Exposing the Verses That Break Christianity

[Aquamarine Springs]

Before we begin, understand this: nothing weakens your position more than using a verse you haven’t actually read. If truth matters to you, then accuracy matters too. Christians can dismantle these claims instantly not because they are clever but because the rebuttal is usually sitting in plain sight. Serious debate requires serious reading. I’ve watched people here quote off biblical “gotchas” that collapse the moment you look at the next sentence. When a Christian can dismantle your entire point with a single line of context, that’s not strategy it’s self sabotage. If you really want to debate Christianity you need to stop handing your opponent easy wins. Using cherry picked verses you don’t understand is the worst tactic imaginable. The ignorance is obvious, the rebuttal is instant, and the debate is already lost. If you actually want to push back, you need to know what the text really says.


Often if you read the next chapter, or even the next line, zevist’s claim is completely debunked. Christians can easily make a fool of you for not actually knowing what you’re talking about, simply because one was too ignorant to actually read and instead toted around hot button verses. Logic in one area must be able to be applied holistically, otherwise it is bunk logic and must be abandoned for actual truth. I see Zevists also often fail to note the difference between DEscription and PREsciption; the former meaning a telling of events, and the latter being a command or recommendation. I’ve put each verse here, the claim I’ve seen associated with it here, and the reason why it doesn’t work in zevist favor. Arm yourself with knowledge before you make yourself a fool and a Christian intellectually disarms you.


Critical for understanding moving forward: before we get into the individual verses, there’s something you need to understand. If you skip this part, you’re going to walk straight into the same trap everyone else here does getting blindsided by history and details you never bothered to check.

1. Christians don’t follow the old testament. So circumcision, any animal offerings, wearing mixed fabrics, slavery, any wars outside of the Crusades, etc. do not apply to Christians.
2. The Jews killed Jesus Christ, they didn’t revere Him which a lot of people here seem to think they did.
3. The Jews have killed millions of Christians, including using tactics like skinning Christian saints alive. The Jews hated Christians, and still hate Christ, probably more than you do.
4. The Jews believe Jesus Christ’s bones are “boiling in a cauldron of excrement in hell.”
5. The Talmud IS NOT CHRISTIAN and is not PREscription or DEscription for them. It’s a text they probably haven’t even heard of.
6. “Amalek is the Jewish term for the entire white race” is 100% false. Amalek = one specific ancient nomadic tribe that repeatedly attacked Israel. Not an ethnicity, not “white people.”or anything modern.

These are talking points I see misunderstood here all the time, but they are not Jewish, not biblical, not Christian, and not found in any historical Jewish writing. If you do not understand the above, you will be intellectually destroyed by any Christian.



THE FOLLOWING VERSES ARE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHERE CHRIST SPOKE AND WAS PRESENT FOR. CHRISTIANS FOLLOW THE NEW TESTAMENT, NOT MOSAIC LAW, WHICH WAS THE OLD TESTAMENT. I HAVE VERSES FROM THE OT BELOW.


Zevists here constantly quote Christ and have no idea that the literal next line or verse completely debunks the point you’re trying to make. Do not do this. You will appear incoherent and unread.


MISUSED NT JESUS SAYING #1:


“Let the dead bury their own dead.” - Luke 9:60


Claim: Jesus told a man to abandon his family and not bury his father.


Reality: The man’s father was not dead. In Jewish culture at that time, “I must bury my father” was a polite way of saying: “I need to stay home until my father eventually dies so I can receive my inheritance.” It was a stalling tactic, not an imminent funeral.


Jesus’s point was: “If you want to follow Me, follow Me. Don’t use excuses.”


“Let the dead bury their own dead” = “Let the spiritually dead worry about worldly things. You focus on eternal life.”


Jesus never told anyone to abandon a dying parent, refuse a burial, dishonor family responsibilities, or ignore grief. It's a Jewish idiom not a cruel statement.





MISUSED NT JESUS SAYING #2:


“Whoever does not hate his father and mother cannot be My disciple.” - Luke 14:26


Claim: “Jesus demands hatred of your family.”


Reality: This is a Jewish hyperbole, or a teaching style common among rabbis.
“Hate” = love less, not literal hatred. Additionally, ancient languages translate roughly. Greek had many more words to express emotions, however, Christ spoke aramaic.

Proof: In Matthew 10:37, Jesus expresses the same idea more plainly, “Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me.” Jesus also condemns hatred repeatedly (Matthew 5:22). So He obviously wasn’t teaching actual hatred.

The meaning is “God must come first before every relationship.”

This line isn’t about hatred it’s about priority. Any Christian will laugh in your face if you use this line.



MISUSED NT JESUS SAYING #3:


“I came not to bring peace, but a sword.” - Matthew 10:34


Claim: “Jesus wants violence.”


