Medical experts are now claiming that the mRNA COVID vaccines may actually be curing people’s cancer, Alzheimer’s, Lyme Disease, and even reducing chronic pain — just in case the “vaccine hesitant” need an added incentive to get over their “irrational” fear of these untested and experimental vaccines and roll up their sleeves:
Joan Wakefield has barely been able to walk for the best part of six months. The 72-year-old from Stockport had a knee replacement in October and has since suffered infections in the scar tissue, causing agonising pain.
Then at the beginning of this month she received the first dose of AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine. ‘I woke up the next morning and the leg pain and stiffness was gone,’ she says.
‘I couldn’t believe it. I joked with my partner about whether the vaccine had anything to do with it. Previously, I couldn’t even bend my leg. Now I can extend it fully, and even put my shoes and socks on. I’m optimistic I’ll be able to return to work sooner, rather than later, now.’
It seems ludicrous – a vaccine designed to protect against one virus can, somehow, improve other totally unrelated elements of health.
But Joan Wakefield is far from alone.
Last month, Mail on Sunday GP Ellie Cannon wrote about the curious case of a man with Lyme disease who’d found his long-term fatigue had evaporated just days after having the Covid vaccine. Scores of you wrote in to tell similarly miraculous tales.
One has seen stubborn patches of eczema on her arms, legs and midriff mysteriously disappear within hours of having the jab. Another claimed that dizzying vertigo she’s battled for 25 years vanished four days after her shot.
Meanwhile, a woman wrote that her husband had enjoyed a full night’s sleep for the first time since his diagnosis of a sleep disorder 15 years ago. Even more bizarrely, some claimed to have been left in better health having contracted the virus itself.
One 95-year-old care home resident was described by her daughter and being suddenly ‘alert and alive’ after having Covid last month.
‘Previously, mum was very frail, losing weight and her voice losing power. We were prepared for the end not to be far away,’ wrote Roz Ellis, from Ilford, Essex.
‘Four weeks after recovering from Covid, her voice is stronger. She stands at the window for ten minutes and she’s put on 3 lb.’
Most readers guess the jab – or infection itself – caused the immune system to leap into action and attack other, niggling health problems. And they might well be right. Scientists have documented unexpected benefits of vaccines for decades – known medically as ‘non-specific effects’.
Studies in the 1970s and 1980s by Danish scientist Peter Aaby found mass measles vaccination in West African communities reduced the risk of child death by a third – but only four per cent of this decline was explained by more people surviving measles.
Also in the 1970s, Russian scientists discovered vaccinating the population against polio reduced death from flu and other infections by up to 80 per cent.
More recently, Dutch and Greek researchers have reported astounding early results from trials looking at whether giving elderly people a vaccine for the bacterial infection tuberculosis – the BGC jab – could guard against other common infections that often land the frail and vulnerable in hospital.
Nearly twice as many infections were seen in the placebo group, compared to the vaccinated participants.
And the BCG vaccine is already used to treat bladder cancer patients with non-invasive tumours – it is administered directly into the bladder to help the immune system fight the cancer.
What’s more, bladder cancer patients who receive this therapy are less likely to develop Alzheimer’s, according to a recent Israeli study. But why?
Scientists are unsure as to the exact mechanism. Some indeed suggest vaccines can ‘train’ the immune system, strengthening it.
But Professor Sheena Cruickshank, immunologist from the University of Manchester, doesn’t buy into this theory and insists there’s a different explanation.
She says: ‘The protection we see against other health problems in those who’ve had measles and BCG vaccines is a benefit of not having suffered those illnesses in younger years.
‘Suffering measles, tuberculosis or any other infections we vaccinate against can have long-term detrimental effects on our immune system.’
Studies show they weaken the response to threats and provoke systemic inflammation. Over time, this increases the risk of a host of diseases.
‘People vaccinated against these infections will in turn be less likely to suffer other diseases as a result.’
As for those experiencing miraculous recoveries after the Covid-19 jab, Prof Cruickshank says the explanation lies with our emotional response to it. ‘The pandemic has been hugely stressful, and we often underestimate the effect of stress on our immune system,’ she says.
She explains that increased stress hormones interfere with the ability of immune cells to target infections. She says: ‘This is why we tend to get bad colds or pick up bacterial infections when we’re stressed and run down.
