christian are you?

I most certainly am.

>You ever read Ephesians 2, where Paul talks about how God has brought together Jew and Gentile for the sake of His glory?

Yes, and recognizing that

>He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation

as Paul said in Acts 17:26, does not contradict with what Paul said in Ephesians 2 or Colossians 3. Paul does not contradict Paul. When Paul, for an example, talks about "making the two into one new man" in Ephesians 2:15, he's not talking about our physical bodies. The next verse is very clear:

>and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross

SPIRITUALLY. We have a common path to God through the substitutionary, high priestly work of his Son, through his death and resurrection. That is the foundation of our peace.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with us all blending together to become a bunch of rootless mullatos and completely undoing the Tower of Babel. To be clear: nations in scripture, and for all of human history, have been understood to be racial/ethnic territories. God ordains those. That's his system. Look at the old testament and you'll see God repeatedly using one nation to judge another nation, because God himself judges both the individual and the group. It's not a social construct, as the cool kids with their liberal arts degrees are saying these days.

>Paul ministers to Gentiles to fulfill their fulness for the sake of the Jews' eyes being opened?

"for the sake of the Jew's eyes being opened" is an odd way of phrasing it, but yes I'm aware that there's an eschatological fulfillment to be had. And were the hearts of the Jewish people to suddenly change, I'd be climbing over people to evangelize them, but for the past 2,000 years they've been running a global slave trade and blaspheming God, Mary, and Christians, both endlessly and in some very creative ways.

I mention Mary because that point particularly irked Martin Luther, who'd spent decades trying to evangelize the Jews in Germany to no avail. His last written work published before his death was On the Jews and Their Lies. I strongly recommend giving it a read. It's quite eye opening.

https://archive.org/details/TheJewsAndTheirLies_201812

>You ever read Jesus' own words to the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, where He knits His return to their vocal acceptance of Him?

Yes, and? They're still harvesting foreskins for face cream right now. No that's not an exaggeration, they are literally harvesting foreskins for cosmetic products.

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2015/04/14/baby-foreskin-facial-boston-hydrafacial/

Continuing >>12150

>>12146

>how He prophesies that He'll be faithful to Abraham's children

>Did you not notice that while Jesus spoke to the Pharisees /who rejected him/ saying, "You are not of Abraham but of your father the devil," he then looked at all of his Jewish disciples, even the Apostles, saying that they were of Abraham?

Romans 9:6-8

>But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

"Abraham's children" has nothing to do with biological descedent.

>The Bible clearly dictates that there is one race, the descendants of Adam

Ethnos. The Greek word most commonly translated nation is ethnos.

>through Christ, the second Adam, we are made a new creation.

Spiritually. The biological reality remains.

>if you are a Christian, your race is now irrelevant

In terms of your salvation, yes.

>This echoes Psalm 45

>Let me reiterate, "Forget your people and your father's house."

You're really stretching the application of that one. Let's flip that around by applying it to something that's an explicit shadow of Christ and the Church.

Genesis 2:23,24

>The man said,

>“This is now bone of my bones,

>And flesh of my flesh;

>She shall be called Woman,

>Because she was taken out of Man.”

>For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

The woman must also leave her father and mother for this. That's what the Psalm is talking about. Not leaving your nation because you joined the church.

>If your race is relevant, you are no longer in Christ, as race is the idol at which you worship.

It isn't an idol. It's physical reality, with God's stamp on it. You can tell both race and sex from bone structure alone. Even the brain is different.

You think I'm the one importing something? You're trying to use scripture to justify the denial of the existence of biological differences. How am I the one with the idol when you're using radical egalitarianism, a recent concept that's foreign to scripture, as an interpretative lens? What have I said that contradicts historical Christian orthodoxy on any core doctrine, such that you see fit to put me outside the circle of salvation?

>>12151

Solid stuff.