Reality: Jesus was predicting a social effect, not giving a command. Becoming a Christian in the ancient world often caused family division, persecution, rejection, cultural conflic The “sword” represents division, not violence. Jesus Himself forbids violence in Matthew 26:52 (“Those who take the sword will perish by it”) John 18:36 (“My kingdom is not of this world… If it were, My servants would fight.”)


This line is metaphorical, describing what will happen, not what Christians should do.





MISUSED NT JESUS SAYING #4:


“Let him who has no sword buy one.” - Luke 22:36


Claim: “Jesus told His followers to arm themselves.”


Reality: Jesus is telling the disciples metaphorically “Hard times are coming.”


Proof: When they produce two swords, Jesus says, “It is enough.” Two weapons for twelve men? Not for battle. When Peter actually uses one to attack someone and cut off their ear, Jesus rebukes him (Luke 22:51). Jesus then heals the injured man and returns his ear to his head. He explicitly rejects violent defense. This line is figurative, not a call to violence.





MISUSED NT JESUS SAYING #5:


Luke 19:27 - “Slay them before me”


Claim: Jesus orders murder.

Truth: This is from a parable, and is neither DEscription of an event nor PREscription. It is literally a story. Jesus is telling a story. He is not the king in the story, and He is not giving an instruction. The purpose of the parable is accountability, rejecting salvation, and the consequences of rejecting Christ spiritually. Not physical violence.











OLD TESTAMENT, BEFORE JESUS CHRIST AND BEFORE CHRISTIANITY: WORLD UNDER MOSAIC LAW:


1. Deuteronomy 12:27 - Offerings and eating meat


Claim I’ve seen around here: God commands blood drinking or cannibalism.


Truth: This verse describes animal sacrifices, which were the ancient equivalent of worship offerings. Definitely disgusting, but also, we do this in the modern day too.


Blood was always poured out (never consumed).


The flesh is eaten exactly like normal meat because it is normal meat from a clean animal. This is no different from what Israelites did daily: eat beef, lamb, goat.


Context: This is part of regulating worship so Israel would not sacrifice to idols. Not sinister.





2. Exodus 22:29 - “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.”

Claim: God demands child sacrifice.

Truth: This refers to dedicating the firstborn to God, not killing them.

Proof: The next chapter (Exodus 23:5, Exodus 34:19–20) explains that firstborn sons are redeemed, meaning NOT sacrificed, but symbolically dedicated and then bought back with a small offering.

The tribe of Levi later replaced the firstborn in service (Numbers 3:12–13).

Zero human sacrifice is involved. The text literally makes redemption mandatory.





3. Deuteronomy 28:53-58 - Cannibalism


Claim: Christian God commands cannibalism.


Truth: This is not a command. It is a prophecy of what will happen to Israel if they abandon God and fall under enemy siege.

Ancient siege warfare caused starvation so severe that cannibalism happened in many cultures (Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans).

This passage is DEscribing horror, not PREscribing it:

“You will eat…” = consequence of national disobedience and war NOT “You shall eat…” = command from God. This is a warning not an instruction.





4. Deuteronomy 2:33–34 - Destruction of enemy cities


Claim: God commands genocide.


Truth: These were specific, historical wartime judgments against nations who:

Practiced infant sacrifice (Deut 12:31), Conducted ritual burning of children to Molech, Attacked Israel first (e.g., Sihon, Og)

These commands were not universal and not ongoing, applied once, to named nations, during a specific historical conflict.





5. Deuteronomy 7:23–24 - Destruction of Canaanite kings


Same as above; judgment on violent, child-killing nations, not a universal command.


Canaanite cultures practiced: temple prostitution, ritualized rape, bestiality, child sacrifice.

Ancient historians (not just the Bible) testify to this.

This is Christian God acting as judge, not commanding Israel to kill at random.



6. 1. Numbers 31:17–18 - The Midianite War


“Kill every male child… keep the young girls alive for yourselves.”


This is NOT a general command for slavery. It is a one time historical judgment during Israel’s wilderness era. The Midianite women had just orchestrated mass seduction, idolatry, and a deadly plague


Numbers 25 explains:


Midianite women were sent strategically to seduce Israel and it caused the death of 24,000 Israelites. This was considered an act of war, not a sexual encounter. The girls who were spared became servants, not sexual property. This is the part people misuse.


But Deuteronomy 21:10–14 gives the law on war captives, and it forbids:rape, forced marriage without rights, keeping a woman if she is not loved, selling her, and treating her as property.


It instead requires: a mourning period, full rights as a wife if married, freedom with no payment, if sent away. In a world where other nations practiced actual sexual slavery, Israel’s law outlawed what the surrounding cultures freely permitted.


It’s fine to criticize Israel for this, however, Christians DO NOT: repeat it, justify it, or model their ethics after it. Using this against a Christian will make you look foolish. It involves judgment on people who practiced child sacrifice and ritual sexual warfare And even then, the laws constrain and limit harm in ways the ancient world did not.


