Jn 7 13 https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/jhn/7/13/s_1004013
However, no one spoke openly of Him for fear of the Jews.
This verse does not make any reference to miscegenation. In John 6 Jesus feeds the 5,000 and walks on water. From John 6 41-71 (the end of the chapter) It talks about the jews rejecting Christ as their messiah. John 7 1 says "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews[fn] sought to kill Him." This was the point in Jesus' earthly ministery where the jews (specifically the pharisees) turn against him. People who already were disciples of Jesus did not speak positively of Jesus in the open for fear of being harmed.

Jn 10 31 https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/jhn/10/31/s_1007031
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
This verse does not make any reference to miscegenation. The jews attempted to kill Jesus. This is at the point in Jesus' ministry when they had turned against him.

Acts 16 20 https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/act/16/20/s_1034020
And they brought them to the magistrates, and said, “These men, being Jews, exceedingly trouble our city;
This verse does not make any reference to miscegenation. Paul and Silas are in Philippi where they exercise a demon from a girl who was being used to practice divination. The girl's masters were angry that they could no longer make money from her practice and went to the city's magistrates to complain, leading to Paul and Silas being imprisoned.

Luke 23 21 https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/luk/23/21/s_996021
But they shouted, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”
This verse does not make any reference to miscegenation. As prophesied, the jews rejected their Messiah. Specifically, the context here is when Jesus was brought to Pilate to be crucified and the people were given the choice to free either Barabbas, a rapist and thief, or Jesus, who is completely sinless.

At this point the video asks the following questions:
>Is it beginning to make sense to you?
Matt 18 6: "“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
>Do the Scriptures offend you?
No, but false teaching does.
>Do you need to misquote Paul or Peter to refute this?
no lmao
Exegesis: "from out of", to read a passage and understand the intent of the author (God) and what He is saying.
Eisegesis: a literary opposite, "putting in", to have a preconceived idea that you want to be true, then ignore the intent of the Word and force a specific meaning, even if the literature its self disproves your interpretation of the topic.
>why can't you use the plain words of OT God/Christ
I do.
You think God would lie to Abraham about his seed?
No, he did not.
>OR do you see now why Christ's message was controversial enough to get men killed and thrown into prison...?
The Israelis were sinful. As prophesied and due to their sin they rejected their Messiah and killed Him. Christ was a threat to the social and political power that the hypocritical pharisees had. They engaged in every sin they could to kill him. As His new covenant and the gospel of his sacrifice spread sinful men saw it as a threat to their power and tried their hardest with every sin imaginable to stifle the gospel. This is still true today with backwards sinful countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, China, and Canada imprisoning men for preaching the good news.

Jn 15 18 https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/jhn/15/18/s_1012018
“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.
Matt 5 11 https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/mat/5/11/s_934011
“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.
Real. Too bad you are one of the deceivers and revilers.

Finally, There are two passages that I left for last:

Deu 7 3 https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/deu/7/3/s_160003
“Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son.

Ezr 9 2 https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/ezr/9/2/s_412002
“For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, so that the holy seed is mixed with the peoples of those lands. Indeed, the hand of the leaders and rulers has been foremost in this trespass.”

Why exactly did the Lord command His people in the old testament to not intermarry with others? When speaking with an elder today he asked me that question.
"To preserve their race as God's chosen" I answered.
He told me this is wrong. It's not about physical bloodline. There are two women mentioned in Jesus' bloodline: Rahab and Rehoboam. Neither of them are jews, the latter was even a prostitute. Would this make the Messiah's bloodline tainted? The answer again is no. Both of these women may not have been of the blood of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and his twelve sons, but they submitted themselves to the will of the Lord. They were not the only ones to do this.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/2ki/5/1/s_318001
In 2 Kings 5 there is the story of the man Naaman. Naaman was the commander of the army of the king of Syria. He was not a jew by blood. He was stricken with leprosy. He heard that he could be healed by the prophet Elisha. He traveled to Israel, to Elisha who commanded him:
[10]And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored to you, and you shall be clean.” [11]But Naaman became furious, and went away and said, “Indeed, I said to myself, ‘He will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.’ [12]“Are not the Abanah[fn] and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage.
The river Jordan was exceeding filthy. The place he was told to wash was downstream of a city and would be carrying all of the refuse of the city. More than that, the water was filled with silt and dirt. If you were to wash yourself in that place you would likely come out more dirty than when you went it.
Naaman was eventually convinced to do as Elisha told him to do and washed himself in the river.
15 And he returned to the man of God, he and all his aides, and came and stood before him; and he said, “Indeed, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, except in Israel;...17 So Naaman said, “Then, if not, please let your servant be given two mule-loads of earth; for your servant will no longer offer either burnt offering or sacrifice to other gods, but to the LORD.
Naaman was not saved because of some magic done by Elisha. He was not saved because of an action that he took. He was saved because he had faith in the Lord that he would be delivered from his leprosy. He followed through with the arduous command to wash in the disgusting river because he had faith, and was saved. He didn't simply leave and go back home to his idolatry; he requested a cartload of dirt from Israel so that he could perform sacrifices to God (and no other idol) on Israeli soil. He was truly faithful to the Lord.
God's gift of salvation was, is, and always will be for everyone.
That begs the question then: Why didn't the jews spread their religion to other people if everyone is deserving?

