"The nations" is a phrase that dates from the early Old Testament, prior to Rome.
Our English word "nation" comes from --
nacioun, "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language," ... directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation
I don't find "goy" or "goyim" in my translations of the Bible, and it is not taught.
Right, but I added that footnote because "gentile" is usually falsely referred to as "non-jew," and "goy/goyim" is also a false translation that many have wrong. So, I added the context, that both words have nothing to do with "jew."
A Jew would be someone who was Judean
No, "jew" is a word that came about later.
"Judean" was someone who lived in the Roman province of Judea, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or anything else.
Just like "Texan" can (but not necessarily should) refer to anyone who lives in Texas -- even a muslim who is fresh off the boat from Somalia.
Certainly, a muslim Somalian has nothing to do with what we think of as "Texan," but it sometimes does include such a wide group of people -- just like "Judean."
Judean, which was the part of the Kingdom that remained after the partition into Israel and Judea
No.
The Kingdom of Isreal was split into (a) the Kingdom of Israel and (b) the Kingdom of Judah. There was no such thing as "Judea" or a "Judean" back then.
When the Babylonians captured the Judahites and took them away, the Edomites moved into the vacant land.
Judea came later when the Romans conquered it and made it part of their empire. They simply used a similar-sounding name.
The Book of Hebrews is not the "Book of the Jews."
Right, because the Hebrews, who Paul was writing to in his epistle, were not jews. They were his Israelite (and by extension, his Hebrew) brothers.
IESUS NAZARANVS REX IVDAEORVM
Depends on which English version of which Bible you look at.
"King of Judea" appears to be more accurate, and fits the context of the place and time.
"Jew" was not a word, yet.
Early Bibles:
Wycliffe Bible (1382): "This is Jhesu of Nazareth, kyng of Jewis."
The Wessex Gospels (1875): "Dys is se haelend judea kyng."
By the time of Jesus, the Edomites (jews) controlled the Roman province of Judea, subject to higher Roman authority.
Pilate was making fun of the whole thing by calling Jesus the "king" of Judea ... since from Pilate's perspective, there was no actual king.
Neither Pilate nor the Edomites (jews) could understand that Jesus was talking about a different kind of kingdom.
We don't REALLY know the specific latin word used.
I doubt "the Jews" had tampered with Pilate's inscription.
Well, they have tampered with a lot of the Bible, so no reason to believe they didn't do it here, too.
Besides, they want you to think that they killed Jesus, and that he was one of their own, too.
That makes no sense, especially since they don't even believe in Jesus, and their Talmud is downright hateful of him.
Yeah, not easy to wrap the brain around it, when we have all been told something very different, and the others around us are indoctrinated into that other narrative, as well.
But ... have we been told the truth about ... much of anything?
- Santa Claus
- Tooth Fairy
- Vaccines
- Muh Covid
- Muh 6,000,000
- Putin wants to take over the world
- Fake pretenders calling themselves Israel ... are also the ones who promote trannys (castration), homos (Bible clearly says no), foreign invasions (race mixing), bank slavery (usury, anyone?), communism, wars, laws prohibiting you from saying bad things about them ... not exactly what God had in mind, most likely.
- Etc.
If you can get the People to (a) worship government, and (b) worship a falsified version of religion, then you pretty much have the market on mind control cornered.
You said:
Genetics, who begat who, these people, those people ... is all horseshit
So, you are saying at least SOME of it is not literal/true.
Why believe THIS particular story/myth/allegory if it is not 100% true?
There are many other things you could believe instead.
I can understand thinking it is all true and pursing it as truth.
I can also understand thinking it is all horseshit, and therefore, discarding it as false.
But I do not understand thinking it is horseshit, but then trying to pursue it in some way to find "truth."
Just curious, because that doesn't really make sense to me.
And I used to be an atheist, so I understand thinking it is not true.
But back then, I had never REALLY tried to understand it.
At some point, I realized that I never really took he time to try to understand it. Once I did, my thoughts about it changed.
I suspect that MOST people are sort of in that mindset, as well -- "It must not be literal/true because I don't really understand it."
It is not easy to understand, for sure.
