>>11647
>Paul was addressing the Greeks. No non-whites were implied
Paul literally opens Romans by saying the gospel is “for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (Rom 1:16), then spends three chapters proving that every human on the planet (Jew, Greek, Ethopian, Scythian, doesn’t matter) is guilty before God and needs Christ (Rom 3:9–23). He’s talking to literally everyone.
>It is. It's used in the original Hebrew text to mark people who descend from Adam, fully or partially.
No it isn't. The word was first used by CI. Not a ounce of the word is used in the Old Testament. Funny, because if you're so certain, then you could just easily show where it was ever used as a word.
>The seed is according to the promise, not to the law. See 1 Peter 1:1,
Funny how you're using 1 Peter 1:1 just to prove yourself wrong. 1 Peter 1:1 calls gentile believers in Asia Minor “elect exiles of the dispersion” and 1 Peter 2:9–10 calls them “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation”, language straight out of Exodus 19:5–6 that was originally said to Israel. Peter is applying Israel titles to mostly gentile churches. Paul does the exact same thing in Galatians 6:16 when he calls the church “the Israel of God.” You just handed me the loaded gun and told me to shoot your argument with it. Thanks, retard. The seed is according to the promise (faith), and Peter rubs it in your face that European and Anatolian Gentiles are now the “scattered chosen” because of Jesus, not because they’re secret Israelites.
>he European Galatians, Greeks and Romans of Anatolia are called the "scattered chosen", can't you notice?
"Scattered" / "dispersion" (diaspora in Greek) was classic Jewish lingo for Israelites scattered outside Judea after the Babylonian exile. But Peter slaps it on churches in northern Asia Minor (modern Turkey), areas that were overwhelmingly Gentile turf. These weren't Jewish strongholds; they were Roman provinces where Paul planted mostly Gentile churches (Acts 13–14 for Galatia, etc.). Peter knew that – he was in on the Gentile mission (Acts 15). Why call them "scattered chosen"? Because Peter (like Paul) is stealing Old Testament Israel titles and giving them to any Christians, Jew or Gentile. Check 1 Peter 2:9–10: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation... Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people." That's straight from Exodus 19:5–6 and Hosea 2:23 – originally for Israel, now for former pagans. The audience was mostly Gentiles facing Roman persecution, not secret white Israelites. Verses like 1 Peter 1:18 ("futile ways inherited from your forefathers") and 4:3 ("past life of debauchery, lusts, drunkenness, orgies") scream ex-pagans, not Torah-keeping Jews.
>Yeah? because it's all about polytonyms, I might have confused it with demonyms before but now I'm clarifying it's about subjugation and relation to a community.
You just made up a brand-new word (“polytonyms”) that doesn’t exist in any Greek lexicon, any biblical commentary, or any scholarly article ever written. Paul and Peter keep hammering the point that these people were 100% outsiders by birth, no Israelite blood, no circumcision, no law, nothing, and now they’re full members of God’s people through faith alone. Just admit the New Testament smashes your position instead of inventing fake Greek words nobody ever used until five seconds ago.
>Converting the Canaanites was forbidden by God in the Scriptures and law though.
And yet Jesus did it (Canaanite woman in Matt 15:21–28 gets called “great faith” and healed). And the Torah itself allows Canaanites to convert and become full Israelites if they accept circumcision and the covenant (see Rahab the Canaanite in Joshua 6 + her place in Jesus’ own genealogy in Matt 1:5, or the mixed multitude that left Egypt in Exodus 12:38). The ban was on intermarriage with unrepentant idolaters, not on genuine converts.
>The Gentile and Judean are polytonyms, they are not referred to the actual ethnicity. That's why you call the Jews, properly speaking, Jews. They are not the Israelites, they were integrated into their society and partially adopted their identity, that's why they call themselves "Judeans" because they were from the Roman province of Judea.
You’re doing pure word-salad cope. Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaios) in the NT literally means “Jew / Judean” and is used for ethnic/religious descendants of Israel, exactly the same way it’s used in the Septuagint, Josephus, Philo, and every other 1st-century source (John 4:9, Acts 2:5, Romans 1:16, 2:28–29, 3:1, 9–11). Paul constantly contrasts Ἰουδαῖος with Ἕλλην / ἔθνος (Greek / Gentile) as two real, mutually exclusive ethnic-religious categories (Romans 1:16, Galatians 2:14, Colossians 3:11). If “Jew” just meant “anybody who lived in Judea,” these contrasts make zero sense.
