Star of David much older than David, has nothing to do with him, is associated with Moloch, and Israel is not to have anything to do with it, according to both the Old and New Testaments

>>4949307 (pb)

>The Star of David is described clearly in the Old Testament, where it is called the Star of Remphan, aka Moloch,.and Israel is commanded to have nothing to do with it.

>>4949311 (pb)

>source?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-%E2%80%9Cstar-of-Remphan%E2%80%9D-mentioned-in-the-Bible

"The star was mentioned and condemned by the God of Israel in Amos 5:26 and it was called by Him, 'the star of your god, Moloch' or otherwise called 'Chiun'. Reference to Amos 5:26 and the Israelites having it in the wilderness was also made in Acts 7:43. Here it was called the Star of Remphan. All these names refer to the 'god' Saturn."

https://biblehub.com/acts/7-43.htm

"Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon."

See the links for much more detail on the answer.

>>4949509

Awesome! There's more! These are lovely!

Keep it up walkie talkie jew anon(s). Kikels not happy, but then again, why are they even here?

>>4949364

Man the shills don't like the walkie talkie jew. I do, though, he's kickin dere assus

>>4949608

oldfag out because the board is comped? ha ha HA HA HA.

oldfags ain't gonna give up for shill reasons.

>>4949593

Well, a reasonable fellow ought to expect SOME kind of counter offer from people who have it on their national flag (put there by Rothschilds, btw, against popular opinion).

The best alternate theory stuff I've seen talks about it being an 8 pointed star associated with Ishtar/Ashtoreth/Isis/Astarte/Etc instead of a 6 pointed star, that angle seems possibly credible, but the association with 6, Saturn, and Moloch is too solid to relinquish easily. I don't think the verses are referring to Ishtar, but they are definitely talking about Moloch.

>>4949659

Again I say, your evidence centers on a roomful of Jews laughing at someone, and therefore his statements are debunked.

I'm sure rooms full of Jews think this is sufficient evidence, but the rest of us are understandably unconvinced.

Go back and tell walkie-talkie jew that you failed, and ask him for better advice this time.

>>4949698

>>4949690

Lemme understand this right: It's a shill pointing out that Jews have the star of Moloch on their flag? Same star of Moloch that is on the pope's hat?

I do believe shills are the ones who don't want such things to be known. Try another tactic.

>>4949714

>But the Vatican hasn't been on any hot streak at all.

Well, they've been racking up the pedophile priest scoreboard more than any other group, wouldn't exactly call that a hot streak though. A sick streak, meybe.

As for Payseur, some of us knew about P before Q mentioned him. Apparently you don't know the major conspiracy stuff.

You're acting like none of this has been discussed before. Attractive to newfags, maybe, but not the rest of us.

>>4949736

Sorry, I totally agree with you, my response was intended for >>4949698 who was an obvious shill. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

Your input is great, I think the contradicting source was a good point.

>>4949759

Irony much?

Look back at the 'fact' that you're talking about: It was someone saying that an added clarification to my own notable was a shill comment. I ain't no shill. Hell I'd love to get paid for this, but the truth is I'm gonna be hurtin at work tomorrow, earning a real living.

You can curse at me, but I got the notable you be hatin.

>>4949773

I've done the same. Once was responding to items in one tab that originated in another tab, only to finally realize I was in two different breads and that's why I was getting errors.

…while I was the baker.

That got awkward. So I shutdown the browser entirely because I was so confused, and came back again, and BO promptly said "uh, why is your hash different?" He was real nice about it all, but I felt like a dork.

>>4949831

Bakers tonight have been great. BTFO the bakers, you need to go back to Facebook for a while if you're sick of what is normal here.

>>4949740

Today's news: "Elites still sacrificing children to Moloch." Pointing out the star of Moloch's origin, and where God said to stay away from it, is 100% relevant.

I actually don't hate Jews. I feel sorry for them, and can't wait for them to stop hating on (vexing) Joseph, whom they've been fighting since Rehoboam, Solomon's son, started the civil war which divided Israel. When that civil war ends, we all be getting along.

Can hardly wait.

>>4949490

This is tip of an iceberg. Got any more of that iceberg layin roun?

(pic unrelated but cool)

>>4949900

probably. he keeps saying isis is posting the anti semite stuff, but everybody knows isis doesn't do anything anti israel.

>>4949892

what single group on earth has more pedophiles being outed than any other? by my count, it's catholic priests. thousands of them, so far.

answer that, then tell me who is lying.

>>4949927

They don't notice those tiny things where their message doesn't line up with normal people's reality. Like the fact that I've never heard of a single Daesh/Israel incident, not once yet. Yet if Daesh were a real thing, instead of being fabricated by mos/c_a, they'd be all over the place causing Israeli's trouble.

We real people notice that, but their message is that Isis (truely, Daesh) is destroying everything and therefore we must be afraid. So they include Isis in the list of anti-semites, as if it were a thing.

Autists don't miss this kinda detail.

>>4949943

Baker is doing great! BTFO the "bakers-comped" line, if it were real we'd already have a new baker. They've been great all night.

You're just an irrelevant whiner with a single post out of 15 which is of any value at all, and now I'm starting to wonder what your motive is for that gruesome description of baby torture. Are you horrified, or are you talking from experience?

>>4950012

We're in agreement. I dig this baker, see, I said:

>Baker is doing great! BTFO the "bakers-comped" line.

Then I scolded the guy who was complaining about the baker,

>>4949935

bakers do not have the ability to delete posts. that's a BV or BO thing. bakers glean notables and create breads, but don't delete.

>>4950054

Cool. I've never seen the so-obviously-shills try the baker-is-comped angle so hard as tonight, so glad we're teaming up to have his back.