‘It’s also this response that, in vulnerable people, leads to a flare-up in inflammatory conditions like eczema – because the immune system is going haywire.’
Dr Cruickshank suspects that the vaccine will come as a relief to many, immediately reducing stress levels. The beneficial effect on the immune system can be instant. It’s astonishing,’ she adds.
Yes, they think we are that stupid — and we’ve given them every reason to think that we will believe the most preposterous lies they can come up with to convince us to take their “vaccines”.
Despite literally thousands of people having already been killed and seriously disabled by these vaccines, we are still lining up and demanding our “right” to be vaccinated.
And “Dr. Cruickshank’s” explanation of “reduced stress” makes no sense whatsoever — these people had these pre-existing medical conditions long before the “stressful” so-called “pandemic” ever reared its ugly head.
When people have dropped dead literally within hours or days of having been vaccinated, these same “experts” tell us that it’s all just a “pure coincidence” — but when vaccinated people are miraculously “cured” of unrelated illnesses, it’s all due to the wonderful vaccine — no coincidence at all.
But when it comes to this “pandemic”, we’ve come to expect “miracles” of all kinds — like the complete disappearance of the seasonal flu — for the first time in recorded medical history.
Would it be overly cynical of us to believe that these supposed “benefits” of the COVID vaccines will be only short-term — assuming these anecdotal stories cited here are even real — and that these long-term chronic illnesses will eventually come back with a vengeance — or worse?
The only way these vaccines will, in fact, “cure” these incurable illnesses is for the vaccines to do what they do best — kill people — and death has a way of indeed “curing” anything that ails you.
Medical Miracle! Experts Claim COVID Vaccines May Cure Cancer, Alzheimer’s, Eczema, and Chronic Pain
Anything to make you go along with their admitted (club of rome) depopulation plan.
Most doctors are jewish. Most lawyers are jewish. Most medical and law schools are private jewish schools. Worldwide. Not just USA. Want to keep your medical license if you are not a jew or beholden to them by a secret oath? Good luck with that. Speaking up is resulting in the loss of their licenses because, like the supreme court, the worlds’ medical boards may as well be the sanhedrin.
Volume 10 – social media posts about Covid-19 vaccine deaths and severe side effects.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8CvhtHr8w2ik/
Volume 11 – social media posts about Covid-19 vaccine deaths and severe side effects.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XnsSucZrITC2/
Volume 12 – social media posts about Covid-19 vaccine deaths and severe side effects
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XqOAWHFtj9El/
The Truth Behind The Vaccine Trials – Documentary Film 2021
https://rumble.com/vebrjv-the-truth-behind-the-vaccine-trials-documentary-film-2021.html?mref=iqokt&mrefc=2
Further videos:
https://rumble.com/c/c-660587
“12 Residents Die After First COVID Vaccine in Wales Nursing and Dementia Care Centre”
“As we have repeatedly seen in these stories, so strong is the belief in vaccines that they are never considered to be the cause of death, even when given in close proximity to the deaths.
Instead, in this case they are blaming it on the “new variant” even in the absence of any testing or data to back up such a belief.”
https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/12-residents-die-after-first-covid-vaccine-in-wales-nursing-and-dementia-care-centre/
——–>>
“Question of the Day”
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/
“Is the virus that causes Covid-19 more or less likely than flu viruses to mutate and cause a large, ongoing death toll?”
Your answer is correct.
“Per the Journal of Infectious Diseases, “All viruses mutate, but influenza remains highly unusual among infectious diseases” because it mutates very rapidly, and thus, “new vaccines are needed almost every year” to protect against it. In contrast, a March 2020 paper in a molecular biology journal reported that the virus that causes C-19 “does not mutate rapidly for an RNA virus because, unusually for this category, it has a proof-reading function” in its genetics. This means that C-19 is unlikely to have a large ongoing death toll and take lives regardless of acquired immunity and vaccines. Contrary to opposing claims by the World Health Organization and the media, a torrent of research has confirmed this fact, including studies published by the South Korean CDC, the journal Cell, the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”
Documentation [for a fuller explanation] – C-19 Immunity & Mutations:
https://www.justfacts.com/news_covid-19_essential_facts#immunity
An Alarming “Side Effect” That Gives More Reason For Big Tech/Government Alliance
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/a-alarming-quot-side-effect-quot-that-gives-more-reason-for-big-tech-government-alliance_qfF4nokwQunu3px.html
THE SECOND DOSE KILLED MY DAD AND MANY OTHERS! LATEST REPORTS COMING IN.