> I'm sure the inclination of Chinese men to marry laowai that has nothing to do with the one child policy and the consequent lack of available women in general. In Japan, you'd better believe there's a stigma against marrying gaijin. I've not heard of South Koreans being particularly attracted to the oekuk-saram, so you'll have to fill me in on that.

Southeast Asia is comprised of the 11 countries south of China. China, Korea, and Japan, are all considered "East Asia." If you happen to know more archaic terms, think Indochina+ the Islands. More modern, it's essentially from Burma in the West to Philippines in the East and East Timor in the South. (Technically Burma also reaches the farthest North, after which comes Vietnam).

When speaking of China, S.Korea, and Japan, what you're encountering is technologically advanced people with a Confucianist, anti-western dialogue under their culture. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture there.

>It does. This is where racial thinking comes in handy.

So you'd then also argue that Noah and Noah's sons failed to keep their bloodline pure, even though God deemed them as righteous?

> If they weren't big bois, then there's no reason for the children to be either… Something tells me that giving up their daughers wasn't voluntary.

It's logically necessary for your dialogue but not at all for the text, especially from an ancient perspective where gods commonly descended and inseminated women.

Further, if Seth's kids are all big bois, then why are only the children of Seth+Cain the "mighty men of old?" Wouldn't Seth's pure, untainted bloodline be mightier?

Your thought experiment about the sons of Seth stealing the daughters of Cain is fascinatingly unnecessary for the text… Unless you're saying that that's proof that Seth's men were big bois? Even then, that's logically unnecessary even 'inside' of your understanding of the text, because intermarriage was a common method of making peace between tribes in ancient cultures.

>he doesn't bring up anything Enochian until verse 14

He doesn't 'directly' point out Enoch as the source until verse 14, correct. However, it's crazy how much he's actually pulling from Enoch, just like the rest of the Epistles pull from the OT and Jesus without directly stating the source. [To be clear, I'm not defending Enochian priority. Just pointing out facts. I find it crazy to claim that he's pulling from Enoch predominantly because Enoch didn't make it into the Canon so… I'm not sure what to do with it.]

>inclusio

I think I made the mistake here. I looked the verse up in the NET because of their extensive commentary on why they translated what as what and forgot to double-check with the Greek and the NASB. In the NET it renders the "he" in verse 5, "'He' brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly," as "God," likely to make it abundantly clear who brought the flood.

So, the inclusio is not as clear as I thought it was, certainly my mistake.

At the same time, looking into this brought something further to light which ties the angels and wicked before the flood together as distinct from Sodom and Gomorrah. ἐφείσατο, the word we translate as, "Did not spare," is used only 4 times in the Greek. It's used twice in Romans where God did not spare His son, Jesus, and then twice again in verse 4 and 5, referring to the angels and ancient world (respectively). This is then distinct from how it refers to Sodom and Gomorrah, which he condemned, rather than "did not spare."

So, there is actually a type of inclusio, just not the one that I thought (That's what I get for leaving the NASB :p)

>then you also have to say that Sodom and Gomorrah, along with Lot, took place during Noah's time as well.

Straight up, when I realized my mistake about the NET's translation I was going to come here and explain my mistake and then agree with you. But in the process of double checking everything that's how I found that hidden gem from the Greek. So, you're right, if we're talking about utilizing the term Theos, but I've realized that's wrong, and now am pointing to a different term that ties the angels and ancient world together.

>>12146

Gaslighting

Continuing >>12155

>Arminius and Calvin

I love that you're looking into commentaries but you also 'must' realize how bent Arminius, Calvin, and Luther were in their interpretation of the text, no? Like, first off, they didn't have all of the writings that we have (even the alexandrian texts, etc.). Second, Calvin is calling it laughable from the mindset of a renaissance thinker during a time when priests were called to be celibate. (Which, for sure, Calvin disagreed with. However, he didn't disagree with it in principle. Rather, he disagreed because the Text clearly calls some who were married. If it weren't for that, according to the culture of his day, he would have promoted it. This is but one example of how Calvin was a cultural and uninformed reader of the text [without even mentioning how he fails to realize Augustine's flaws]).

