Well said, anon. Fuck christcucks, all abrahamic bullshit will be eradicated, yours is no exception, it's as equally retarded as its (((origin))).
This was the glownigger poster, don't see any of the alleged "rantings" about christcucks here.
So your "proof" is some other guy that was also in that thread ranting about it that wasn't even the glownigger himself?
>the bible is the most racist document on the planet
>Christianity is bloodline religion
You'd have to be next-level delusional to think this is the case. I've seen some shit from christcucks in the past, but this is probably the most farfetched garbage I've ever read. Can you cite literally ANY verse in the NT (yes, in context) or an historical commentary from any orthodox tradition that even comes anywhere near supporting any of the bullshit you just posted? Is there some "secret hidden meaning" behind preaching to every "people, tribe, tongue, and nation" and "there is no Jew or Greek, for all are equal in Jesus" that every Christian missionary and theologian in history has somehow managed to gloss over but that you somehow uncovered? I'm confident that even /christian/ would call you a retard for all of the shit you just pulled out of your ass (although I don't go there, maybe they're as delusional as you are). You already failed to provide actual proof for your last claim, so I won't hold my breath.
And ironically enough, you even allude to Jesus saying he was sent only for the children of Israel (i.e. the Jews, which of course makes sense given the doctrines of the Jews; it was Paul who was the one radically altering everything along with Luke to try and make the cult more accommodating to the goyim, that is, the Romans, but that's more detail than I care to go into) and try to act like that's proof he was sent to save some unidentified non-Jewish "bloodline".
Bullshit fringe theories that are mostly speculative and have no actual historical basis don't interest me. All those links are from the same author, so his inherent bias is apparent, and I'm assuming his ideas don't have much support from anyone else. I don't have the time to go through everything right now, so I'll leave it to someone else if they care enough.
>you asked for an answer
To an entirely different question.
>that means nothing
Fair point, I should have worded it better. What I meant was that you couldn't find a single historian (since that guy isn't an actual historian, just some loon who thinks he's found the "Real Christianity!™") who believes that bullshit and would support what he says. Given that he tries to use the bible as an actual historical account even though it's been proven to be wrong and historically unreliable numerous times, I think it's safe to say he's full of shit. There was no "Noah" or global flood (although you apparently think it was local, but regardless), that was a Sumerian myth stolen by Jews from the Epic of Gilgamesh and only composed and edited centuries after.
Even other Christians don't buy that "durrr lost tribes of Israel are white" nonsense.
>https://www.gotquestions.org/lost-tribes-Israel.html
>A surprising number of groups around the world claim to have descended from the “lost” tribes: there are people in India, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and North America who all claim such ancestry. Other theories equate the Japanese or the American Indians with the ten “lost” tribes of Israel.
I find that line especially telling.
>you know ZERO about biblical religion
And by that you mean your own personal views of the bible that practically no one outside of /pol/ shares because they aren't actually in the bible.
>who do you think Jesus was anyway
Same thing everyone else that isn't Christian thinks of him: just some 1st century Palestinian Jewish teacher and Roman agitator that was crucified and had a few cults surrounding him, one of which would end up becoming the dominant tradition after subverting Rome and destroying the competition, becoming Nicene Christianity.
>old testament
I knew you'd jump straight to the Hebrew bible, which is why I asked for a New Testament passage in context that supports the idea that "Christianity is a bloodline religion", not some out-of-context Old Testament (that's the OLD covenant, remember?) passage you have some warped understanding of and that don't say anything like what you think they do. You also didn't even bother addressing the verses I pointed out that directly contradict your position. So now that I've reiterated, let's see how you fail to answer the question again.
This honestly isn't worth my time and I've wasted too much of it providing actual responses to someone who obviously doesn't care and just wants to believe whatever they want, so this will probably be my last reply on this.
<muh Israel conspiracy bullshit
Leave.
Yes, according to literally everyone but christcucks on /pol/ that have to deal with the cognitive dissonance, Jesus of Nazareth was a first-century Jewish Galilean preacher and religious leader, among other things. It's literally the first line on his Wikipedia page, but even if you don't trust Wikipedia (which, generally speaking, you shouldn't), he was brought up in the Jewish tradition (and was even circumcised), preached from Jewish books, had Jewish disciples, claimed to speak for the Jewish god, and is literally viewed by all of his earliest and subsequent followers as the fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah. Unless you actually have a substantial rebuttal to that besides "hurr durr hello rabbi", then it'd be best if you just stopped posting.
I said I would stop, and probably should have, but I couldn't help myself, you're just too easy to refute.
>Mat 10:5-6
>These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Although it's cute that you think you can just use the Greek word and translate it without context, even though literally every New Testament translator disagrees with you for obvious reasons.
But even if we were to grant that your "translation" is accurate, it still ends up contradicting your own position, because the "nation" that Jesus was in was the province of Judea, which means that he was referring to the non-Jews. Which once again refutes your position. But don't take my word for it, here's some commentaries by actual Christians who don't share your agenda that show why you're wrong.
>Barnes' Notes on the Bible
>Into the way of the Gentiles - That is, among the Gentiles, or nowhere but among the Jews. The full time for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles was not come. It was proper that it should be first preached to the Jews, the ancient covenant people of God, and the people among whom the Messiah was born. Afterward he gave them a charge to go into all the world, Matthew 28:19.