>The same way the Negroe became "Americans" after the integration in America.
The “Negroes became Americans” analogy is retarded.
Being an American citizen is a political/legal status you can acquire now thanks to the American Civil War and kikes. Being a Jew in the 1st century (or an Israelite in the OT) was a genealogical + covenant identity. That’s why Ruth the Moabite has to say “your people shall be my people, and your God my God” and still gets listed as a Moabite in Jesus’ genealogy. That’s why Paul can brag he’s “of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil 3:5). Blood + covenant, not just address. Your own theory self-destructs. If modern Jews are just “random integrated people” and not real Israelites, then Jesus (born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, called “King of the Jews” on the cross) was also a “fake Judean” under your definition. Congrats, you just made Jesus not an Israelite either. Stop inventing fake Greek terms and fake biblical history. Ἰουδαῖος means Jew, Ἕλλην means Greek/Gentile, and Paul spends entire letters proving those categories don’t matter anymore in Christ. Your racial midwit fan-fiction isn’t in the text.
>Yeah whatever genetically they are not.
“Yeah whatever genetically they are not” is the ultimate cope. Paul never once appeals to genetics, DNA, or “secret Israelite blood” to decide who’s in or out. He literally says the exact opposite in Romans 2:28–29: “A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly… but a Jew is one inwardly, by circumcision of the heart.”
You said in your previous post that you will only listen to Paul, but here you are opposing Paul and calling him a liar.
>Wrong, there's no evidence for it in the verse you cited
It's literally what the bible says on John 4:9, 20–22, atheist.
>They still were of the same blood. At the same time the replaced by Edomites priesthood wasn't classified as "your neighbor" by Him.
John 4:9 – “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.”
John 8:48 – Calling someone a Samaritan was the ultimate racial/religious insult.
Josephus (Antiquities 9.288–291; 11.340–347) says they were descendants of Assyrian colonists mixed with the few remaining northern Israelites and that real Jews despised them as foreigners.
Keep coping retard.
>Matthew 5:1. He was not.
You're like a tranny who denies reality that he will never be a women. Matthew 5:1–2: “Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them…” Then verses 21–48: six straight times “You have heard that it was said… but I say to you…”
>Yes, but He only clarifies it. Verses 23-24, the "enemy", or the "adversary"/"opponent" (verse 25) is meant to be your brother at first. It's an ingroup commandment.
Matthew 5:43–48 (read the whole thing, not just cherry-picked words like a typical christcuck:
<“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. If you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?”
>Even though the Septuagint already existed
The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that Jesus and the apostles quote all the time. In the LXX, Leviticus 19:18 is rendered:
<ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν, “You shall love your neighbor (plēsion) as yourself.”
Exactly the same word Jesus uses in Matthew 5:43 and Luke 10:27. Jesus quotes the exact Septuagint wording (“love your plēsion”) and then immediately smashes the oral tradition that limited it to the in-group by saying “but I say to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” So the existence of the Septuagint proves Jesus is deliberately using the broadest possible Greek word for “neighbor” (plēsion = anyone near you, any human) and then expanding it even further to include literal enemies and persecutors.
>Areus was the king of Sparta, sure it was them
Areus was only a king. And the letters are forgeries.
>I'm from Europe and English isn't my native language, I thought it was self-evident
No you aren't. Europeans aren't this retarded. And I've seen European ESLs and they often don't entirely fuck up their grammar and spelling for basic level English. Besides, CI is mostly an Anglo thing and is found nowhere else other than Britain and the United States. Unless you were groomed by retarded White nationalist Christians who forgot to inform you that they were lying to the whole time.
>Isaiah 2:2–5 is literally the worst verse you could pick to prove “Israel is NOT many nations.”
<“In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s house will be established… All the nations will stream to it,
many peoples will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob…’ …for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”
It’s a prophecy that all nations / many peoples (goyim and ‘ammim – the same words used for Gentiles everywhere) will join themselves to Israel’s God and Torah in the messianic age. They don’t become ethnic Israelites; they become part of the enlarged covenant community ruled from Jerusalem.