But trying to hold two conflicting concepts at the same time: (a) it's not true, and yet (b) I will pursue the ideas anyway ... would just make my head hurt. LOL.
Jesus commanded his Apostles to go forth and preach the Gospel to "all nations,"
Paul and the Apostles ONLY connected with the White Europeans.
They did NOT write to or talk to Edomite jews, Africans, Chinese, Indians, or any people other than White Europeans.
THOSE are the "nations" referred to.
Gentile and Jew alike.
You (like most people) have a false understanding of what these words mean.
That is understandable because the modern churches teach a false understanding of these words, and the jews themselves are the primary pushers of these false definitions.
"Gentile" meant "not a citizen." It had nothing at all to do with those we today call "jews" and "non-jews."
It comes from the Latin "gentilus" which meant not a Roman citizen.
Most of the people who lived in the Roman province of Judea, at the time of Jesus, were not Roman citizens. Rome was an expanding empire, after all.
Also, "goy" and "goyim" meant "of the same nation." It had nothing at all to do with jews or non-jews.
In Rome, the local citizens would have been the goyim, and the others would have been the gentilus (or gentiles).
The jews have bastardized these words and their meanings.
"Jew" does not appear in the Bible in the original languages.
Where we see "Jew" today in our English versions it referred to Judeans, but those who were basically imposters of the Hebrews.
When the first English versions of the Bible came about, they had to figure out how to translate the words, and "jew" was the final outcome of that.
Genetics, who begat who, these people, those people ... is all horseshit ...
If so, then why is it so detailed?
We can trace a DIRECT, GENETIC LINE from God >> Adam >> ... Mary >> Jesus.
Why detail all the different genetic lines, if genetics is irrelevant?
The entire book is allegory.
If that is true, they why believe ANY of it?
Do you try to "become one with Buddha?"
If not, why not?
Why would you even want to ...
... connect to the Christ within yourself ...
What would be the point of even trying to do that if the entire thing is a ficticious allegory?
Christ himself would also be fictitious, and there would be nothing to connect to.
I used to think it was fiction, too, but I never tried to "connect to" something that I thought was pure fiction.
Either it is (a) literally true, or (b) true but our full understanding is incomplete, or (c) not true, and we can call it fiction or allegory, or whatever.
Why bother if the entire thing is fiction?
I said that some (really, most) Israelites do not listen (i.e. understand) the Word (i.e. The Law), and most do not obey it.
You said you weren't sure what I was getting at.
I would put it like this:
Why did Jesus come to Earth?
Matthew 15:24 --
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
He came ONLY to teach HIS people -- the real Israelites, who forgot who they were ("lost sheep"). He did not come for anyone else, as The Law, described by Moses, did not apply to anyone else -- only the Israelites.
Matthew 13:34-35 --
34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
He came to reveal things which had been kept secret from the foundation.
The foundation goes all the way back to Genesis 1.
He also does this in Revelation 12:7-9, where we are told that Satan was cast out and down to the Earth. Satan shows up in the form of the Serpent in Genesis.
What about the others (non-Israelites)?
Matthew 13:10-11 --
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
He came ONLY to teach the lost sheep -- the Israelites.
What was the main point of his teaching?
Matthew 5:17 --
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
The Law (described by Moses in the first 5 books of the Old Testament) is STILL applicable in the New Testament.
This is something many churches today deny. But they are obviously wrong.
What was so important about reinforcing The Law?
Matthew 5:19 --
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Setting the stage for the Kingdom, which is for His people.
The way His people demonstrate "faith" is by following The Law.
It is not baptism. It is not rituals. It is not "deeds" (which means rituals). It is not "being saved." It is not even "repenting," although is probably part of it for most of us.
It is simply following The Law, as described (and in some cases modified) by God/Jesus.
God started with Adam. His descendants were the Adamites.
They were NOT the only people on planet Earth at that time. Many were already here before. But Adam was the first in his race, and with the SPIRIT breathed into him.
But the Adamites did not do what God wanted.
So, he had Noah build an ark to survive the flood, so He could start over.
This was a local flood, which covered "the land," not "the Earth".
