/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>7757

Probably means, without Christianity, Europeans would be brutish like the Philistines

It means they were sea people

>>7757

It is evidence for a late date for Exodus and confirms the Bible on the Philistines.

It shows how kikey kikes are. "Oh look goyim, the philistines were white! No, no, the Israelites were brown, Jesus was brown, there were no white people in the middle east. Except the philistines of course!". Everyone in the bible was white, it is the history of the white race. The other "races" are beasts of the field.

>>7762

>the bible was white, it is the history of the white race.

Fine

>The other "races" are beasts of the field.

okay come on now

>>7758

This. It was Christianity that civilized the barbarians, not their "European-ness".

>>7762

Face it: Europeans aren't "the REAL Jews" like you want to believe in order to force fit Christianity into your racial supremacist ideology. Get over it.

>>10696

>>10697

>replying to a month old post

Hes long gone guys

>>10698

Jesus never said yahweh, because yahweh is the name satan worshippers use for their damned god.

>>10701

the shitposted always* returns to the scene of the post

* except some glow nigs and all females,aka human shît.

>>10703

*shitposters

>>10696

>okay come on now

What do you think they are? Adam was created in God's image, in His likeness. Only one race can be Adamites, as the races are not created in the same image. So what do you think the other races are? You think the bible just never mentions them at all? What do you think beasts who can talk and have hands and are owned by Israelites could possibly refer to other than nigger slaves?

>>10698

>Europeans aren't "the REAL Jews" like you want to believe

I have no idea how you would get such a stupid idea. Israelites were white. That does not mean all white people are Israelites. White people are Adamites, a subset of them were Israelites. Just as the Dutch are white people, but that does not mean all white people are Dutch. And jews are the real jews. They are the descendants of Satan, when he seduced Eve and sired Cain, and was cursed to have his entire lineage be hated by the lineage of Adam and Eve. The only thing jews have to do with Isralites is that they lie to us, claiming to be Judeans but are not. Exactly as described in Revelation.

>>7757

Last they admitted ancient Egyptians were "European," now they admit the ancient Philistines were "European." I wonder when they'll admit the ancient Israelites were "European?" Or are they going to pull something like, "Israelites are identical to Canaanites so we can never know.?"

Actually I'm wondering when they'll admit all the early Mid-east Civilizations were European.

>>10718

So what hope does a quadroon (1/4) pakistani mutt like myself have? Am I one of the meek who will inherit the earth? I am not being sarcastic, this is a serious question.

If you truly believe, you would be saved.

The Biblical precedent being:

women can be saved, but aren't equal to men,

therefore, you can say that even though the various kinds of men may or may not be equal, if they believe, they can be saved.

>>10735

None. Mongrels are detestable to the Lord, he flooded the earth once just to wipe them out.

Also there is no meek shall inherit the earth. That's another kikey mistranslation. The word used is praus, which does not mean meek. It means obedient. The most common use of the word in Greek texts is in reference to war horses, which are most certainly not meek. A warhorse was described as praus if it was controlled easily, doing as commanded immediately and without question. Just as the Lord expects of us. The correct translation is those who obey the Lord will inherit the earth.

>>10748

A mongrel is not a kind of man. It is an abomination created by man mixing with beast. Genesis is very clear that this behavior is wrong, so much so that the Lord flooded the earth to wipe out the mongrels, only preserving Noah and his family as he was "perfect in his genealogy".

>>10735

>>10758

Don't listen to him. The samaritans were a mongrel people that Christ specifically used in parable and witnessed to as proof of the universality of the gospel. John 4 is an example, the woman at the well.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The gospel is efficacious to all races, and by logical necessity to those of mixed ancestry.

Meekness is an attitude, it's not at play in this question.

John 3:16

God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

Are you part of "whoever"? Then you can believe on Jesus for everlasting life.

>>10759

>The samaritans were a mongrel people

What on earth are you talking about? No they were not, they descended from Ephraim and Manasseh.

>Galatians 3:28

The word is Judean, not jew. Now read it. There is neither Judean nor Greek. Both are of mankind, descended from Adam. How does that support the idea that a mongrel is not detestable to the Lord, as the bible clearly shows?

>The gospel is efficacious to all races

There are no "races". There is mankind (white people), satanic hybrids (kikes), beasts of the field (your so-called "races"), and mongrels (the sinful mixing of man with beast).

>Meekness is an attitude,

Again, meek is not what the bible says. To knowingly repeat a false gospel is a sin.