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/the-second-dose-killed-my-dad-and-many-others-latest-reports-coming-in_6b5OKCdjgKOmGjO.html
GERMAN DR SPEAKS OUT CHILDREN ARE DYING.
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/german-dr-speaks-out-children-are-dying_ToVfbxHFx8yZBbP.html
Social Media Posts about Covid-19 Vaccine DEPOP Deaths and Severe Side Effects.
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/social-media-posts-about-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-and-severe-side-effects_IJTPI8jXU6hSuaW.html
It’s claimed that the mortality in the young from the vaccine is hundreds of times higher than from “coronavirus”.
“Vaccination in Israel: Challenging mortality figures?”
“A front-page article appeared in the FranceSoir newspaper about findings on the Nakim website regarding what some experts are calling “the high mortality caused by the vaccine.”
The paper interviews Aix-Marseille University Faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit’s Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ about their research and data analysis. They claim that Pfizer’s shot causes “mortality hundreds of times greater in young people compared to mortality from coronavirus without the vaccine, and dozens of times more in the elderly, when the documented mortality from coronavirus is in the vicinity of the vaccine dose, thus adding greater mortality from heart attack, stroke, etc.”
Dr Hervé Seligmann works at the Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. He is of Israeli-Luxembourg nationality. He has a B. Sc. In Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has written over 100 scientific publications.”
———
•In January 2021, there were 3,000 records of vaccine adverse events, including 2,900 for mRNA vaccines.
•Compared to other years, mortality is 40 times higher.
——–
•The authors say “vaccinations have caused more deaths than the coronavirus would have caused during the same period.”
•Haim Yativ and Dr. Seligmann declare that for them, “this is a new Holocaust,” in face of Israeli authority pressure to vaccinate citizens.”
[More]
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/297051
…and soybeans cause autism…
Really? I mean, really? I find that all rather hard to believe…
How could the vaccine cure vertigo? Vertigo is in the mind, and is not a virus.
Newspaper in photo , that the nurse i cheerfully revealing to the polio victim is not hope. It is another “cure” for the elusive virus prepared after much trial and error by the great healer , SAlk . It was successful. He became elevated to the corps of saints and very rich, which is all required from vaccine. The marginalized Paralysis and fatalities are “unfortunate , but necessary for progress.”
Cruikschank is a quack working for socialized medicine jew agenda. Their victims are not represented . The miraculous nostrum is a new advertisement that creates euphoria instead of intimidation if vaccine is refused.
The GO yim are the disease and the vazzine is the “cure” to them.
John 7:1 – After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
Act 9:23 – And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him
Act 23:12 – And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
These are dishonest translations, especially John 7:1, which should read:
“After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Judea, because the Judeans sought to kill him.”
To retroactively apply “jew”, a modern concept, to the word for “Judean” in the NT, will not bring about an accurate understanding of the Scripture.
This is part of why mainstream theology is in the mess that it’s in…
Romans 9:6-7
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
“Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother”.
Modern Jewry is largely descended from Edomites (Idumeans) who were forcibly converted to Judaism in 130BC, by Hasmonean Leader Johanan Hycarnus and absorbed into Judean society, recorded by Flavius Josephus in “Antiquities of the Jews” Book 13: Chapter 9, Section 1.
The Greek geographer, philosopher, and historian Strabo further testifies to the colonization of Judea by Edomite converts to Judaism in Geography [Bk 16.2.34]
John 8 tells us exactly who’s who. Jews are not Judeans. Jews are Edomites (Idumeans)
Nothing of what you said really changes what I said. To blanket apply the word for “Judean” or “Judea” to mean “Jews” and “Jewea” […?], is utter confusion. Even you who believes what you do should be able to acknowledge that.
Chris wrote, “Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother”.
I’m afraid the Greek doesn’t say “the evil one”. It only says “the evil”. Adding “one” is the result of reading interpretation and agenda into the passages. Using “evil” or “ponéros” (G4190) in the masculine singular, as John uses it there, is not uncommon for referring to evil generally, as we can see in Galatians 1:4.
Similar usage in John’s writings in John 17:15 as well as 1 John 2:13-14 make it clear that when he says “the evil”, that he is not referring to Satan specifically, but rather the sinful nature and darkness which blinds the eyes (1 John 2:11).