Noah was chosen SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE he was "perfect in his generations." He procreated with his own Adamite people, while many others did not.
From Noah, we got Shem (Semites) and Eber (Hebrews).
But they were STILL not doing what God wanted.
So, he made a promise to Abram/Abraham, who was doing what was desired.
From there, we get Isaac and Jacob/Israel, and the Israelite people, who were given a special promise from God.
They, too, did not follow what God wanted, so he sent Moses to WRITE IT DOWN.
Even then, they couldn't get it through their thick heads, so he came to Earth himself, in human from, as Jesus (the "son" of God -- because if he said he WAS God, that would have been an entirely different conversation).
He came to tell HIS PEOPLE to FOLLOW THE LAW because we are getting ready for the KINGDOM.
What that means, EXACTLY, I don't know.
But that is the story of the Bible.
Notice: Paul never wrote a single letter to anyone in Africa.
He never wrote a single letter to anyone in China.
He never wrote a single letter to any of the Edomites.
He wrote ALL his letters to his BROTHERS in Europe.
Paul stated that he was an Israelite.
Romans 11:1 --
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
And check out Romans 9:3-15 --
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
The Romans were Pauls' genetic relations (brothers), and therefore Israelites.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
He is talking about the imposters.
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Abraham had descendants through Ishmail, and also through Isaac/Esau, but those descendants were not "of the promise."
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
WHY did God do things this way?
God only knows.
The Word is to go out to all nations.
Today, we use the word "nation" to mean something different than the context here.
"Nation" is English and comes from the Latin "nacio," which means "of birth."
It is a group of people OF THE SAME RACE -- they are related by blood.
Paul and the apostles sent The Word out to the nations ... that were MEANT TO KNOW IT, but not any others.
That's why he wrote to, and the apostles visited, White Europeans.
Oops ... I forgot to include my response to this part:
Even within that scope, though they call themselves sons of Abraham, they also call themselves sons of Ashkenaz, who was not even descended from Shem(etic), nevermind a son of Abraham -
Today's jews are a MIXED BREED.
That is the key point. Without understanding that, it is impossible to untangle the web of deception.
Today's jews are descended from the Edomites.
The Edomites were themselves a MIXED BREED.
That's because Esau ("Edom") mixed with non-Semites.
Of course today, jews CLAIM to be "semites" and so anyone saying something negative about them is what they call "anti-semite."
But that is a lie.
Yes, it is "anti-jew," but no, it is not "anti-semite."
Today's jews are not semites -- at least, not fully, which means they are not (just like you can't be half-pregnant).
The descendents of Shem are the "semites."
Abraham was a descendant of Shem.
So, his children and grandchildren were, too.
Shem ("Semites") ... >> Eber ("Hebrews") ... >> Abraham >> Isaac >> Jacob and Esau.
Jacob became Israel and his descenants are the Israelites.
Esau became Edom and his descenants became the Edomites.
The Israelites stayed within their own kind for procreation and the future generations.
But Esau/Edom did not.
This is why God hated Esau. He race mixed with those outside of his own race.
This is what "fornication" means in the Bible.
Modern churches have a misunderstanding (they lie) about this.
Esau mixed with Canaanites and Hittites.
Hittites were of the Canaanite family tree (it is ALL genetic).
The Canaanites were descedants of Canaan.
Canaan was cursed due to his father (Ham) having engaged in incest (Ham had sex with his own mother, which produced Canaan).
This is why Canaan was cursed. It wasn't his fault, but he was cursed, nontheless.
The same thing basically happened to the child of David and Bathsheba. Their child was the product of adultery, and that is why God hated that child and make it sick and die.
Yet, after Bathseba's husband died and she became a wife of David, they had another son who God loved -- Solomon.
BTW ... why does the Bible go into stories like this if they don't have any real meaning? Of course, they do.
So, Canaan was cursed, and that was passed down through his genetic family tree.
Some of those women bred with Esau and his family tree, making their desendents both "of Abraham and Shem" but also "of Ham," and therefore NOT semites.
Futher, the Canaanites lived among the Kenites, and mixed with them, as well.
The Kenites were the descendants of Cain.
