>>4693193

>Making other people the bad guys is not scripture.

Untrue. It's all over.

First, why is Jesus' lineage (and the lineage of Cain leading to the Canaanites) so meticulously catalogued if genetics don't matter?

Also, there are a number of parables and idioms in the bible that pit 2 different species against each other as good vs. bad:

>wheat vs. tares

>sheep vs. goats

>good figs vs. bad figs

In none of these is it explained that all were at one time good but later became corrupt due to experience/influence. The message is that their identify as good vs. bad is informed by their inherent nature (as a seed becomes a plant) not experience. In nature vs. nurture, the bible teaches nature as the first determinant.

From there, a good nature can be corrupted by choice/experience. We are told we (God's children) are not the authors of sin, but that we fall to temptation. Satan's children are the authors of sin, the tempters. As Jesus said in John 8:44, it is because it is in their nature to lie and murder, as they are the offspring of their father, Satan.

>>4703254

These are not arguments. Anyone can quote particular verses out of context and claim they mean something other than their true meaning. Your quoting the Ephesians reference to spiritual wickedness in high places does not address how that wickedness originated, which was the basis of my argument, which I backed partly with Genesis 6 (pic), and partly by referencing other historical docs in general.

>IF you think to avoid the adverse Words of God personally and try to lay them on some other guy

This is a strawman of what I said. My argument wasn't about avoiding personal responsibility for choices, my argument was about the existence of a line of entities here on earth which began with the Fallen Angels and are the source, the "authors" of all sin here. The bible is very clear who are the tempters and who fall to temptation.

>And no, the devil did not sexually reproduce with humans either.

There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Even in the story of Gilgamesh, a non-biblical story but of similar age to older biblical stories, the referencing of "eating fruit" in a context of a man and woman interacting meant to have sex. Many stories of the time used that idiom, to which any student of ancient texts can attest. Have you studied them, or are you merely talking out your ass?

And it is the height of dishonesty to reference the Timothy quote, which contained specific instructions to men of the time not to be impressed with fake, made-up "genealogies" as if to say it meant that all other references in the bible to genealogies are moot and unimportant. The bible does not contradict itself. Any apparent contradiction stems from our failure to reconcile a misunderstanding.

>>4701146, >>4739195

>the (((triggering))) continues

Were you there that night? Since BO/BV have revealed all the pro-JQ spambots, how do we know the entire thing wasn't just fake and gay? How many pro-JQ anons here are rly just JIDF, poisoning both sides of the issue? Has it now spilled into the biblefag thread? Is that what you're doing?

>>4742732, >>4742861

Not kvetching, just the opposite. I was there too, also thought was legit, but BO/BV can see hash data we can't, and say was largely fake and gay.

>It was absolutely legit and the shills went crazy.

So how do we know it wasn't just manufactured to make us look like nutjobs? How do you know that baker wasn't one of 'em for that matter?

Again, totally srs questions. Am looking for actual defense of your position, not just trying to cast suspicion in bad faith. Everyone who's researched the issue knows it's the fucking Jews. I've been here practically since the beginning, have been Jew-woke for almost 20 yrs, and actively part of the alt-right since it began. I'm just legit trying to figure out how we can tell the legit pro-JQ anons here from the JIDF ones.

>>4743033

>or this is just another slide away from someone reading the verses I am reposting below.

I know that Talmud shit's real, I got no problem with your posting it. Not trying to slide, legit looking for clarity.

>i saw one hash graphic showing a jidf faggot posting gay JQ shit

Yeah I know, BO posted that one, I saw it. Not what I'm talking about. Was a recent discussion in Meta btwn BV and baker where BV said evidence suggested "Mossad Massacre" was fake and gay, that we all got played. Then I see you guys saying no, you were there, so was just wondering how you were so sure you didn't get played, or whether you could put up some argument/evidence you yourself aren't part of the pro-JQ JIDF subversion force. We're all in here trying to figure out who's who with very little to go on, was just looking for more info.