7. Psalm 137:9 - Dash infants on stones

Claim: The Bible promotes killing babies.

Truth: Psalms are poetry; this is not Christian God speaking, but an exile expressing grief and rage after Babylon massacred their own children. This is a lament, not a command.


Equivalent to someone today saying:

“I wish justice would fall on those who slaughtered my family.” It expresses human emotion and a lamentation, not divine instruction. Using this on a Christian with no real knowledge on it will again make you look unread, uninformed, and unintelligent.





8. 1 Samuel 15:3 - Amalek


Claim: Genocide of “the white race.”

Truth: As already stated: Amalek was an ancient tribe, not an ethnicity.

They attacked Israel from behind, targeting children and elderly (Deut 25:17–19). The command was a one-time historical judgment, not a racial doctrine.




10. Exodus 17:13–16 - War with Amalek

Again a historical war, not a racial doctrine. Amalek attacked Israel unprovoked. Christian God’s statement refers to the tribe, not future ethnic groups.





11. Exodus 32:27–28 - Levites kill 3,000


Claim: God commanded Israel to massacre itself.


Truth: This event happens after Israel commits idolatry with the golden calf, they break the covenant before it is even formally received, a violent ritual orgy occurs (Exodus 32:6), and Moses calls for anyone loyal to the Lord to take a stand


This is a judgment event after a national apostasy. Not an ongoing general command. Not equivalent to “God kills His own people randomly.”








PRIMARY SOURCES

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Crossway, 2016.

ESV Study Bible. Edited by Lane T. Dennis and Wayne Grudem, Crossway, 2008.



OLD TESTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP

Block, Daniel I. Deuteronomy. Zondervan, 2012.

Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Baker Books, 2011.

Hess, Richard S. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Baker Academic, 2007.

Walton, John H., and J. Harvey Walton. The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest. IVP Academic, 2017.

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979.

Wenham, Gordon J. Numbers. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1981.





NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP

France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. Eerdmans, 2007.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. Eerdmans, 1978.




JEWISH CONTEXT REFERENCES


Jacobs, Louis. The Talmudic Argument: Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology. Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Levine, Amy-Jill. The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. HarperOne, 2006.

Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE. SCM Press, 1992.

 

[V12-POWER]

To be fair, the original intent is kept in the Old Testament. Modern stuff is a smoke screen except for very clear and obvious curses.

Here are the problems with (((Christianity))):

Problem 1 is that the New Testament can be changed at any time to fit into whatever social needs are. So this makes it hard to point to the real intents. In any case the “Bible” is just acting as a blurring layer between the Jewish Old Testament and whatever the fuck the bible is nowadays. How can a (((religion))) be this changing?

Problem 2 is all of the stolen analogies and modified-to-fit ancient verses. if Christianism is the “true” (((religion))), why does it take stuff from +10000 year old “uncivilized” and “primitive” humans?

Problem 3 is what has Christianity brought to humanity in these 2000 years. Nothing of value

Problem 4 is the origins of Christianity

Problem 5 is why every time Christardism is installed as the main religion of any nation it immediately falls apart (Roman empire)

Problem 6 is the inquisition

Problem 7 is Jewsus did not exist

Arguing with the verses is pointless. Your average Christard doesn’t even care and his/her brain won’t compute when you unveil the true meaning of the curses and verses. They simply don’t care if the bible curses the human soul and the kundalini serpent. They say “But I believe god exists” or whatever

If you really go this path on arguing with a Christian use common sense, which the bible lacks, even then I consider this pointless in most of cases; these people have already chosen what to believe in.

One last word. Engaging in such technical and some times literal terms like “This was Jewsus telling a story not telling a real event” is an empty claim. Jewsus did not exist, so what difference does it make if it happened or not; if you start with the verses as factual proof then yes. You will get schooled everytime.

The point is to reveal the underlying message of the curses and verses, not the accuracy, literacy and in some cases the historical accuracy of these sentences. If you analyze it in this way you might as well start believing in Christardism too.

Example:

(Luke 14:26) Literally telling the average reader to hate his parents. Nobody is gonna read that and say “oh yeah this is a typical Jewish hyperbole!” <- here you use common sense, not theology, realize this is nasty.

The more I read your post the more it seems you’re soft shilling this shit here.

 

[Eligos Devotee 666]

Before we begin, understand this: nothing weakens your position more than using a verse you haven’t actually read. If truth matters to you, then accuracy matters too. Christians can dismantle these claims instantly not because they are clever but because the rebuttal is usually sitting in plain sight. Serious debate requires serious reading. I’ve watched people here quote off biblical “gotchas” that collapse the moment you look at the next sentence. When a Christian can dismantle your entire point with a single line of context, that’s not strategy it’s self sabotage. If you really want to debate Christianity you need to stop handing your opponent easy wins. Using cherry picked verses you don’t understand is the worst tactic imaginable. The ignorance is obvious, the rebuttal is instant, and the debate is already lost. If you actually want to push back, you need to know what the text really says.