This is hidden in our English language Bibles because there does not seem to be any connection with "Cain" and "Kenite."
But in the Hebrew, it is obvious:
QYN = Cain
QYNY = Kenite
Now, the REALLY tough thing to wrap your head around is the idea that Cain was NOT a child of Adam (and, therefore, not of God).
Eve did not eat an apple. It said "fruit," but that was a metaphor for sex.
The Serpent (aka "Satan" or his evil angel ["messenger"]) had seduced Eve and produced Cain.
Revelation 12:7-9 tells us --
7 Then there was a war in heaven. Michael [an archangel and protector of God’s people; Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9] and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.
8 But the dragon was not strong enough, and he and his angels lost their place in heaven.
9 The giant [great] dragon was thrown down [cast; hurled] out of heaven. (He is that old snake [ancient serpent] called the devil or Satan [Gen. 3:1, 15], who tricks [deceives; leads astray] the whole world.) The dragon with his angels was thrown down [cast; hurled] to the earth.
The Serpent messed with God's children -- Adam and Eve -- from the beginning. Cain was the child of Satan.
Cain was the "murderer from the beginning," with the SEED of Satan within.
In Genesis 3:15, God says there will be ENMITY between Satan's SEED and Eve's SEED from now on.
This is NOT EASY TO ACCEPT because modern day churches do not teach this.
The pastors do not LEARN this at all in seminiary school -- just like doctors don't learn about health in medical school.
But it DOES explain the world when you can see it from this perspective.
The original Hebrew does not say anything about "eating fruit."
And remember: In the Garden of Eden there were trees of FOOD and BEAUTY ... and then ... there were ALSO TWO "TREES" that were ALREADY IN THE MIDST.
The Tree of Life (Jesus) and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Satan).
not that this excludes one from being able to be grafted into the vine through faithfulness,
No, it all genetic.
Yes, the Israelites are commanded to be FOLLOW THE LAW, which is HOW they demonstrate "faithfulness."
But The Law does not apply to anyone else.
just that Matthew 3:9 doesn’t actually even seem to apply, and what’s more being stated is the common church note of, “do not suppose that you will be saved simply because your parents were.”
The churches have CREATED doctrines that are NOT biblical. They are their OWN CREATIONS, and therefore should be ignored.
"Saved" is a modern concept.
One is "born from above" (God) or not (other). It's just that Satan and his minions have wreaked havoc for several millennia. It's what they do.
God will separate the wheat from the tares, eventually, and only the wheat will survive.
Jesus came ONLY for the lost sheep (forgot who they were, and therefore how they were supposed to live their lives) ... of the House (genetic family tree) of Israel.
^ BTW ... You might find this video interesting:
Re: Luke 8:21 --
Is that literally ANYONE who listens to the Word and obeys it?
Or is it ONLY the Israelite people who listen to the Word and obey it?
He said he ONLY came for the lost sheep of the House (family/ descendants) of Israel (Jacob/Israel).
After all, some Israelite people do NOT listen to the Word, and most do NOT obey it.
Jesus spoke DIFFERENTLY to different people. To his people, he spoke in a (more or less) straight forward manner. But to the "others," he spoke in parables. Both because they could not or would not understand him, and because he did not want them to know because it was not for them to know.
Matthew 3 --
Let's take that chapter in context, and not just the one verse.
I think it can be helpful to read the Expanded Bible version, as well as others. It gives more than one translation in many areas, and helps "fill in the gaps" in many cases, making it more readable. You will often see things there that are left out of the KJV.
This is EXB:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%203&version=EXB
This is KJV:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%203&version=KJV
You will see a lot of differences.
1 -- In verse 1, John is coming to Judea. I have said this many times before that most of Jesus' teachings had to do with the people who lived in the Roman province called Judea. The people who lived there were "Judeans," no matter what their racial or ethnic background. It's a "we are all 'Texans'" type of thing.
5 - In verse 5, people from Judea are coming to see John. These would be the "multitudes," which included Israelites and also Edomite jews and others.