>Are you part of "whoever"?

No he is not. Is your goldfish part of "whoever"?

>>10760

(you)

>>10761

(((you)))

>>10758

Well that sucks. What kind of mongrel would recognize this truth? What should a mongrel do?

>>10762

>>10718

>>10758

/pol/niggers like you have a special place in hell.

>>10781

>Well that sucks

Yes it does. This is why we should follow God's law instead of creating abominations.

>What kind of mongrel would recognize this truth?

I would assume the self-hating kind, like the supreme gentleman for example.

>What should a mongrel do?

Warn others not to make more abominations.

>>10782

>oy vey how dare you goyim teach the actual word of God!

There are no special places in hell, you will be right there with all the bad goyim, rabbi.

>>10786

If I'm to be a beast of the field, so be it if that truly is God's will. I don't mind being a slave of Israelites, it's commanded of them to treat their slaves rightly anyway right? Is it mentioned in any Aramaic texts/non masoretic sources on what becomes of mamzers? Do I just cease to exist? Lake of fire, etc? Just to specify, I don't look anything like a Pakistani. I've heard some christian identity people saying that those groups of people are possibly Israelites? I'm not sure. Surely I'm not supposed to live however I want, drunkenness idolatry lust violence etc. Israel sets an example for the rest of mankind right? Like think about the situation I'm in, I never asked for this, but it is the way it is. I suppose Cain never asked to be the son of Satan either.

>>10788

>Do I just cease to exist?

Presumably.

>Surely I'm not supposed to live however I want, drunkenness idolatry lust violence etc

I don't think you have the ability to choose how you live. You will live as you live just as any other creature does.

>Israel sets an example for the rest of mankind right?

You are not mankind.

>Like think about the situation I'm in, I never asked for this, but it is the way it is. I suppose Cain never asked to be the son of Satan either.

No he did not. This is why supposed "Christians" promoting heretical "all one human race" garbage are so terrible. Their lies directly lead to the creation of abominations that should never exist.

>>10802

the jew in the meme is explicitly violating the reformation doctrine of sola scriptura, he's saying an esoteric hidden knowledge is also authoritative

>>10802

>if you tell your dog "sit" then your dog is mankind

There's that amazing kike IQ again.

>>10814

He didn't say anything about talking back, he said communicating to him using words. The bible clearly mentions beasts who speak and have hands. What do you think they are talking about?

>>10818

No translation is needed Shlomo. Calling someone a "/pol/nigger" is not an argument, so you have no place to cry about supporting arguments. And the idea of special places in hell is heresy. There is no reserved seating, it is just hell. This is a Christian board, if the word of God upsets you, then you are not white and do not belong here.

>>10841

>The bible clearly mentions beasts who speak and have hands.

where?

>>10841

>he said communicating to him using words.

… in response to an inquiry from a "beast" who was also using words, and that subsequently responded to him using words as well. If you think you can have full out human language conversations with animals, you've probably been doing too much LSD. Both activities that are unbiblical anyway.

There were no Christians 3000 years ago, Christianity was born with Christ around 2000 years ago when Christ our lord Jesus was crucified by the Romans in the first decades after the year 0 or around 2019 years ago.

>>7762

WE WUZ JEWS AND SHIT

the israelites were not blue eyed blonde haired aryans, they were likely olive skinned or similar looking to the romans

>>10842

Exodus 19:13: "There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, I shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount."

It literally says a hand shall not touch it, beast or man. What beast has hands? The negro.

Jonah 3:8: "But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands."

Do you think the king was telling everyone that cows had to wear sackcloth and pray and stop being evil?

>>10846

>Both activities that are unbiblical anyway.

See above.

>>10856

Your feelings do not matter. Adam literally means ruddy. The descendants of Adam are stated to be fair skinned and blushing in the bible. Only white people blush. And Romans were not "olive skinned". White people who are tanned are tanned, white people who are not tanned are pale. "Olive" skinned people are mongrels.

>>10864

>Galatians 3:28 destroys his silly little theory

We've already covered that Shlomo. It says "neither judean nor greek". It says nothing about negroes. He is stating that salvation is for all mankind, mankind and Adamkind being one and the same.

>Not even the Jews describing Philistines called them literal beasts

Repeating this idiocy in every thread is bad enough, but maybe read the OP first? The entire thread is about how Philistines were white. Why would they be described as beasts when they were not?