Often if you read the next chapter, or even the next line, zevist’s claim is completely debunked. Christians can easily make a fool of you for not actually knowing what you’re talking about, simply because one was too ignorant to actually read and instead toted around hot button verses. Logic in one area must be able to be applied holistically, otherwise it is bunk logic and must be abandoned for actual truth. I see Zevists also often fail to note the difference between DEscription and PREsciption; the former meaning a telling of events, and the latter being a command or recommendation. I’ve put each verse here, the claim I’ve seen associated with it here, and the reason why it doesn’t work in zevist favor. Arm yourself with knowledge before you make yourself a fool and a Christian intellectually disarms you.


Critical for understanding moving forward: before we get into the individual verses, there’s something you need to understand. If you skip this part, you’re going to walk straight into the same trap everyone else here does getting blindsided by history and details you never bothered to check.

1. Christians don’t follow the old testament. So circumcision, any animal offerings, wearing mixed fabrics, slavery, any wars outside of the Crusades, etc. do not apply to Christians.
2. The Jews killed Jesus Christ, they didn’t revere Him which a lot of people here seem to think they did.
3. The Jews have killed millions of Christians, including using tactics like skinning Christian saints alive. The Jews hated Christians, and still hate Christ, probably more than you do.
4. The Jews believe Jesus Christ’s bones are “boiling in a cauldron of excrement in hell.”
5. The Talmud IS NOT CHRISTIAN and is not PREscription or DEscription for them. It’s a text they probably haven’t even heard of.
6. “Amalek is the Jewish term for the entire white race” is 100% false. Amalek = one specific ancient nomadic tribe that repeatedly attacked Israel. Not an ethnicity, not “white people.”or anything modern.

These are talking points I see misunderstood here all the time, but they are not Jewish, not biblical, not Christian, and not found in any historical Jewish writing. If you do not understand the above, you will be intellectually destroyed by any Christian.



THE FOLLOWING VERSES ARE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHERE CHRIST SPOKE AND WAS PRESENT FOR. CHRISTIANS FOLLOW THE NEW TESTAMENT, NOT MOSAIC LAW, WHICH WAS THE OLD TESTAMENT. I HAVE VERSES FROM THE OT BELOW.


Zevists here constantly quote Christ and have no idea that the literal next line or verse completely debunks the point you’re trying to make. Do not do this. You will appear incoherent and unread.


MISUSED NT JESUS SAYING #1:


“Let the dead bury their own dead.” - Luke 9:60


Claim: Jesus told a man to abandon his family and not bury his father.


Reality: The man’s father was not dead. In Jewish culture at that time, “I must bury my father” was a polite way of saying: “I need to stay home until my father eventually dies so I can receive my inheritance.” It was a stalling tactic, not an imminent funeral.


Jesus’s point was: “If you want to follow Me, follow Me. Don’t use excuses.”


“Let the dead bury their own dead” = “Let the spiritually dead worry about worldly things. You focus on eternal life.”


Jesus never told anyone to abandon a dying parent, refuse a burial, dishonor family responsibilities, or ignore grief. It's a Jewish idiom not a cruel statement.





MISUSED NT JESUS SAYING #2:


“Whoever does not hate his father and mother cannot be My disciple.” - Luke 14:26


Claim: “Jesus demands hatred of your family.”


Reality: This is a Jewish hyperbole, or a teaching style common among rabbis.
“Hate” = love less, not literal hatred. Additionally, ancient languages translate roughly. Greek had many more words to express emotions, however, Christ spoke aramaic.

Proof: In Matthew 10:37, Jesus expresses the same idea more plainly, “Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me.” Jesus also condemns hatred repeatedly (Matthew 5:22). So He obviously wasn’t teaching actual hatred.

The meaning is “God must come first before every relationship.”

This line isn’t about hatred it’s about priority. Any Christian will laugh in your face if you use this line.



MISUSED NT JESUS SAYING #3:


“I came not to bring peace, but a sword.” - Matthew 10:34


Claim: “Jesus wants violence.”


Reality: Jesus was predicting a social effect, not giving a command. Becoming a Christian in the ancient world often caused family division, persecution, rejection, cultural conflic The “sword” represents division, not violence. Jesus Himself forbids violence in Matthew 26:52 (“Those who take the sword will perish by it”) John 18:36 (“My kingdom is not of this world… If it were, My servants would fight.”)


This line is metaphorical, describing what will happen, not what Christians should do.





MISUSED NT JESUS SAYING #4:


“Let him who has no sword buy one.” - Luke 22:36


Claim: “Jesus told His followers to arm themselves.”


Reality: Jesus is telling the disciples metaphorically “Hard times are coming.”