>Yes, optimistic

This makes considerable sense. Considering you know your flavor of A, I assume you know of historic premillennialism? That's what I fall under. I figure that if we believe a 3=1 God that became flesh and died and rose again and then peace'd out by floating up into the sky while his followers watched Him, rather than staying on earth in His new and improved body to do the work of the Kingdom as a normal, logical human would do, then I'm okay with believing in physical expressions of the book of Revelation and good deal of the OT Prophets (especially considering how literal so many prophecies of Jesus' second coming ended up being, even if we didn't know they were prophesies [E.g., Ps. 22]). So, considering I'm crazy enough to believe that, I'm crazy enough to say that angels inseminating humans 'italics'isn't outside of the realm of possibility'italics'. This doesn't mean I'll stand here and say, "This has to be how it happened!," because I find it just as absurd as Calvin, but simultaneously I feel a need to be as true to the Text as I can be, which necessitates going, "This is the clearest interpretation of this Text, regardless of our opinions. Let's ask God about it when we get there."

>Why have we been arguing then?

Because, as I said, I'm arguing for a proper understanding of the Text, not a particular argument of what actually occurred. Therein, that proper understanding of the Text, as far as I am yet convinced, stands in direct contradiction to your race-theory. So, for the sake of the Text, I argue on.

>Where does God

Where does God chastise the various rapists, murderers, and slave traders that run the earth? Are we now going to say that God endorses those people? Your logic is problematic at best

>Why does God strike Nabal dead…which directly resulted in

David was the Lord's anointed king and everyone new that. Nabal was directly giving God the middle finger by insultingly rejecting David and His men (This is also why David was within his rights to go kill Nabal. It was against the Lord, not merely him.) Even though this did end up resulting in David's marriage to Abigail, you cannot claim that God caused or condoned that marriage. Rather, He defended His name and continued to allow David to act with free will (this is also only the beginning of David's mistakes that he makes. Notice he runs off to join the enemies of God, the Philistines, rather than trusting in the Lord. We can't say that David was doing everything right in this season.).

>I then immediately an argument that God promotes the mixing of races - I have no idea what you're saying here.

Yeah, somehow I missed a word. "I then immediately 'italics'see'italics' an argument…"

Essentially, if God intentionally gave all of David's wives to him, endorsing every single one, then God promotes the mixing of races because David has wives that are not of the Tribe of Judah, nor even of Israel.

>He outlines rules for the Israelites on how to do polygamy.

So, you're going to argue that God is pro-slavery too?

>Sounding a little Woke there.

Hahaha. Westernized Women have no idea what a true patriarchy looks like.

> the kings pre-flood were just taking woman after woman instead of caring for them. - That has yet to be established

Yeah, so does the idea that the term "sons of God" refers to the sons of Seth who were big bois, yet here we are :p

Considering the text highlights the women's physical appearance, it's a reasonable assumption to believe that these individuals were not really caring for the women as much as their enjoyment of said women (especially if we're to take the "Human Kings" argument).

>Apostrophes, not quotation marks.

'italics'Cheers mate!'italics' (That's gonna look hilarious if I still did it wrong)

Continuing >>12158

> Do I really need to go fetch any of countless stories by interracially married men and women where they explain some of the fundamental incompatibilities that exist in their relationship, which make them miserable or at least greatly unsatisfied?

From the people that I know, more inter-racial couples stay together than same-race.

I'll say that another way. Of the people I know, more same-race couples are divorced than inter-racial couples.

Furthermore, you can't merely blame race. Go have a black woman from the streets of Atlanta marry a man born an raised in South Sudan. It's gonna be a problem.

Go have a white person from the Bronx marry a white person from SouCal. It's gonna be a problem.

Cultural distinctives cause impressive conflict, regardless of race.