The definite article does little to make “the evil” a personality, and seems contrary to reason, as it says in 1 John 3:12 says, “…And for what reason did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil, but his brother’s were righteous.” If Cain was evil because he was a child of Satan, then how does it makes sense that in 1 John 2, the conquering of “the evil”, is used to describe a conquering of sin?
“The evil” in Scripture clearly refers to the sinful nature of man, not Satan. Even in Matthew’s usage of the term in Matthew 13:38-39 he makes a specific distinction between “the evil” and “the devil”. John is making this exact same distinction in 1 John 3.
No one questions that the Idumeans were in part integrated into Judean society, but I don’t see why that matters. Edomites were not non-whites (Deuteronomy 23:7).
In any case, in Antiquities book 20, chapter 10, it says, “although after their [Herod and Archelaus] death [in 18AD] the government became an aristocracy; and the High Priests were intrusted with a dominion over the nation. And thus much may suffice to be said concerning our High Priests”.
In that very section you referenced from Strabo it says, “But though the inhabitants are mixed up thus, the most prevalent of the accredited reports in regard to the temple at Jerusalem represents the ancestors of the present Judaeans, as they are called, as Aegyptians.”
In Romans 9, given verses 1-5, Paul is not talking about anyone that is not a legitimate Israelite. He is clearly explaining why the promises to Israel seem to be failing in genetic Israelites.
As for John 8, it says in 1 John 3, “8 the one who practices sin is of the devil… 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother and sister.”
It seems obvious that John 8 is a spiritual teaching, as is 1 John 3, using the same terminology, written by the same writer. Unless you just disagree with John?
One of the greatest tricks in war is to devise a way in which your enemy is blind to your very existence. The romish church unwittingly covers for the jews by pretending that Satan is some bogeyman. The “no-Satan” or “the devil is the flesh” crowd do likewise: spreading a cloak for the true Satan – the jews – to hide behind. Are they also acting in ignorance? Or do they know exactly what they are doing?
William R. Finck, Jr.
1 John 2:12-14
Speaking to children at 2:12, John must mean that their sins, past, present and future, are remitted: for hardly could they have sinned yet! The phrase “the Evil One” in vv. 13 and 14 is in both instances τὸν πονηρόν, the masculine singular Accusative case of ὁ πονηρὸς. While πονηρός is an adjective, evil or wicked, with the Article it is a Substantive: a group of words which function as a noun, and in the masculine gender it must be translated as a masculine noun, the Evil One here. This phrase appears elsewhere in the N.T. in this context at Matt. 6:13; 13:19, 38; Luke 6:45; 11:4; John 17:15; Eph. 6:16; 2 Thes. 3:3 and in 1 John here and at 3:12 and 5:18 and 19. In none of these places could “the flesh” possibly substitute for “the Evil One”, as those whom advocate that “the devil is the flesh” so insist.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
Nothing of what you said really changes what I said. To blanket apply the word for “Judean” or “Judea” to mean “Jews” and “Jewea” […?], is utter confusion. Even you who believes what you do should be able to acknowledge that.
In truth the exact opposite. In reply to Bob’s comment John 7:1, Act 9:23 and Act 23:12 are all correct in referencing the jew. Because the Judeans sought to kill him deliberately deceitful. Might as we be reading from the Scofield kiked bible.
You missed the point of Romans 9:6-7. It highlights what is stated again in John 8 and specifically John 8:44
“It seems obvious that John 8 is a spiritual teaching,”
Proto-Gnostic worldly philosophies that were rejected by early Christians,
John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. (In the beginning was the word right.)
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s seed, ye would do the works of Abraham.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Now read Romans 9:6-7
“In Romans 9, given verses 1-5, Paul is not talking about anyone that is not a legitimate Israelite”
That’s the whole point.
Matt 15:24
Matt 10:5
Amos 3:2
Duet 23:3
Let God be true and every man a liar, as it is written!
So, Chris, is that what you do? You literally cut and pasted someone else’s words and passed them off as your own, as if those were your thoughts, your understanding? You’re a socket puppet, a robot who can’t defend your argument against Johan’s points, so you cut and paste the work of someone who has the “answers” that you can’t articulate yourself because, when it comes down to it, you don’t know what you are talking about. Sad, really.