>No one can change their origin and it's already obvious, I'm not arguing this. The take is that you're already a heir of the promise, so you must believe. It's not that the faith would make you a son of Abraham, but that the faith is given to his sons and you, a European (racially), are one of them.
That’s the exact opposite of what Paul says in the verses you keep dodging.
Romans 4:13–17
Genesis 17:5
Galatians 3:7–9
Galatians 3:28–29
((( Saul ))) says God doesn’t care about your origin anymore – only faith.
>Ethnic Israel is Israelites, not just "Judeans", keep in mind
Cool story, but the New Testament itself uses “Israel” and “Jew/Judean” interchangeably all the time and repeatedly says ethnic Israel as a whole (not just the southern kingdom) is no longer the exclusive covenant people. Romans 11:25–26 – Paul literally says “a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved.” He’s talking about ethnic Israel (the same Israel he spent Romans 9–11 crying over) and says their salvation now happens after and alongside the Gentiles coming in. The New Testament never once says “only pure-blood descendants of the northern tribes count and modern Jews are fake.”
>That still doesn't explain how they are the seed of Abraham, as Paul had said. While my point explains it very clear.
Paul explains exactly how Gentiles become the seed of Abraham — and it’s the opposite of your “secret bloodline” cope.
Galatians 3:26–29
Romans 4:16–17
Your version (“they were already the seed racially, faith is just proof”) is literally the Judaizer heresy Paul spends Galatians cursing (Gal 1:8–9). It’s the exact thing he calls “another gospel.” You’re not explaining Paul clearer, you’re preaching the false gospel Paul said is anathema. Paul’s words destroy your position in plain Greek.
>Neither Judean nor Hellene. Those are demonyms, referring which community they belonged to. It's true that there's no difference between a German and an Englishman although they are viewed as different peoples, it's still that racially they're the same, therefore have an equal right to believe in Christ and be a part of His body.
Paul literally uses Ἰουδαῖος (Jew) and Ἕλλην (Greek/Hellene) as ethnic/religious categories, not “demonyms of community membership” like “German vs Englishman.” Proof from Paul’s own mouth:
Romans 1:16
Romans 2:9–10
Galatians 2:14 .
Colossians 3:11
If “Jew and Greek” were just “two white tribes like German vs Englishman,” Paul’s entire argument in Romans 1–3, Galatians 2–3, and Ephesians 2 collapses into nonsense. Why would Peter be afraid of “the circumcision party” if Jews and Greeks were racially identical and the only difference was which village they lived in?
>In these verses it's said that Israel is all the sons of the promise given to Abraham, that's to say not only the physical Israelites of the OT were Israel. As it's also said in Genesis 35:
ou just said the quiet part out loud and accidentally proved my point, not yours.
Refer to Romans 9:6–8, then Galatians 3:29. Genesis 35 changes nothing, it’s about Jacob’s name becoming Israel and his twelve physical sons. Paul quotes the exact same passage in Romans 9 and says physical descent from those sons is no longer what counts. You literally just confessed that the NT redefines “Israel” and “seed of Abraham” in a non-physical, faith-based way… then pretended that somehow still supports your White-people-only theory.
>Paul curses out the carnal circumcision and the rituals, not what I'm replying to you with
No, Paul curses the exact thing you’re doing, making physical descent the deciding factor. Read the verses right before the “let him be accursed” line on Galatians 1:6–9. And then refer to the the very verse that kills every White nationalist Christian's delusion that their faith was ever exclusive for the White man, Galatians 3:28–29.
>Okay, that's what Thomas Jefferson thought on this account: Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that marriages prohibited by the Levitical law shall be null [...] A marriage between a person of free condition and a slave, or between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a mulatto, shall be null. The FFs believed the Israelites were White. That's what really matters. As I have said before, it's not obligatory to be literally a son of Abraham, but a son of Adam, so you'd be included in the promises, as I already mentioned the line of Abraham-Isaac-Jacob just happened to be chosen by God to receive the primacy among all the "brethren", the "kinsmen according to the flesh", so it could represent them as a whole.