>I think I've realized something, you're not Christian are you? - I most certainly am.

Solid, I appreciate that you didn't get pissed at my bluntness.

>One Body Spiritually (Basically condensing everything you've said and then responding to it)

Yeah, I can agree that it should be understood in a primarily Spiritual way. However, I have trouble then claiming that we can completely discount a second, less-ethereal application of the Text.

Specifically though, I brought up most of those verses to butt back against your antisemitism. Considering God calls them the Apple of His Eye, I don't want to insult them. Is modern judaism more like Hinduism with some Christianity sprinkled in? Sure. But Babylon was judged for attacking sinful Israel (even though God raised them up), so I'm not inclined to join the side of the accuser.

On that note.

> Jew's eyes being opened…. I'm aware that there's an eschatological fulfillment to be had.

Yeah, it's a little odd, but I think it works well considering their eyes are currently blind, and the Bible speaks of blind eyes opening, as well as it then references verses like Eph. 1, Acts 26, etc.

I'm glad that you're able to see "an eschatological fulfillment to be had," and that you'd be excited about evangelizing to them if they'd be open to the Gospel. However, in that, considering your amillennialism, I'd actually love if you could explain your perspective on what that eschatological end practically looks like? (I'm legit curious, this point has moved beyond our initial discussion, so feel free to say 'nah' if you want)

>for the past 2,000 years

The Gentiles have been doing the same and even worse. It's the Catholics who ordained Mary-worship, not the Jews, etc. This point bothered Luther because he really wasn't that far off from Catholicism. I am quite aware of his work, 'On the Jews,' and that's further evidence to me of how Luther fell off the wagon rather than proof of the excellence of his ideas. You know that work was utilized in promoting the Holocaust, yeah?

>They are literally harvesting foreskins for cosmetic products

They're productive. I realize you may be against circumcision but imagine if you had an entire nation that believed heavily in circumcision (even Arabs circumcise). What would you do with all of that flesh? It's not like they're going out an harvesting organs from people. Rather, they have a surplus, and they're trying to make use of it. This is part of God's blessing on them [even though many use it for a variety of evil things.] they're masters of efficiency.

Continuing>>12159

> Romans 9:6-8

So, you're going to say that Gentiles are now included in the land-promises too? You realize that God made a variety of promises to Abraham, aye?

>"Abraham's children" has nothing to do with biological descendent.

Paul made these arguments after laying out Romans 1-8 which establishes that there is a "greater blessing" to be a Jew. In the context, Paul's making an argument about the gift of salvation, as only Israel is saved, while also arguing that Jews, which are different from Gentiles, and regarded as different by God than Gentiles, will also be saved in the future, because God cares for them in a specific way. You gotta read 9 in context (Luther doesn't, and Calvin and Arminius base their thoughts on Luther).

>Ethnos

The Ethnos all came from Adam. Furthermore, "Ethnos" is a tribe. So if you have a tribe of germans on one side of a river and a tribe of germans on the other side of a river, you could call them different Ethnos.

> The woman must also leave her father and mother for this. That's what the Psalm is talking about. Not leaving your nation because you joined the church.

That fails to acknowledge why the Psalmist, inspired by the Spirit, felt the need to add "Your father's people" to the Genesis 2 account. Furthermore, you also completely bypassed my point about hating your father and mother (Unless you're taking a super spiritual route on that one? Not saying that I despise my mom. Just that I'm not connected to her, especially if she were not in Christ. Also, in Christ, I am then connected to her, but only through Christ, just as I would be connected to an individual of a deviant skin color who is in Christ.)

> It isn't an idol. It's physical reality, with God's stamp on it. You can tell both race and sex from bone structure alone. Even the brain is different.

Micro-evolution is a thing, sure. But DNA-wise, there's barely any deviance. Also, got any scholarly articles on any of that?

> You're trying to use scripture to justify the denial of the existence of biological differences

I don't deny there's differences at all. Rather, I deny that those differences denote the need to "keep the bloodline pure," especially considering how problematic inbreeding is.