>Benson Commentary
>And commanded, Go not into the way of the Gentiles — That is, into their country. Their commission was thus confined now, because the calling of the Gentiles was deferred till after the more plentiful effusion of the Holy Ghost on the day of pentecost.
>Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
>Go not into the way of the Gentiles—The emphatic limitation… was confined to the mission on which they were now sent[, and] that it did but recognise a divine order, the priority of Israel in God’s dealing with mankind, “to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile[.]"
>Mat 15:24
See my previous comments on it at the bottom of this post >>13410222 which still stand. To repeat myself, he was preaching to Jews in Judea, hence the use of the term "house of Israel". The meaning is obvious to everyone except people like you that want to deny it. Once again, here's some commentaries to prove my point, whereas you have literally nothing but your own delusions.
>Barnes' Notes on the Bible
The "lost sheep of the house of Israel" were the Jews. He came first to them. He came as their expected Messiah. He came to preach the gospel himself to the Jews only. Afterward it was preached to the Gentiles, but the ministry of Jesus was confined almost entirely to the Jews.
>This is why Christianity was never meant to be corrupted by the Pharisees and turned into a 'global religion'
LMAO. You have no idea the complications you just created for yourself. Allow me to explain.
-
Is your god really so pathetic that he couldn't even stop his "true" religion from being corrupted almost immediately after its inception?
-
If you think the Pharisees "corrupted" your religion almost immediately after its inception, why do you trust anything about it? How do you actually discern what is and is not corrupted (besides personal preference)?
-
If it was only a "corruption by the Pharisees", why are there literally verses everywhere that say to preach the world, and why did all of the Church Fathers and subsequent missionaries carry out these commands? Are these all later interpolations?
Holy shit, you're a total schizo. I feel bad you're so delusional. You sound like a Black Hebrew Israelite, only that you're trying to make it White Hebrew Israelites.
Ok, now I'll stop.
I think I'll rub salt in the wound, here's John Calvin himself talking about Matthew 15:24, showing this is the correct meaning of the verse, and has been understood to be such for at least half a millenium:
>I am not sent. He informs the Apostles that his reason for refusing the woman of Canaan arises out of his desire to devote himself entirely to the Jews to whom alone he was appointed to be a minister of the grace of God. He argues from the call and the command of the Father, that he must not yield any assistance to strangers; not that the power of Christ was always confined within so narrow limits, but because present circumstances rendered it necessary that he should begin with the Jews, and at that time devote himself to them in a peculiar manner. For as I have said in expounding Matthew 10:5, the middle wall of partition (Ephesians 2:14) was not thrown down till after Christ's resurrection that he might proclaim peace to the nations which were aliens from the kingdom of God: and therefore he prohibited the Apostles, at that time, from scattering anywhere but in Judea the first seed of doctrine. Justly therefore, does he affirm that, on this occasion, he was sent to the Jews only, till the Gentiles also followed in the proper order.
No, John Calvin the Protestant Reformer, retard.
Once again failed to debunk anything and trying to deflect and move goalposts. So you /pol/ chirstcucks know Jesus was a Jew, you just won't admit it clearly, is the summary I think everyone can gather from this
Follow-up, I actually went and checked the catalog of /christian/ for Christian Identity just for fun, and sure enough, they recognize it as "bullshit and heresy", and compare it to the Black Hebrew Israelites.
>https://8ch.net/christian/res/810516.html
Look who's back.
>John Calvin was a fucking JEW YOU DUMB FUCK
Any actual proof, or just an assertion like usual? I know providing actual evidence for anything is like your Achilles' Heel, so I apologize if I'm making you butthurt. And even if Calvin's not your cup of tea, I could give you a dozen more commentaries and exegeses that say the same thing he did, if you insist (I literally gave you three other ones before).
>Gentiles means Ethnos
You've got it backwards. The Greek there is what is used to MEAN "Gentiles" (i.e. non-Jews, those not of the Israelites) in the context of Jewish texts (fun fact, if you read the Septuagint, it uses "ethnos" as a translation for "goyim"). And once again, even if we grant your interpretation, Jesus said this to his Jewish disciples in the province of Judea, which means he was referring to non-Jews as "ethnos", which literally proves exactly what I'm saying. So I don't see what you're trying to prove.
>pic related
Congrats on proving my point for me.
>your 'messiah' (((Saul)))
Don't have a messiah, since unlike you, I don't follow a Jewish religion. You're starting to sound like a Muslim, to be honest. So you reject all of the Pauline Epistles (and by extension, also Luke/Acts, I'm assuming)? What exactly do you deem authentic in the New Testament and why? You're aware all of the Gospels were written decades after Paul's epistles, and that he literally almost single-handedly shaped the majority of early Christian doctrine, right? Most of Christian doctrine comes from him. Even if you reject Paul, what's your excuse when it comes to the Great Commission, or literally every Church Father contradicting you?
>I don't feel sorry for you
Don't really care, you're literally a schizo retard, so your opinion doesn't matter, I just find this amusing is all, since practically all of history and scholarship contradict everything you believe. Watching you fail to answer anything and even outright ignoring half my arguments is funny.
You've got that right.