>Why should anyone take you seriously again?

How ironic.

>>10842

>>10846

There are also other references that suggest negroes must be beasts aside from the hands and talking things. For example in Exodus 23 it says not to harvest on the 7th year, to let the poor people have it instead. And anything the poor people don't eat, the beasts of the field can have. It specifically mentions grapes and olives. What beast of the field eats grapes and olives? Not cattle, not horses, not donkeys. What else would be working fields besides those? Perhaps the same livestock that were still used for farming in the US 150 years ago and whose descendants now whine about it and demand gibs? You know that well into the 1800s negroes were not considered human, and were livestock. But the idea that this was also the case thousands of years ago is impossible?

There's all sorts of places where the bible makes no sense if you insist negros are humans. Fedoralords even use many of them to prove the bible is "nonsense", as with the beasts having hands. Here's another example, Deuteronomy 7:22: "And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest The Beasts of the Field increase upon thee." Was God telling them that cows would breed out of control and take over their land? That seems awfully bizarre. But "you'll be outnumbered by niggers" seems like a pretty helpful and accurate warning. Is your position really that God is crazy and/or stupid? When the obvious alternative explanation is that God is loving, helpful and all-knowing, but you've just bought into a modern man-made heresy that negroes are part of mankind?

You can try to dismiss all this as circumstantial or claim there's other ways to interpret these things, but there are no ways to interpret all of them consistently such that the bible is coherent and non-contradictory, without resorting to magic hand wavey bullshit like "well animals used to be able to talk and then gradually stopped being able to because reasons and that's never mentioned because it isn't important". And on the flip side, where is the evidence for negros being part of mankind? Negros are not "Judean or Greek". The bible makes perfect sense if you assume negroes fall under "beasts", and is full of weird nonsensical things if you assume they fall under "Adamkind".

>>10894

>Do you think the king was telling everyone that cows had to wear sackcloth and pray and stop being evil?

That's not what your verse is saying they're doing, so clearly not. "Crying unto God" can be done by anything that can make sound, like how wolves cry at the moon. Last time I checked, howls weren't words, much less human language. But since your grasp of language is clearly very poor, I can see how you would get those two mixed up.

>>10900

>bu-but even fedoras use my arguments!

<it's no big deal if I use (((atheists))) to justify my idolatry

<nevermind that they're notoriously bad at interpreting anything in the bible

>thinks animal overpopulation is "bizarre" and only makes sense when applied to humans

https://sciencing.com/effects-animal-overpopulation-8249633.html

https://www.salon.com/2013/11/09/11_species_we_should_hunt_more_often_partner/

Despite all this, you are making a compelling case for beasts being able to use human language though. Because I'm starting to think only a beast could be low IQ enough to produce posts like yours.

>>10902

>That's not what your verse is saying they're doing

Yes it is.

>"Crying unto God" can be done by anything that can make sound

If you could interpret a translation in multiple ways, you look at the original text for clarity instead of simply interpreting the translation to fit your preconceived idea of what it should mean. KJV is poor on this phrase, it should say "call" not "cry". The word is qara, it means to call, to name, to speak out, to read aloud. It is used 734 times in the bible, and only ever used in the context of speech or names. Like "And God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night" or "And Adam called his wife's name" or "And she called the name of the LORD". It is never used in the context of an animal making a normal animal sound.

>>10906

>>bu-but even fedoras use my arguments!

That's not what I said. Try reading.

>thinks animal overpopulation is "bizarre" and only makes sense when applied to humans

It does not say they will be overpopulated, it says they will be too many for us to deal with. Your examples are literally populations we can deal with, none of those pose any threat to us at all. And again, it says beasts of the field, not wild animals. What beast of the field could become too numerous for us to deal with? Do you think cows or horses can breed to the point of becoming a threat to us?

>Because I'm starting to think only a beast could be low IQ enough to produce posts like yours.

If my posts are so stupid, why are you incapable of a rebuttal? You failed to rebut the beasts calling to the Lord, you ignored the beasts wearing sack cloth, you ignored the beasts having hands, you ignored the beasts of the field eating grapes and olives, and you have presented absolutely no scripture to support your belief that negroes are of Adam.

Skin idolators.

Hittites were not indo-european. They are Canaanites Ham's children who occupied Anatolia and fought Ramses the 2nd at the battle of Kadesh.

Why people say they are indo-european?

Someone needs to make a thread on this topic.

>>11204

Strawman