> radical egalitarianism, a recent concept that's foreign to scripture, as an interpretative lens?

Racial egalitarianism, that's a new term for me!

Gender-egalitarianism is actually quite clear from the NT (John writes to a woman who's the leader of a church, etc.).

As for racial, it's not really a new concept at all? People have been cross-breeding for centuries. I mean really, who cross-bred more than the wisest man to ever live: Solomon?

> What have I said that contradicts historical Christian orthodoxy on any core doctrine, such that you see fit to put me outside the circle of salvation?

The severe antisemitism bit is what caught me up.

>>12157

Nah, I was completely serious and he seemed like the type of dude I could call out like that and hear a legitimate response from (as is evidenced above). If we had found that we follow different Gospels, this entire conversation would need to be suspended until we finished that one.

>>12161

Whether you're serious or not has nothing to do with it. It's gaslighting. You're not making an argument (in that post), you're just appealing to this emotional faggy gospel coalition brand of Christianity and trying to depict detractors as fringe and crazy.

>>12158

>>12159

>>12160

>>12155

>It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture there.

Culture and race/blood are inseparable. From a people flows a culture, and human behavior is deterministic. Our genes are the primary driver of our behavior. They control everything from intellectual potential to addictive tendencies to dietary needs. None of these things are arbitrary.

It's astounding to me that you would impose upon east asians the notion that they didn't understand the impact that a parent's blood had upon a child. I can tell you that if your child is an obvious hybrid in Japan, they'll never be considered truly Japanese even if they were raised there, speak perfect Japanese as a first language, and know all of the customs. That doesn't mean they're treated unkindly, but the vast majority of Japanese people will forever view your child as "other."

China… I think you should seriously look more into the racial animosity of the Chinese Han. It's hardcore, both within and without.

>>12155

>So you'd then also argue that Noah and Noah's sons failed to keep their bloodline pure

I get your point, but I'm not certain either way to be honest. Perhaps he didn't and he was kept by grace, or perhaps God applied it to everyone going forward. It's not really a major issue for me.

>especially from an ancient perspective where gods commonly descended and inseminated women

Angels don't have sex organs or the instinct to reproduce…

>why are only the children of Seth+Cain the "mighty men of old?"

Because they weren't bloodthirsty maniacs? The earth was only full of violence after the mix. For some reason John 8:44 comes to mind

>You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father.

Why wouldn't the children of Cain do the desires of Cain? The children of Seth would be less likely to have any such an inclination toward meaningless violence.

>intermarriage was a common method of making peace between tribes in ancient cultures.

Yes, but there's quite a bit of difference between giving your daughter to the king several cities over and giving your daughter to a king on another continent.

>He doesn't 'directly' point out Enoch as the source until verse 14

Please substantiate your implication that v4 is pulling from Enoch.

>Enoch didn't make it into the Canon so… I'm not sure what to do with it.

Well Paul pulls from Greek mythology in order to make what he's saying relatable to them in the sermon on the mount, so I don't see why Peter can't pull from Jewish mythology in order to make a concept more relatable when talking to them. That's just good communication skills.

>In the NET it renders the "he" in verse 5, "'He' brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly," as "God,"

Makes sense, no problem.

>ἐφείσατο, the word we translate as, "Did not spare," is used only 4 times in the Greek.

4 times for that particular verb form. I feel like you're grasping at straws here. It's used 6 other times in different forms with no special meaning or significance beyond the plain meaning.

Continuing >>12171

>>12158

>you also 'must' realize how bent Arminius, Calvin, and Luther were in their interpretation of the text, no?

I was being ironic when I used Arminius to support Calvin, since you responded so negatively to Calvin. In what way do you say Calvin and Luther were "bent" exactly?

>Like, first off, they didn't have all of the writings that we have (even the alexandrian texts, etc.).