Chris wrote, “The “no-Satan” or “the devil is the flesh” crowd do likewise”
This may surprise you, but I don’t believe in the “devil is the flesh” doctrine.
I am familiar with Finck’s argument, as it is a common one, even in judeo-Christianity. That snake’s exegesis is as bland as ever. Filled with fluff, but without substance.
Unfortunately, none of what Finck has said justifies adding a “one” at the end. It’s just not there at all in the Greek. The masculine and accusative cases obviously make it anthropomorphic, which is how it can be used as a noun and not be a person.
The ones who add “one” clearly just disagree with John’s writing. They think they need to add to it, because John made a mistake… or something. If John or Matthew or Paul wanted to add “one”, they would have done so. There is no grammatical barrier in koine Greek to adding it. An understanding of the writing must be achieved by accepting what they have said, because there’s no reason to add to it unless you disagree with it.
Like I said, both Matthew and John make distinctions between “the devil” and “the evil”. “The devil” is Satan and “the evil” is our own sin nature. Unfortunately, given that you only copy pasted an argument I already know, you haven’t actually addressed any of my points.
Chris wrote, “In truth the exact opposite. In reply to Bob’s comment John 7:1, Act 9:23 and Act 23:12 are all correct in referencing the jew. Because the Judeans sought to kill him deliberately deceitful. Might as we be reading from the Scofield kiked bible.”
None of what you’ve said changes the fact that they wrote “Judeans”, not “Jews”. Dancing around that isn’t going to make it any less true.
Chris wrote, “Proto-Gnostic worldly philosophies that were rejected by early Christians”
Have you read the earliest Christian writers? Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement? Have you seen how they interpreted the true gospel, which exhorted a life of righteousness, faith and even to drink Lord’s the cup of martyrdom? Finckism — looking for “race” in every corner of the Scriptures, looks like dung in comparison.
Do you know what gnosticism means? The book of 1 John basically addresses gnosticism, and it is rife with spiritual teaching, as I’ve already made clear. However, you didn’t bother to address what I quoted — all too eager to paste in Finck’s work.
Just because a lesson is spiritual, does not make it gnostic. A spiritual understanding ought to bring about righteousness in actions (“the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous”), which is about the most un-gnostic thing I can think of. With Gnostics, they gain righteousness through enlightenment only. Ironically, that sounds a lot like Finck’s doctrine in practice…
Chris wrote, “You missed the point of Romans 9:6-7. It highlights what is stated again in John 8 and specifically John 8:44”
Absolutely it does highlight what is stated in John 8, and I myself would use a similar argument. Paul still isn’t talking about non-Israelites though. Do you know how I know that? Because Paul made the context of his argument very clear. That context is Romans 9:1-5. It’s also made all the more clear in 1 John 3:8-10, which I already quoted, but you didn’t address.
Let me reiterate: You need to address 1 John 3. It’s crucial to an understanding of John 8. You can’t keep dancing around it. “Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God” / “If God were your Father, you would love Me” / “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham”. You seem as confused at this principal as the pharisees themselves in John 8.
Matt 15:24, Matt 10:5, Amos 3:2, Duet 23:3… You quote these randomly as if they are a problem for the doctrine I believe, and as if I myself wouldn’t use them for my own arguments. Unfortunately, you quoting these is only a tacit admission of your ignorance.
You are at a disadvantage, because you only seem to know two seedline. I know it well, and I dare say, I probably know parts of it better than you do. You don’t really know what I believe, but you seek to defend yourself against an opponent you do not know, using an appeal to an authority you do not know…
“None of what you’ve said changes the fact that they wrote “Judeans”, not “Jews”. Dancing around that isn’t going to make it any less true.”
You are going around in circles! Paki NY cab drivers are not American and can never be. Not even to the 10th generation! Is a Nigerian born in Japan Japanese? Pigs born in stables can never be a horse! No matter how much you would like to convince yourself and others. Why not elaborate on what’s a jew?
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
What don’t I understand? Verse four gives us the context and that law was only ever given to the seed-line of Jacob. You can’t add or subtract from it. You can’t circumvent it! We are not talmudists. Attempting to gather figs from thistles makes you a scatterer.
I posted Fink’s grammatical argument for convenience and the fact that it is correct. Is shows consistency in scripture and that the one article is correct. The verses I posted are anything but random. That’s a fallacious argument that highlights either your ignorance or dishonesty. They show consistency in scripture. Something which you are avoiding. If you knew two seed-line better, you would be in agreement.