Proof: When they produce two swords, Jesus says, “It is enough.” Two weapons for twelve men? Not for battle. When Peter actually uses one to attack someone and cut off their ear, Jesus rebukes him (Luke 22:51). Jesus then heals the injured man and returns his ear to his head. He explicitly rejects violent defense. This line is figurative, not a call to violence.





MISUSED NT JESUS SAYING #5:


Luke 19:27 - “Slay them before me”


Claim: Jesus orders murder.

Truth: This is from a parable, and is neither DEscription of an event nor PREscription. It is literally a story. Jesus is telling a story. He is not the king in the story, and He is not giving an instruction. The purpose of the parable is accountability, rejecting salvation, and the consequences of rejecting Christ spiritually. Not physical violence.











OLD TESTAMENT, BEFORE JESUS CHRIST AND BEFORE CHRISTIANITY: WORLD UNDER MOSAIC LAW:


1. Deuteronomy 12:27 - Offerings and eating meat


Claim I’ve seen around here: God commands blood drinking or cannibalism.


Truth: This verse describes animal sacrifices, which were the ancient equivalent of worship offerings. Definitely disgusting, but also, we do this in the modern day too.


Blood was always poured out (never consumed).


The flesh is eaten exactly like normal meat because it is normal meat from a clean animal. This is no different from what Israelites did daily: eat beef, lamb, goat.


Context: This is part of regulating worship so Israel would not sacrifice to idols. Not sinister.





2. Exodus 22:29 - “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.”

Claim: God demands child sacrifice.

Truth: This refers to dedicating the firstborn to God, not killing them.

Proof: The next chapter (Exodus 23:5, Exodus 34:19–20) explains that firstborn sons are redeemed, meaning NOT sacrificed, but symbolically dedicated and then bought back with a small offering.

The tribe of Levi later replaced the firstborn in service (Numbers 3:12–13).

Zero human sacrifice is involved. The text literally makes redemption mandatory.





3. Deuteronomy 28:53-58 - Cannibalism


Claim: Christian God commands cannibalism.


Truth: This is not a command. It is a prophecy of what will happen to Israel if they abandon God and fall under enemy siege.

Ancient siege warfare caused starvation so severe that cannibalism happened in many cultures (Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans).

This passage is DEscribing horror, not PREscribing it:

“You will eat…” = consequence of national disobedience and war NOT “You shall eat…” = command from God. This is a warning not an instruction.





4. Deuteronomy 2:33–34 - Destruction of enemy cities


Claim: God commands genocide.


Truth: These were specific, historical wartime judgments against nations who:

Practiced infant sacrifice (Deut 12:31), Conducted ritual burning of children to Molech, Attacked Israel first (e.g., Sihon, Og)

These commands were not universal and not ongoing, applied once, to named nations, during a specific historical conflict.





5. Deuteronomy 7:23–24 - Destruction of Canaanite kings


Same as above; judgment on violent, child-killing nations, not a universal command.


Canaanite cultures practiced: temple prostitution, ritualized rape, bestiality, child sacrifice.

Ancient historians (not just the Bible) testify to this.

This is Christian God acting as judge, not commanding Israel to kill at random.



6. 1. Numbers 31:17–18 - The Midianite War


“Kill every male child… keep the young girls alive for yourselves.”


This is NOT a general command for slavery. It is a one time historical judgment during Israel’s wilderness era. The Midianite women had just orchestrated mass seduction, idolatry, and a deadly plague


Numbers 25 explains:


Midianite women were sent strategically to seduce Israel and it caused the death of 24,000 Israelites. This was considered an act of war, not a sexual encounter. The girls who were spared became servants, not sexual property. This is the part people misuse.


But Deuteronomy 21:10–14 gives the law on war captives, and it forbids:rape, forced marriage without rights, keeping a woman if she is not loved, selling her, and treating her as property.


It instead requires: a mourning period, full rights as a wife if married, freedom with no payment, if sent away. In a world where other nations practiced actual sexual slavery, Israel’s law outlawed what the surrounding cultures freely permitted.


It’s fine to criticize Israel for this, however, Christians DO NOT: repeat it, justify it, or model their ethics after it. Using this against a Christian will make you look foolish. It involves judgment on people who practiced child sacrifice and ritual sexual warfare And even then, the laws constrain and limit harm in ways the ancient world did not.


7. Psalm 137:9 - Dash infants on stones

Claim: The Bible promotes killing babies.

Truth: Psalms are poetry; this is not Christian God speaking, but an exile expressing grief and rage after Babylon massacred their own children. This is a lament, not a command.


Equivalent to someone today saying:

“I wish justice would fall on those who slaughtered my family.” It expresses human emotion and a lamentation, not divine instruction. Using this on a Christian with no real knowledge on it will again make you look unread, uninformed, and unintelligent.