7 - In verse 7, we see that Pharisees and Sadducees had also come to see John. The Pharisees were a mixture of people, but mostly Edomites jews. The Sadducees were all Edomite jews. They controlled the "thinking" about what "The Law" said and meant in the original Books of Moses. They created the "Tradition of the Elders," which later became the Talmud. It is an anti-Christian ideolgy, which is why they hated Jesus and were always trying to trick him or find anything false about him. John calls them vipers. He was not saying this to the Israelites.
9 - This is the verse you cited. But let's look at both verses 9 and 10 from the EXB:
9 And don’t think you can [presume to] say to yourselves, ‘Abraham is our father [a claim to be God’s special people].’ [For] I tell you that God could make [create; raise up] children for Abraham from these rocks.
10 The ax is now ready to cut down [already lies at the root of] the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire [a metaphor for judgment].
Basically, John is telling them that they are not the Chosen Ones. God COULD make them or anyone chosen -- He could create them from rocks -- but He has NOT made THEM the Chosen.
Furthermore, every "tree" (a genetic family tree) that does not produce good fruit (good people -- the Chosen Ones) will be thrown into the fire.
These Edomites are not the Chosen Ones, and no matter how much they try to fake it, they will never be the Chosen Ones. Eventually, they will just be discarded into the fire.
Rothschilds are of the Edomite tree.
Why is that important to know?
Because the Edomites are ultimately children of Cain, who was the son of Satan (which means "Adversary" in Hebrew).
Roth and their ilk have ALWAYS -- for millennia -- been the adversary of the White Europeans.
They are STILL doing it today by trying to destroy our culture and our race. They do it with communism which destroys the mind. They do it with trannyism and faggotry which destroys the spirit. They do it with an invasion of "others" which destroys the genetic family tree.
They are the Adversary. They have recruited others to assist them, as well, but they are the driving force behind the "dark" side of "Light vs. Dark."
Once you understand what God was saying in Genesis 3:15, that the enmity would be between the SEED, and that Cain was the seed of Satan and not of Adam/God, then the story -- and history of Europe -- makes perfect sense.
Reminder, friend -- we are told SPECIFICALLY that Jesus came ONLY for the "lost sheep of the House of Israel."
Matthew 15:24 --
Jesus answered, “God sent me [I was sent] only to the lost sheep, the people [house] of Israel.”
I have read about rumors of prostitution, but had not read or heard about children involved.
But the idea of breaking in to steal "election strategies" is kind of a dumb thing to believe. There had to be more to it.
Nixon was known to hate faggots and referred to anyone going to Bohemian Grove in a very negative way.
But he also referred to the "Bay of Pigs thing," which was his code for the JFK assassination -- and Frank Strugis was likely a part of it, in some way.
Sturgis was part of Operation 40, and no doubt Nixon knew all about that and their activities. He probably agreed with a lot of it, but also knew that Dems (Lyndon Johnson) were involved, as well. Not to mention Mossad and their jew buddies, of course.
So, I would not be surprised if it had more to do with finding anything the Dems might have had on how the JFK op went down.
Both Sturgis and E. Howard Hunt were probably involved in the JFK kill job, and they were both involved in the Watergate break-in. They would have have motive to find something.
After all, there were new JFK investigations in Congress just a few years later.
Congress would not only investigate JFK, but RFK, MLK, the CIA (this is when "Mockingbird" was revealed), and many other things in the 1970's.
These were Democrats doing these investigations.
I would not be at all shocked if Sturgis lied about the "real" reason for the break-in. He was a paid assassin, after all.
Something that most people don't think about is that now, in the year 2025, many of the corporate executives of these large corporations are graduates of the same business schools (to get their MBA), and they all learned the woke garbage and stupid way of thinking in those schools.
So now, there is an army of twisted thinkers running the big corporations. That's why there is no customer service anymore. There is no real focus on the customer. There are all these other dumb ideas because they have been indoctrinated in that direction.
... the true enemy was described by JFK, when he described infiltration, covert means and guerillas by night.
... becoming clear about spiritual matters ...
So far, I agree. You are talking about jews, even though you think you are not.
Israel is small potatoes.
Be careful about throwing around that word, "Israel." The Israeli government and state in the Middle East today is not the same as -- and has nothing to do with -- the one in the Bible, other than the land area is similar.