The answer is simple. It is because they are greedy. "God is for us and us alone." The jews are exceedingly sinful in trying to keep God's blessings for themselves. In the same story of Naaman it includes the king of Syria sending a letter to the king of Israel notifying him of Naaman's intent to be healed by Elisha. The Israeli king was not excited that a man could be saved from leprosy. He was not excited that a man from another idolatrous nation could be brought to the Lord. Instead he tore his clothes, a common symbol of deep anguish and mourning often reserved for the death of a close loved one. After being healed, Naaman offered Elisha many gifts which are refused. One of Elisha's servants Gehazi runs after Naaman to lie and say "Elisha changed his mind, give me the gifts". and for this:
26 Then he [Elisha] said to him, “Did not my heart go with you when the man turned back from his chariot to meet you? Is it time to receive money and to receive clothing, olive groves and vineyards, sheep and oxen, male and female servants? 27 Therefore the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you and your descendants forever.” And he went out from his presence leprous, as white as snow.


To those of you who preach the same message that "God is for Whites only": You commit the same sin of greed as the jews that you hate.
Jn 8 44: “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

introducing: the biggest post wall skipper has ever built.

How to make youtube cozy and actually usable: a guide
if you are using brave, edge, or opera browsers the chrome link will work for you.

block all ads using ublock origin by raymond hill (gorhill) firefox | chrome
this also works on all other sites. you should always have this

automatically skip sponsored segments, intros, outros, subscribe begging, patreon credits, etc with sponsor block (this will shorten videos by 15-30% on average. time cant be returned) firefox | chrome

block channels from showing up in related videos, sidebar, search, front page with channel blocker firefox | chrome
no more watchmojo spamming your recommends, ever
you can also block video names based on regex filtering, example to block all video names starting with "top ##": ^top \d+
this will block videos that have noscripts matching "top 10" "top 42" "top 666" etc

I know youre here
you took a meme i made myself and used it in your analysis report of right wing memes and the spread of right wing ideology through memes.
I want you to know that youre wrong and you can never be right. your analysis could only ever have the chance of coming to a correct conclusion if you were trying to glean the mind of an author through his work and you implied that is what you were doing, but you lied. you took mine and other's art and applied your own expectations to it to make it say something it didnt. you took pictures of a funny dog with funny words on it that had nothing to do with race, religion, or nationality and recontextualized it to fit your narrative. you cherry picked and somehow didnt even pick the ripe healthy cherries. you tought people that benign jokes are actually pro-terrorism and being funny in any capacity is inherantly right wing (thanks for that). next time, either admit that art is in the eye of the beholder and youre just a middle school literature teacher telling us what it means for the curtains to be blue, or maybe actually try to empathize with the author instead of morphing what he believes for your hit piece.
you know what i believe? i believe that Christ is King and you'll either bow the knee in this life or before the judgement throne.
youll write something in the future about how "Christ is King" is a dogwhistle and youll remember that youre a failure or a liar, whichever isnt as bad in your mind i guess.

ok im done backposting all my greatest hits

I wrote something again.
Unexpected Consequences and the Dangers of Reinterpreting Law
875 words
regarding the likely effect of reinterpreting the second amendment to mean the right to form or join a militia, rather than to own firearms.

oh also https://www.writingtoiq.com/ scores the post at 118
it really surprises me how accurate it is.