I fail to see how those manuscripts are relevant to what we were discussing? What they had to work with was quite sufficient.

>Second, Calvin is calling it laughable from the mindset of a renaissance thinker during a time when priests were called to be celibate.

Again, how is that relevant? How does priestly celibacy in any way relate to anyone's view on Genesis 6:2?

>Therein, that proper understanding of the Text, as far as I am yet convinced, stands in direct contradiction to your race-theory.

You've yet to define your position on that text, so I'm not sure how it disagrees with a racialist interpretation. You're arguing a position that you seemingly don't even agree with for some reason.

>Where does God chastise the various rapists, murderers, and slave traders that run the earth?

In the places where he chastises rapists and murderers. Also I strongly suggest you look up a list of Jewish hereditary diseases. It's jaw dropping.

>This is also why David was within his rights to go kill Nabal

1 Samual 25 makes it very clear that even David himself did not believe he would have been within his rights to avenge himself against Nabal.

>Even though this did end up resulting in David's marriage to Abigail, you cannot claim that God caused or condoned that marriage.

That is exactly what I'm claiming.

>Essentially, if God intentionally gave all of David's wives to him, endorsing every single one, then God promotes the mixing of races because David has wives that are not of the Tribe of Judah, nor even of Israel.

His wives were not biologically dissimilar to him. That is specifically what God appears to discourage. I make no objection to a Somalian marrying a Congolese. I make no objection to a Taiwanese marrying a Korean. I make no objection to a Russian marrying a Swede. When a Korean marries an Irishman, we make a Starburst commercial about it.

>So, you're going to argue that God is pro-slavery too?

His form of slavery was a social safety net for the old world and it looked absolutely nothing like what the Talmud encourages, so yes. He was in favor of a very specific kind of slavery within Israel.

Continuing >>12173

>>12159

>Cultural distinctives cause impressive conflict, regardless of race.

Obviously they can, yes.

>Specifically though, I brought up most of those verses to butt back against your antisemitism.

Isn't it funny how Arabs are Semites too, and yet Arabs can be antisemites when they complain about Jews?

Isn't it funny how the ADL will attack Arab-Muslim groups if they try to call people antisemites for attacking them?

Isn't it funny how Jews have invented a new term to refer to "racism" against their specific group, but nobody else can have one?

>Considering God calls them the Apple of His Eye, I don't want to insult them.

>so I'm not inclined to join the side of the accuser.

This is where our difference in echatology is going to create an impasse. I couldn't care less about national Israel.

>I'd actually love if you could explain your perspective on what that eschatological end practically looks like?

Frankly, this area of theology isn't my strong point. I just know enough to know things to rule out.

>The Gentiles have been doing the same and even worse.

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

>For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.

They really are hostile to all men and, no, their deeds are quite in a league of their own. But that goes too far beyond the scope of this thread to get into here.

>It's the Catholics who ordained Mary-worship, not the Jews, etc.

>This point bothered Luther because he really wasn't that far off from Catholicism.

That dogma became popular much later on. I see nothing wrong with holding Mary in high esteem as a faithful, holy woman, and unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I know of nothing that would indicate that Dr. Luther worshipped Mary. Perhaps if you knew the things that the Talmud says of her, you would understand his outrage. I'd rather not repeat their blasphemies, but they should be easy to find.

>I am quite aware of his work, 'On the Jews,'

and their lies. You say you're aware of it, but have you actually read his grievances? Say what you will of his theology, but the man was no liar.

>You know that work was utilized in promoting the Holocaust, yeah?

The Holohoax is not the best subject to bring up when talking to a /pol/lack unless you're wanting me to blast you with a torrent of red pills. I'd rather keep this thread mostly on topic.

<They are literally harvesting foreskins for cosmetic products

>They're productive.

>This is part of God's blessing on them

I hope that you're just trolling. The normal, healthy human reaction to this kind of information is abject revulsion.