8. 1 Samuel 15:3 - Amalek


Claim: Genocide of “the white race.”

Truth: As already stated: Amalek was an ancient tribe, not an ethnicity.

They attacked Israel from behind, targeting children and elderly (Deut 25:17–19). The command was a one-time historical judgment, not a racial doctrine.




10. Exodus 17:13–16 - War with Amalek

Again a historical war, not a racial doctrine. Amalek attacked Israel unprovoked. Christian God’s statement refers to the tribe, not future ethnic groups.





11. Exodus 32:27–28 - Levites kill 3,000


Claim: God commanded Israel to massacre itself.


Truth: This event happens after Israel commits idolatry with the golden calf, they break the covenant before it is even formally received, a violent ritual orgy occurs (Exodus 32:6), and Moses calls for anyone loyal to the Lord to take a stand


This is a judgment event after a national apostasy. Not an ongoing general command. Not equivalent to “God kills His own people randomly.”








PRIMARY SOURCES

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Crossway, 2016.

ESV Study Bible. Edited by Lane T. Dennis and Wayne Grudem, Crossway, 2008.



OLD TESTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP

Block, Daniel I. Deuteronomy. Zondervan, 2012.

Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Baker Books, 2011.

Hess, Richard S. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Baker Academic, 2007.

Walton, John H., and J. Harvey Walton. The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest. IVP Academic, 2017.

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979.

Wenham, Gordon J. Numbers. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1981.





NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP

France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. Eerdmans, 2007.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. Eerdmans, 1978.




JEWISH CONTEXT REFERENCES


Jacobs, Louis. The Talmudic Argument: Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology. Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Levine, Amy-Jill. The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. HarperOne, 2006.

Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE. SCM Press, 1992.

I want to ask you something then:
If xian "god" is just wouldn't it be fair that xian god to send jewsus to other places like Japan why he only appears in the middle east?

Why don't we see the traces of xianity on other parts of the world?

 

[FancyMancy]

"Let the dead bury their dead."
The dead in Spirit - Kundalini not raised, low Spiritual power/Magickal ability can bury their own fallen loved ones; the jew doesn't want to do a decent thing for Humans.

"Let the spiritually dead worry about worldly things. You focus on eternal life."
We are in the World. We are of the World. We are Pagans - that being of Nature/the World. "Don't worry about your own Natural selves; instead, focus on 'god's' ways which are above your ways" - "above" being "higher spirituality compared with lowly physicality", since it had to "come down" in the form of jewsus. Paganism, Nature, is Nature - not just Worldly i.e. Earthly and Physically.

"Hate your parents, not me."
The biblical passage about if you hate your brother, then you have killed him in your heart - "god" wants you to kill your parents, and "love" "god", instead. It could choose to speak very clearly and deliberately, instead of ambiguously and moronically and retardedly, if it is "all-knowing", "all-powerful" and "all-able". If it's about life, then it's very important to not troll.

If "hate does not mean hate" then "god" is a retard. Speak clearly, mr know-it-all-but-can't-speak-clearly. Since we're not jewish, we don't have "the mind of christ" i.e. the jewish mind; we don't know nor understand its hyperbole and rhetoric. We speak and think ourselves and our own ways; "god" is a retard.

"jesus" saying to hate your family but also condemning it is not not talking about actual hatred, apparently. A narrator narrates the story. The narrator doesn't make it vague and ambiguous on purpose, if the narrator wants to get an actual point across. "god" is such the shittest narrator.

"Sword is not sword", just like "hatred is not hatred". Speak clearly, retard. Shittest narrator.
Of course being a christian caused a multitude of problems. Putting a faerie tale imaginary enemy as more-important than your actual family - you deserve to be fucked up in more ways than being fucked up by choosing that faerie instead of your family.

"Arm yourselves with a sword-that-is-not-a-sword." Nice way to contradict yourself immediately with 2 points next to each other, as directly as Genesis 1 and 2's direct "cReAtIoN" contradictions right next to each other. "god" could not defeat the chariots that were made out of iron because the chariots that were made out of iron were made out of iron. "god" can't defeat a substance it created - thus, answered is the question "can 'god' create a thing big enough that it can't lift?". Onward, christian soldiers, marching as to war might be metaphoric these days, but in history, people didn't sit down and talk; they defended their own - with chariots made out of iron; "jesus" couldn't defeat them, so it told its followers to do so, while it skulks away in the safety of its home, out of harm's way. Like monachs, church "leaders" and politicians, no less. Some say "jesus" was a socialist, others say it was a communist. I wonder how those weapons of war were funded. With taxes known as tithes, of course.

