@amerika They deserve no credit for it. That’s a deception to control Christians. Judaism is a cult offshoot of the Torah and laws of Moses, originally observed by the Hebrew people. Christ was not a part of this offshoot that they now call Judaism but was an observer of Hebrew Torah. Christianity was a natural continuation and fulfillment of the Torah and Tanakh underpinnings through the New Covenant while Judaism made a hard left turn into Babylonian Talmud/Kabbalah teaching.
Do not call it the Torah call it the Old Testament
Kikes are very deceptive & intentionally use the word Torah to refer to fictitious oral teachings allegedly from Moses that were not found in the Old Testament
The Mishnah claimed to contain this oral teaching was written after the New Testament
The time gap between the alleged writing of the so called oral teaching & Moses death is greater than the time gap between the writing of the New Testament & Jesus execution
@shortstories @amerika Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense.
Also a very liberal Jew who said he was opposed to what is being done in Palestine told me that Tanakh should not be used in place of the Old Testament because the T in Tanakh stands for Torah
So the Tanakh is not the same as the list of books in the Old Testament in his mind either
Kikes are in a information control cult to avoid information that sounds Christian so groups like Jesus changed vocabulary to make the message sound more acceptable but in doing so...
In the process of changing Christianity to make it more acceptable to Kikes they changed a lot of teachings so that it is no longer compatible with Jesus message
And it to some degree also became Zionist propaganda to promote allegiance to the State of Israel
I think it is good if they get them to reject the Kike religion but bad if they support Zionism in doing so
They also excuse a lot of Kike wrong doings to be more friendly so they listen
Typo
"groups like Jesus changed vocabulary"
groups like Jews for Jesus changed vocabulary
When they changed vocabulary they also happened to change doctrine
A change in vocabulary does not always mean a change in doctrine
But in the way they choose to do it, it did mean a change in doctrine
They do have a good point that maybe it should not be called the Old Testament because it is not out of date
But the problem is we have no other commonly known word to call it in the modern language because the Torah and Tanakh mean different things
And also some of it was only meant to apply to a local government at a specific location during a specific time period where as other parts like not murdering were meant to apply to all times so in that sense it is old.
@shortstories @amerika Yes. Christ said He did not come to destroy the law of Moses but to fulfill it. He fulfilled what the prophets wrote about in the Tanakh, most of which they themselves do not read, especially Isaiah.
Maybe it should be called the Old Covenant because that’s what it actually is. God’s attempt to have a relationship with us through observance of law by a ‘stiffnecked people’. When that didn’t work, a New Covenant had to be implemented which was rejected.
@shortstories @amerika Vocabulary change has always been their trickery, ie ‘antisemitism, Judeo-Christianity, etc. Even ‘messianic Christian’ I feel shouldn’t be recognized, it should just be ‘Christian’ in the event of conversion because it still implicates being a jewish Christian which is paradoxical. I guess it would have to be understood that ‘Jewish’ is only a religious belief, not a 23&me result.
So a Messianic Jew showed me a passage from a part of acts saying that they were called "Christians" at such and such a place and time
He said that they were calling them Christians as an insult although the text does not say that it was an insult just that they called them Christians
He insisted the proper title for him is a Messianic Jew and not a Christian because Christian is an insult
It does not say in the New Testament that they were called Messianic Jews though
So I suspect that if the Bible is historically accurate than the original Israelites were of Syrian ancestry
And if I am to add on some other assumptions
I suspect that the followers of Jesus who were of Israelite ancestry stopped tracking their genealogies but many people in the Church of the East ( as well as possibly other Churches in the middle east ) are biological descendants of Israelite who were followers of Jesus
Church of the East has liturgy is in Syriac
They would have stopped tracking their ancestry because the followers of Jesus did not view themselves as being superior because of their Israelite ancestry and were not racist about it
On the other hand the ones who rejected Jesus believed they were superior because of their ancestry and won over converts who had no or only trace biological ancestry from Israel
These descendants of these converts became very racist even though they had less biological ancestry