“an appeal to an authority you do not know”
Another inaccurate statement. You are correct in that I don’t you personally but I know enough as in your inaccurate reply to Bob Walker. You are arrogant, obnoxious and a universalist which separates people from the truth.
For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel!
Good day.
Chris wrote, “I posted Fink’s grammatical argument for convenience and the fact that it is correct.”
No, Chris, you posted Finck’s work as your own with no quotation marks, leading readers to believe that those were your words. That makes you a plagiarist, a thief, and you misrepresented yourself as knowledegable on a subject you obviously know nothing about. And you call yourself a Christian?
How do you know Finck’s analysis of the Greek is correct? Have you personally compared it to other better Greek translations? No. You believe Finck’s translation is correct because you want to believe it is correct, and because Finck insists it’s correct. Finck’s agenda is to turn the New Testament into “Mein Kampf” with a Christian veneer. Start thinking for yourself.
Chris wrote, “You are going around in circles!”
Indeed, because you’re forcing me to. The fact that “Judean” was a geo-political concept — a Roman province, does not change the fact that it must be translated “Judean”. You calling it “jew” is your own understanding being read into the Scripture. It doesn’t say “Jew”, it says “Judean”. Whether a Judean is an Israelite or not is irrelevant. Also “Jews” did not exist back then; it is a modern concept. Therefore, your understanding is fundamentally flawed.
No one really can even define what “jew” means today. This website’s articles makes that obvious. Is it “racial”, or religious? You have come to a conclusion on what it means, and your doctrine is presupposed in that conclusion. Yet that presupposition is required for your doctrine to work in the first place. Your own doctrine is circular, which is why you read “Judean” with such a stubborn agenda.
Chris wrote, “What don’t I understand? Verse four gives us the context and that law was only ever given to the seed-line of Jacob.”
Irrelevant. If you practice sin, you are of the devil. If you practice love, you are of God. White people and Israelites are capable of practicing sin, and so white people can be children of the devil.
White people who come to Christ need forgiveness of their past sin (1 John 1:10). They are also still capable of sin (1 John 1:8). They need Christ to forgive their past sin, and remove their future sin (1 John 1:9), because those who continue in sin have the sacrifice of Christ removed (Hebrews 10:26). They are children of the devil (1 John 3:8). This is all about what you as an Israelite or white person do, because “the one who practices righteousness is righteous”. If you want this to be not spiritual, you have to somehow prove that white people are incapable of sin.
Chris wrote, “I posted Fink’s grammatical argument for convenience and the fact that it is correct.”
No, it’s not correct. There is nothing in his argument which justifies adding a “one”. You’ve assumed it’s correct, because you are blinded by your devotion to a man. Look again,
…and in the masculine gender it must be translated as a masculine noun, the Evil One here.
I don’t disagree with Finck right up until this point. There’s nothing about it being used as a masculine noun (it’s still an adjective in the Greek, being used as a noun) which justifies adding “one”. It is simply, “the evil”. Ironically, adding “one” doesn’t make it any more masculine or definite. It doesn’t make it any more singular either. English doesn’t have masculine or feminine nouns, and if it were plural, it would simply be “evils”. Adding the “one” is the reading in of an interpretation which presupposes to know what “the evil” is referring to.
Is it surprising to you that Finck would jump to such erroneous conclusions and pretend they are facts? You are in an awkward conundrum, where you must either listen to sense, or blindly believe a man. It may further surprise you that Finck makes a habit of making bad assumptions like this, as I’ve shown you in the past already, to which you shamefully refuse to respond.
Chris wrote, “The verses I posted are anything but random.”
I didn’t call the verses random. I said verbatim, “You quote these randomly…” Your quote is random, not the verses themselves. You put them out there without any substance or argument. I would use them in my own arguments, and so you must explain yourself when you post them.
Chris wrote, “You are arrogant, obnoxious and a universalist which separates people from the truth.”
My view is neither universalist in the sense that all “races” are saved, nor in the sense of universal reconciliation to those who are eligible for salvation. Your view is universalist in the latter sense, and so ironically your view is even more universalist than mine.
I think what you are experiencing is simply the discomfort of having the views of your pope — who you have placed between yourself and Christ — questioned, while not having the ability to defend them in an open forum.