1. Thomas Jefferson was a deist who literally cut the resurrection and all miracles out of the New Testament with a razor blade. He denied the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and the inspiration of Scripture.
Quoting him as an authority on what Christians should believe is like quoting Richard Dawkins on the real meaning of the Quran.
2. The Founding Fathers were not Christian Identity.
George Washington: took communion in an Anglican (later Episcopal) church that taught replacement theology.
John Adams: Unitarian who called the Trinity “abracadabra.”
James Madison: studied under Presbyterian John Witherspoon but never claimed Europeans were the ten lost tribes.
Benjamin Franklin: printed Jewish prayer books and donated to synagogues.
None of them ever taught or hinted that white people were literal Israelites and Jews were fake Edomites. That idea didn’t exist until John Wilson in 1840, sixty-four years after the Declaration of Independence.
3. Your new spin (“you don’t have to be a son of Abraham, just a son of Adam”) is straight-up 19th–20th-century CI damage control after the “lost tribes = Europeans” theory got George Floyd knee'd by history and biblical scriptures.
4. Paul explicitly destroys the “primacy among brethren” idea you’re smuggling in:
<Romans 3:29–30 – “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also.”
<Romans 11:17–24 – Gentiles are wild olive shoots grafted into the same tree, not “already part of the tree because of secret Adamic blood.”
<Ephesians 2:19 – Gentile believers are no longer “strangers and aliens” but “fellow citizens with the saints.”
Sounds like Paul was a communist!
You’re quoting an anti-Trinitarian deist who rejected the resurrection to prop up a racial theory that didn’t exist until the 19th century and that the actual apostles would have called another gospel worthy of a double curse (Galatians 1:8–9).
Jefferson isn’t an apostle.
The Founding Fathers didn’t write the Bible.
Your theory is still dead.
Stop moving the goalposts.
>Jesus did so then why can't I?
Jesus never hated Jews for being Jews. He was a Jew, his disciples were Jews, his audiences were Jews, he wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41), and he said “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). He called out hypocrisy, corruption, and false teaching in the leadership, exactly like Jeremiah, Amos, and Isaiah did centuries earlier. Calling that “hating Jews” is the same retarded logic as saying Jeremiah hated Israelites because he called them whores and stiff-necked.
>The oral Torah you mean, yeah. Even the circumcision isn't the same, I wonder what you're even talking about after this
The written Torah literally commands circumcision on the eighth day (Genesis 17:10–14, Leviticus 12:3). Jesus himself was circumcised (Luke 2:21). Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3). The “deeds of the law” Paul attacks are using circumcision and Torah observance as a salvation requirement or a racial superiority marker, exactly what you’re doing right now.
>Racial ethnocentrism you mean? KEYED
The prophets condemn Israel’s racial pride over and over (Isaiah 65:2–5, Jeremiah 9:23–26, Amos 9:7, <“Did I not bring Israel up from Egypt and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir?”.
God literally tells Israel they’re no better than Ethiopians in his eyes. This is the exact attitude the OT curses. Your God literally says he sees no difference between a White man and a nigger. The NT despises tribalism, which they would include racism as a form of it.
>The OT forbids usury against your kin
And Jesus expands it to “lend expecting nothing in return” even to enemies (Luke 6:35). Paul says owe no one anything except to love one another (Romans 13:8).
>The lesson of the OT was that the rituals don't save
Exactly. And the lesson of the NT is that race doesn’t save either. You replaced one works-righteousness (rituals) with another (pure White DNA) and somehow think you’re more biblical. You’re not.
>It happens within every nation
Cool, so when Jews infight it’s proof they’re evil, but when Whites have thirty-years wars, brother wars, and Protestant vs Catholic massacres it’s just “happens in every nation.” Even today I've see White Christians using most of their anger to cause infighting over religion than when a nigger murdering a White person in cold blood.
>What would you have proposed then? To "wholesomely racemix" with the shitskins
You're not one of us, nigger. But, they got kicked out of Canaan multiple times for idolatry and injustice, not for refusing to race-mix. Read the prophets, it’s always idolatry, oppressing the poor, bloodguilt, and false weights. Race-mixing is mentioned like twice and only when tied to Baal worship.
>I hate them for being non-white
Weird to hate yourself. The NT literally transheart niggers.