Tucker's attempt to normalize Nick Fuentes

272,734 Views | 3371 Replies | Last: 50 min ago by Realitybites
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Realitybites said:

Most of Romans has to do with showing the Jews that the acts of the Law cannot save them apart from faith in Christ. Even the scriptures say that only a remnant of Israel will convert to Christianity. It has nothing to do with a future mass salvation of Israel the Nation State.

Covenant theology is the theology of Christianity and has been for nearly two millennia until Darby and Scofield showed up and peddled their nonsense.

This position just flatly contradicts the plain language of Paul's word. He says a remnant exists in the present time (Rom. 11:5), and then contrasts that with a future event: "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:25-26).


Unfortunately, people who adopt dispensational theology can never make the Biblical distinction between the Israel of God and the modern nation state that goes by that name.

"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule to the Israel of God." (Galatians 6:16). That's the all Israel he's talking about, the body of Christ, aka the Christian Church. Of course Jews that leave Judaism and the Mosaic covenant and become disciples of Christ are saved, just like anyone else. This has nothing to do with the color of their passport or the white and blue flag with the Star of Remphan on it.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Antisemites don't care about Iran. They are only interested in blaming the Jews, like they e been doing for thousands of years. And they repeatedly prove how irrational their bigotry is.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If this is true... it explains ALOT:

The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ended Vietnam, the draft, and saved my dad's life.

Nixon was and always will be a hero.

The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

Antisemites don't care about Iran. They are only interested in blaming the Jews, like they e been doing for thousands of years. And they repeatedly prove how irrational their bigotry is.


historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another petty post by an antisemite! By all means, continue with the silly childishness. You have nothing intelligent to add since your entire argument is irrational so this is all you have. You keep proving my point.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:




For better or worse, that messaging will resonate with the electorate.

...and I don't expect that a country that was willing to elect someone named Barack Hussein Obama based on a much less concrete message of "hope and change" will shy away from electing someone named El-Sayed for talking about the agenda that Trump was supposed to spend four years advancing.

And yes, I'm fully aware of the threat that Islam poses in Michigan, Texas, and other places. I'm also aware that the flawed immigration policies of Baby Bush after 9-11, continued by Obama and Biden created it. Supporting people who screech "Reeeeeeeeeeee! Antisemite!" every time concerns are raised about squandering our blood and treasure in support of Israel is not a solution.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

Ended Vietnam, the draft, and saved my dad's life.

Nixon was and always will be a hero.




While those two things are good, he also took the dollar off the gold standard and went to China and so laid the foundations for some major economic problems we face today (unsound money, the national debt, the trade deficit, and the outsourcing of jobs).

You all need to be Buchananmaxxing. Read Pat's books. He was a prophet. In his interview back in 1992 with Face the Nation Pat basically said that while they were friends, Nixon said he was a company man and supported Bush.



I wonder if there are any other old Buchanan Brigadiers hanging around here...sometimes it doesn't sound like it.

Also check out the John Birch Society, the philosophical home of conservatism when it actually was, before National Review and Bill Buckley excommunicated us. Also check out Peter Brimelow's stuff at Vdare.com...

I think you'll find much to like in all those places.
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

The_barBEARian said:

Ended Vietnam, the draft, and saved my dad's life.

Nixon was and always will be a hero.




While those two things are good, he also took the dollar off the gold standard and went to China and so laid the foundations for some major economic problems we face today (unsound money, the national debt, the trade deficit, and the outsourcing of jobs).

You all need to be Buchananmaxxing. Read Pat's books. He was a prophet. In his interview back in 1992 with Face the Nation Pat basically said that while they were friends, Nixon said he was a company man and supported Bush.



I wonder if there are any other old Buchanan Brigadiers hanging around here...sometimes it doesn't sound like it.

Also check out the John Birch Society, the philosophical home of conservatism when it actually was, before National Review and Bill Buckley excommunicated us. Also check out Peter Brimelow's stuff at Vdare.com...

I think you'll find much to like in all those places.


I dont think its fair to pin all the blame on Nixon for ending the Gold Standard... the writing had been on the wall for decades by that point.

Opening trade w/ China is a fair critique though.

Both Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul should both receive the Congressional Medal of Freedom before they pass... instead these *******s are giving it to MIRIAM ADELSON!!!
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

Mothra said:

Realitybites said:

Most of Romans has to do with showing the Jews that the acts of the Law cannot save them apart from faith in Christ. Even the scriptures say that only a remnant of Israel will convert to Christianity. It has nothing to do with a future mass salvation of Israel the Nation State.

Covenant theology is the theology of Christianity and has been for nearly two millennia until Darby and Scofield showed up and peddled their nonsense.

This position just flatly contradicts the plain language of Paul's word. He says a remnant exists in the present time (Rom. 11:5), and then contrasts that with a future event: "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:25-26).


Unfortunately, people who adopt dispensational theology can never make the Biblical distinction between the Israel of God and the modern nation state that goes by that name.

"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule to the Israel of God." (Galatians 6:16). That's the all Israel he's talking about, the body of Christ, aka the Christian Church. Of course Jews that leave Judaism and the Mosaic covenant and become disciples of Christ are saved, just like anyone else. This has nothing to do with the color of their passport or the white and blue flag with the Star of Remphan on it.