Peter used a sword-that-is-not-a-sword to cut off someone's ear. "His words cut like a knife"? The shit narrator doesn't specify that, so it is taken literally. Sword is sword, not words (the letter S in a different position), that "jesus" says to arm themselves with. Think about it like this - a dickhead says something that it knows someone, who has Childlike faith instead of being a mature, understanding Adult - or actually a Child - would do; the immature Adult or the actual Child is told by the dickhead something that the dickhead knows they will do, so trolls them on purpose to get them to do something; then says, "No. That's not what I meant", then "corrects" them. That's what these bullshit stories are. Speak clearly the first time, shit narrator dickhead. It's to control the person who is vulnerable and impressionable. "I said to arm yourselves, not arm yourselves".

Animal "sacrifices". It's interesting that "god", who is supposed to be "all-powerful" and "all-able" needs - instead of in modern time money - the burning of Animals who could be better used and not wasted for shit and retarded reasons. Burning a poor Animal, which is a smell pleasing unto "the lord", instead of being a Pagan and doing a ritual for the slain Animal, thanking and worshipping it, and eating it heartily. "god" is such a disgusting fuck. It's also interesting that "god" preferred Animals be wasted, instead of crops; leaving less Animals to be eaten and more plants to be eaten. "god" is the sad, pathetic, weakling, vegan, hippy jew (some here would have seen the picture of that, of "jesus" nailed to a cross, that I have shared before, when compared with Strong, Proud, Pagan Gods.)

It certainly is sinister; it is out of the left field. The Right is better. It's better to be Far Right than far wrong. We don't "sacrifice" Animals, and we're not vegans.

Exodus 23:5 talks about a donkey, not firstborns. Saying it refers to firstborn sons being "offered not sacrificed" is assinine.
Exodus 34:19–20 mentions all wombs' first offspring belong to "god" and refers to livestock and "redeeming a firstborn donkey with a lamb" and if not redeeming the firstborn donkey with a lamb then "snapping its neck", and merely mentions redeeming firstborn sons. Throwing "redeeming sons" in there is out of place. If it is "suposed to be" in there, then calling firstborn sons donkeys is not something "loving" "god" would do. The entire passage mentions donkeys in one part, goes on about other irrelevant nonsense, then goes back to donkeys and lambs and snapping their necks if not "redeeming" them, and throws in firstborn sons irrelevantly. It's like animals are coupons/vochers to redeem. "god" is so retarded. It is such a shit narrator.

Numbers 3:12–13 says "god" is saying "israel" children include levites and the levites were taken out from among the children of "israel" and it replaced them with every firstborn "israel"ite; so levites within "israel" children and replaced "israel" children with the levites from within "israel" children; then "god" "struck down" Egypt's firstborns; and the firstborn "israel" children, which were replaced by the levites which were from among "israel" children already, are now consecrated. catches breath So... erm... "god" replaced a bunch of jew kids which were among jew kids with a bunch of jew kids and killed Egypt Children. "god" also sent bears to mawl Children to death because they thought a couple of bald j00z looked funny and laughed at it. OK. So... "god" raped Pharaoh of his free will, hardening his heart, and then "god" replaced a subsection of its own jew kids with its own jew kids and consecrated them and killed Egypt's firstborn Children. That's... not stupid and retarded at all.

3. Deuteronomy 28:53-58 - Cannibalism
...
command from God. This is a warning not an instruction.

...and thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
~Deuteronomy 28:53

buuuuuut let me guess - "shalt" in Ye Olde English means "will" not "shalt"... So "I ... create evil; I, 'the lord', do all these things" actually means "calamity" not "evil", as "shalt" means "will" not "shalt". "Shall" means "will" regardless. Thou shalt not Eks, Why and Zed sound like commands to me.

Plus with "fruit" being mentioned in verse 53, that is deliberate in ambiguity. Does it mean fruit, does it mean rewards, or in the case you are saying, does it mean offspring... Not to forget, "womb" = "matrix" = "matriarc" i.e. Mother i.e. Mother Earth/Nature. The jew reckons "all firstborn offspring of Mother Nature belong to it", replacing Nature with dirty shit and being misogynistic throughout it all.

You must not worship the LORD your God in this way, because they practice for their gods every abomination which the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
Deuteronomy 12:31
Yes, woe unto "god" for putting "good" for evil and "evil" for good. Stupid retard. Shit narrator.

No. Humans/Gentile AKA Pagans, i.e. non-jews, don't do that. "god" does - see "jesus", its falsely-claimed only, also firstborn*, "son" was 'burnt' with harsh words upon a stick, and needed to be rushed by chariot-made-of-iron ambulance to the local hospital where Humans would heal it with Science.