The Israeli government today is not small potatoes, as they are central to the problem. Not the entire problem, but a big part of it.
Q said symbolism will be their downfall...who do you think "they" are?
Who uses symbolism?
Is it the red-blooded Americans on the right? Nope.
We are pretty straight-forward: "Dont' tread on me." "Shall not be infringed." "Hang 'em high." We don't mess around much with symbolism.
Symbolism is and always has been those we consider the "left." Antifa fist, communist sickle, pride fag flag, the list is endless with symbolism.
Their ideas are always minority ideas, and so they use symbolism as propaganda for the subconscious mind.
They also use it to signal to each other that they are of like mind.
And WHO is behind all of that?
Jews, for the most part. Sure, they have their so-called "shabbos goy" (they always misuse the word "goy"), who are bought and paid for like the cheap whores they are. But all these movements, with communism being one of the big ones, had jews behind them -- and still do.
Of course, we KNOW it is not ALL jews ... but it has ALWAYS been jews behind the scenes.
Once you start to really look at the moves that were made 100-150 years ago and who made them,
You mean the bolsheviks, which were jews?
you start to peel back the layers... Revealing the octagon and the red shield,
Red Shield = Rothschild (which literally means "red shield") = jews
plainly banking crooks money in secret, while remaining "neutral" - but financing and controlling manufactured conflicts globally.
Right. And WHO were those bankers?
WHO were the original "money changers?"
Why do many of them have names like "Goldman" and "Silverstein?"
In order to defeat the enemy...we must all know who the enemy is first.
Totally agree.
Do you know who the enemy is?
The satanic force within society -- i.e. the descendants of Cain.
As God said all the way back in Genesis 3:15 --
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
WHY did he say THAT?
WHAT/WHO is this "seed" that He spoke of?
And WHY has it played out EXACTLY LIKE THAT for thousands of years?
Agreed.
The word "jew" wasn't even in the Bible.
It was "Judean," which only meant the people living in the Roman province of Judea, just like today we might call someone a "Texan" who lives in Texas, even if their ethnicity is Chinese.
The Edomites had moved into Judea when the real Judahites were deported to Babylon. These Edomites took over that province and developed a cozy relationship with the Romans, who controlled it. The Edomites became the equivalent of the "governors" of the area, and had political control by the time Jesus came.
The Edomites copied some of the practices of the original Hebrews (who were not jews), because they were imposters, as they have always been -- even to this day, as the modern day jews pretend to be the Israelites, when in fact they are the Edomites. (And yes, they KNOW this, but lie about it.)
Esau mixed with the Canaanites (which was prohibited by God, which is why God hated Esau). The Canaanites were cursed and had mixed with the Kenites, which were the descendants of Cain. Cain was the "murderer from the beginning" because he was the son of Satan, and not of Adam (or God), and had the dark element within him.
... for all Father’s children…
And who would that be ... exactly?
Remember, we are specifically told that Jesus came ONLY for the Israelite people, and NO ONE ELSE.
Matthew 15:24, in response to a Canaanite (not an Israelite) woman:
King James Version:
... he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Expanded Bible Version:
Jesus answered, “God sent me [I was sent] only to the lost sheep, the people [house] of Israel.”
So, I ask ... WHO are "all Father's children?"
Are Rothschilds and jews included or excluded?
Tate has bragged -- not just admitted, but bragged -- about scamming men and women, and pimping out women.
So, he is a piece of shit, even though he does say some truths from time to time.
Ricky D. is a puppet of jews, and Tate said something negative about jews, so Ricky D. will try to find something to pin on Tate.
But if the "thing" did not happen if Florida, then there would be no case.
If it did, then maybe.
Didn't they allegedly hire 87K agents, many of whom were, initially, supposed to be armed, just a few years ago? So there were only 10K agents before the 7K were laid off last month leaving the 90K claimed to remain? Numbers aren't feeling reasonable in my mind.
The 87,000 agents were to be hired over a 10-year period. They were just replacing the normal attrition.
Deep State media did not tell you that -- cuz they want you scared.
Not interested in fishing around for info.
Just give us a summary.