Continuing >>12175

>>12160

<Romans 9:6-8

>So, you're going to say that Gentiles are now included in the land-promises too?

I quoted the text. You're no longer arguing with me, but Paul.

>while also arguing that Jews, which are different from Gentiles, and regarded as different by God than Gentiles, will also be saved in the future, because God cares for them in a specific way.

Paul literally uses the illustration of snapping off unfruitful branches from the tree of Israel and grafting in fruitful branches from wild gentile trees. The way in which Jews are special, according to Paul, is that they had the honor of being the vehicle for the arrival of the law and the prophets. You don't believe that Jews are saved by the old covenant, do you?

>Luther doesn't, and Calvin and Arminius base their thoughts on Luther

Upon what basis do you say that Calvin's thoughts were based off of Luther?

>Furthermore, "Ethnos" is a tribe.

I know of no translation which would translate Ethnos as "tribe" under any circumstance, and yes I just double checked to be sure. I don't know where you got that from, but you are flat out wrong.

>That fails to acknowledge why the Psalmist, inspired by the Spirit, felt the need to add "Your father's people" to the Genesis 2 account.

What the heck kind of hermaneutic is that?

>Furthermore, you also completely bypassed my point about hating your father and mother

You're misinterpreting what Jesus was saying in that passage as well.

>But DNA-wise, there's barely any deviance.

I'm 60% banana. Do you find me a-peeling?

>Also, got any scholarly articles on any of that?

https://academic.oup.com/labmed/article-pdf/29/7/423/24957041/labmed29-0423.pdf

It's getting late, so that will have to do for now.

>I deny that those differences denote the need to "keep the bloodline pure," especially considering how problematic inbreeding is.

I don't think you understand what inbreeding is, but like I said earlier, outbreeding is just as bad as inbreeding. Typically the same set of consequences involved.

>Racial egalitarianism, that's a new term for me!

I said radical egalitarianism, although yes I meant it to encompass race as well.

>Gender-egalitarianism is actually quite clear from the NT (John writes to a woman who's the leader of a church, etc.).

Please provide biblical reference for John writing a woman church leader.

1 Tim 2:12

>But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

I guess Paul was a misogynistic homophobobigot.

>The severe antisemitism bit is what caught me up.

It shouldn't have. Antisemitism and Christianity go together like peanut butter and jelly. Jews were even kind enough to set us up a fan page for it on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity

>>11394

>How would you know this,

It is what has been observed.

>it seems like a quite subjective argument,

Since it has been observed, its objective.

>blood is blood regardless.

You clearly know nothing about DNA and the Bible clearly mentions the importance of the SEED, which means basically DNA. Seed is important.

Daily reminder, race mixing is a demonic doctrine.

>>12324

And what is that a quotation from? I'm 100% against race mixing, but how do you Christian Identity guys deal with the absence of your doctrines from church history? And why would you want to be Israelites considering what was written about them in the Old Testament? God did not speak favorably of them at all.

>>5970

So there is a natural surplus in male already in every society.

When now the black men take all the white women, maybe because there is an invasion into your country, this is the root of discord and anger and a lot of frustration.

These frustrated sexless, in the sense of not having a sexual and marriage partner, then are a danger for the society, as much as the other ethnicity.

Ofcourse they will be mad and maybe even -oh they are human- turn violant or hostile at some point.

There is very surely rare cases of "natural" inermixing. but when theres media and masses behind brainwashing into it, you can considert it to be bluntly unnatural.

Also you got to ask about how christian it is, to take your fellow christians women away.

At first, I was attracted to Christianity. Then I was puzzled by many decisions made by the church.

After seeing videos about "new world order", I started to see the whole image and was appalled.

>>5971

Doesn't this logic mean that Whites were not ever intended to live in the American Continent?

>>5945

>White people are Israelites from the 10 lost tribes of Israel. We shouldn't mix with non-Israelites.

schizo moment

>>8251

>muh pseudoscientific study