i think plane interiors are extremely cyberpunk
think about it. it looks cool and sleek. human flight is a symbol of technology.
in reality you have to stand in like with a bunch of smelly and sick people, be dehumanized by security, then sit around waiting for the plane which is often delayed, then when you get on you are stuck in a cramped uncomfortable seat in a human sardine can where if you dont get sick from someone else's germs you will at least hear a screaming child. the cool screens in front of every person are actually completely worthless- only playing awful hollywood slop if you are even willing to pay for both a headset to listen and the inflated price for a movie.
human flight, despite being a marvel of human ingenuity has been beaten and molded into an entire industry that no one enjoys and everyone avoids as much as possible.
this is a post about trains.

>update shell on linux
>replaced inline
>breaks nothing

>get a notification in powershell on windows saying im out of date (shouldnt windows update handle this automatically?)
>instead of being able to update automatically or from the shell i have to use my browser to get the update like its 2003
>try to run powershell again
>banner gone
>try to run an noscript that explicitly calls powershell.exe
>breaks
>troubleshoot for a while
>turns out powershell.exe points to powershell 1.0 which despite being called 1.0 was updated by MS in a way that breaks old noscripts
>turns out that when updating powershell it now only aliases pwsh to powershell 7 and keeps the alias powershell to point to powershell 1.0
>now i have to go and update all my noscripts

"i dont like using linux because its so buggy and you always have to troubleshoot it." t. mouthbreather
REMINDER THAT WINDOWS IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL OPERATING SYSTEM. IT IS ONLY USED BY PEOPLE DOING WORTHLESS BUSY WORK, NOT REAL PROFESSIONALS

oh even better powershell """1.0""" is actually version 10 and deprecated, but powershell 7 is version 7 but also the newer undeprecated version.
if microsoft is so retarded that they cant even get versioning numbers right why would you ever expect them to be able to create and maintain a working professional OS?

>Regrettably, the -OutFile parameters of PowerShell's Invoke-WebRequest and Invoke-RestMethod cmdlets also do not support passing a directory path, as of PowerShell 7.2.

what retard made this decision
powershell is a joke

ok im drunk as a skunk and finally getting around to reading the first treasure trove of maxwell/epstein files that got released
props to maxwell's defense attorney for knowing how to prep a witness to royally piss off a lawyer LMAO

Q. Did any of the massage therapists who were at the home perform sexual acts for
Jeffrey Epstein?
A. I don ' t know what you mean by sexual acts.
Q. Did any of the massage therapists who were working at the home perform sexual acts, including touching the breasts, touching the vaginal area , being touched while Jeffrey is masturbating, having intercourse, any of those things?
PAGLIUCA: Objection. Form and foundation. To the extent any of this is asking for to your knowledge any consensual sex act that may or may not have involved you, I'm instructing you not to answer the question.
Q. I'm not asking about consensual sex acts. I ' m asking whether any of the massage therapists performed sexual acts for Mr. Epstein, as I have just described?
A. I have never seen anybody have sexual intercourse with with Jeffrey, ever.
Q. I 'm not asking about sexual intercourse. I 'm asking about any sexual act , touching of the breast -- did you ever see -- can you read back the question?
(Record read. )
A. I'm not addressing any questions about consensual adult sex. If you want to talk about what the subject matter, which is defamation and lying, Virginia Roberts , that you and Virginia Roberts are participating in perpetrating her lies, I ' m happy to address those. I never saw any inappropriate underage activities with Jeffrey ever .
Q. I'm not asking about underage. I 'm asking about whether any of the masseuses that were at the home perform sexual acts for Jeffrey Epstein?
A. I have just answered the question.
Q. No, you haven't.
A. I have.
Q. No, you haven't.
A. Yes , I have.
Q. You are refusing to answer the question.
A. Let ' s move on.
Q. I 'm in charge of the deposition. I say when we move on and when we don't. You are here to respond to my questions. If you are refusing to answer the court will bring you back for another deposition to answer these questions. Do you understand that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You don ' t need to threaten the witness.
MS. McCAWLEY: I ' m not threatening her. I' m making sure the record is clear.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Certainly can you apply to have someone come back and the court may or may not have her come back again.
MS. McCAWLEY: Again , she is not answering questions that relate to adult consent sex acts. Period. And that ' s the instruction and we can take it up with the court.

oc