In typical form, you didn't actually address my argument from Romans 11 at all. You simply changed the subject to Galatians 6:16 and then attacked dispensationalism, even though I'm not a dispensationalist. Let me try again.

Romans 11 explicitly distinguishes between a present remnant (v. 5) and a future event after Israel's partial hardening lasts "until" the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (vv. 25-26). My question was simple: if "all Israel" means nothing more than the remnant already being saved, why does Paul make that distinction in the first place?

Throughout Romans 9-11, "Israel" refers to ethnic Israel. Paul speaks of his "kinsmen according to the flesh," Israel's stumbling, Israel's hardening, and the natural branches being broken off. Then, without any indication of a change in meaning, he says, "And so all Israel will be saved." You haven't explained why the word suddenly changes definition in verse 26.

Nor have you addressed verse 23, where Paul says the natural branches that were broken off "will be grafted in again," or verse 29, where he says "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." Those are the very texts under dispute.

Simply quoting Galatians 6:16 does not answer Romans 11. It certainly doesn't answer why Paul contrasts a present remnant with a future salvation following Israel's temporary hardening.

And as for your dispensationalism comment, many covenant theologians - including Charles Hodge, John Murray, and Jonathan Edwards - believed Romans 11 teaches a future large-scale conversion of ethnic Jews.
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The low IQ philosemetics will hear this and think its actually true

Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

The low IQ philosemetics will hear this and think its actually true



I guess Isaac disagrees with Matthew.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

The low IQ philosemetics will hear this and think its actually true



Ok. Relevance to anything said on this thread?
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

The low IQ philosemetics will hear this and think its actually true




None of that information survived 70 A.D…but people can make whatever spurious claims they want to. Heck there is a black cult in America claiming to be Israelites.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

The_barBEARian said:

The low IQ philosemetics will hear this and think its actually true




None of that information survived 70 A.D…but people can make whatever spurious claims they want to. Heck there is a black cult in America claiming to be Israelites.

Honestly, his claims are no more spurious than some of your posts. You say some crazy *****

Still waiting on an answer to the questions regarding your last spurious claims.
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?


BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:






Yup. Christians are God's chosen people, and the good news is that anyone can become one, simply profess Christ is Lord.

It's been roughly 2000 years and the Jews haven't had any miracles or prophets. You think they'd take the hint by now…
Sic 'em Bears and Go Birds
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

The_barBEARian said:

The low IQ philosemetics will hear this and think its actually true




None of that information survived 70 A.D…but people can make whatever spurious claims they want to. Heck there is a black cult in America claiming to be Israelites.



Highly recommend everyone watch this fantastic video from 2011.



My favorite part is 34:54 where they get a bunch of Americans like Mothra and historian to literally be their goy slaves paying the jews to do their hard labor for them! These people are all mentally ill and we need to take away their right to vote like we do with convicted felons.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:






Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You really need some good counseling for that Jew hatred. It's all consuming.

Not sure I've ever met someone who hated so many different people groups. It's pretty remarkable.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

muddybrazos said:






Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.


You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.
Sic 'em Bears and Go Birds
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

muddybrazos said:






Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.


You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.


Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?
BigGameBaylorBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

muddybrazos said:






Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.


You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.


Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?


Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

muddybrazos said:






Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.


You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.


Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?


Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

I agree with father Chad. I would like to go hear him speak in person some time.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

muddybrazos said:






Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.


You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.


Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?


Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

You're missing my point. Replacement Theology, and what the Catholic Church describes as "Fulfillment Theology," are essentially the same thing. Both argue that God has transferred "chosen" status to Christians, and that the covenant with Abraham's descendants has ended.

It's more a semantics argument and repackaging of Replacement Theology than anything. It sounds better as "Fulfillment" than "Replacement." The good friar's beliefs are completely in line with Catholic doctrine.

Of course, both are equally unbiblical.

And no surprise you've fallen into the trap. Those who dislike Jews in general generally do.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

muddybrazos said:






Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.


You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.


Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?


Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

I agree with father Chad.

Of course you do. No surprise there.
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

BigGameBaylorBear said:

Mothra said:

muddybrazos said:






Unfortunately, replacement theology is just another in a long line of anti-biblical Catholic stances.

Of course there are many. Friar Tuck hits on just one.


You oughta fact-check the things you say so you don't look like an ass. Replacement theology is not an official Catholic stance.


Of course, the good friar wouldn't describe his beliefs as such. But the fact is that is exactly what he's spouting there. And it's in line with Catholic doctrine.

Or do you disagree that his views are not in line with the Catholic Church?


Replacement theology is not a Catholic belief, Google is your friend. The Church teaches a form of Fulfillment Theology.

However, Father Ripperger, like me and many others, hold a more traditional view. Nostra Aetate is Magisterium, not Dogma. It's possible to dissent while being in good standing with the Church.

You're missing my point. Replacement Theology, and what the Catholic Church describes as "Fulfillment Theology," are essentially the same thing. Both argue that God has transferred "chosen" status to Christians, and that the covenant with Abraham's descendants has ended.

It's more a semantics argument and repackaging of Replacement Theology than anything. It sounds better as "Fulfillment" than "Replacement." The good friar's beliefs are completely in line with Catholic doctrine.

Of course, both are equally unbiblical.

And no surprise you've fallen into the trap. Those who dislike Jews in general generally do.

According to the great song from church camp, father Abraham had many sons and I am one of thjem and so are you. so lets just praise the lord.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.