Deuteronomy 7:23–24, it's not surprising the epicentre of jewish shit is where such things happened. All of the events of the buybull happened within a small radius within the Middle East. While "god" "flooded" "the World" (that being only the tiny area in the Middle East), in real-life, China had a big flood at the time the "World" flood was set in the faeire tale story, and it lasted longer than 40 days and nights, and an Emperor Yu, founder of the Xia dynasty, managed to tackle it. Not "god". Doing better than "noah" and incest (after incest already). Also China was flourishing already while "buybull civilisation was pre-primitive". China's civilisation was ancient already. Before "jesus" shit, we knew Satan - Zeus and the Gods and Goddesses and weren't jewified with all of the disgusting, evil shit in its holey-with-an-E books. That's all "god" shit, from it's sick, twisted, perverted and pervese, psychopathic... dare I say mind. Of course, "god" would pretend to be the hero in its own story! In all of that! It would big itself up as "judge, jury and executioner and hero"!

So now, kill all the boys, as well as every woman who has had relations with a man, but spare for yourselves every girl who has never had relations with a man.
~Numbers 31:17–18
Obviously, anyone reading that would think it means "take virgins as slaves". Given the rest of the buybull and "god"'s inconsistencies and retardedness, including being the shittest narrator and not being clear, and as the dickhead leading people on to a thing to "correct" them, it's not wonder that that would be the thought. As I have said before, it's left vague on purpose to make people decide for themselves "what it means", and then they are "corrected", as well.

Numbers 25 explains

Again, going away from things and going around and coming back to it, instead of keeping things next to each other. "god" is such a shit shit thing.

Truth: Psalms are poetry; this is not Christian God speaking

No. It's in the Old Testament. Still the jewish "god". The New Testament, christian "god", is different, despite the contradiction with "jesus" being "god" - being "the same yesterday, today and forever".

Amalek. In real-life, the jew claimed that it is doing things now because it was attacked first, so it is now retalliating. In that lot, it goes on to say that it has destroyed Rome - any country which has christianity as its main religion, being White countries, it destroys them. It admits the Children of Amalek hates jacob. It speaks clearly that Amalek is White Countries, which of course have christianity as their main religion, and has mentioned, by name, USA and Europe, specifically. The jew, both in real-life and in the buybull, says Amalek/the White Race/Rome attacked it first, and it says Amalek/Whites/Rome hates the jew - but apparently, "hate does not mean hate" :roll:, and that it itself is good and that it must utterly destroy Amalek, with the full force of "messiah" to arive, because it's its job to teach us "morality" which we have no idea about, while the jew has been in one war after another forever. It certainly knows what the fuck it is blathering on about. It's not a secret the jew "is the same yesterday, today and forever" and in its own more real-life words, does not change.

The jew was not attacked first. It did shit, and it was kicked out of many countries and areas many times, repeatedly, throughout history. It admits that it has been in endless wars, because it is "good" and it thinks it needs to teach us "morals" but if not, then bombings and killings will happen instead. It is unrepentant. It is retarded, thinking it is doing good and doing that false-good well, and it opposes us, so it is expelled - and in that, because it is retarded thinking it is doing good well, it thinks it was attacked, when in actual fact it was retalliated against after it attacked first. Many times. Repeatedly. Unrepentantly. Throughout history.

Psalm 137:9 "Dash the young ones against the stones"
You can "dash" young Children and Babies against stones, or you can rape a 3 year and 1 day old Child. Either way, it's very damaging.

Since

1) "god" made the serpent, in the garden of eden, deliberately, and
2) admitted that the serpent is "the most-cunning of all Animals", then
3) blamed the serpent for tricking Adam and Eve,

then that is a retarded contradiction very early on. Then the rest of the faerie tale is more a shit genre comedy sketch than a serious book "for life".

With that levites among israel kids bit, and many others not in this thread, nothing "god" says can be taken as the following lie -

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
~2 Timothy 3:16

, even with and despite "god" bullshitting the following lie -

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
~2 Peter 1:20

, and the reason that none of it can be interpreted, that it is all "exactly correct" and because "god" is so amazing that its ways are supposed to be "above our ways"... is exactly because it is so fucking retarded beyond all belief and any and all stretches of the imagination.

At this point, it reminds me of the jew book - revised version, no less - that is a dictionary but is not a wordbook but is a lexicon... despite all of those being the same fucking thing... uke:

After moses received the commandment "thou shalt not kill" (not "thou shalt not murder"), "god" ordered moses to kill 3000 people for worshipping a golden calf. "god" is the shittest narrator.

After all of that, it doesn't matter what "jesus" was saying and doing. If it turns out that the interpretations (which are not "allowed"!) are incorrect, then meh, because "jesus" is wrong anyway - "no-one is good but the father", so "jesus" saying "No violence; words not sword" is incorrect because "jesus" is not the father; therefore, not good, and everything it says and does is not good. Further than that - besides, as said already, it never existed anyway. It's stolen, twisted, perverted and corrupted from already-existing Pagan Gods, all squashed into that sad, pathetic, weakling, vegan, hippy jew on a stick.

*after the previous, including but not limited to, "heavenly beings" who "took wives among Humans, "israel", Adam, king David..., who were all "sons of 'god'", rendering "jesus" un-only-begotten