>>/92367/
As for the third picture on there, I actually _agree_ that the inheritors of the Covenant are those who believe in Jesus, NOT those claiming to be "Jews" (whether they are or not is irrelevant,
you're saved by faith, not by race.) I never argued otherwise, but (it seems that) you put words in my mouth. Maybe you weren't trying to, but I never said that Jews were these innocent angels. If anything, I'm the most Jew-aware person in my family.

However, I do NOT agree that the Catholic church is any better. If anything, it's just as "Jewish" as modern heretical "Rabbinical" Judaism. Peter started the _church_ in Rome, that's true. But he didn't convert the whole Roman government. It would be *nice* if he did, but that's not what happened.

Don't get me wrong. God used even this for good, and I believe there were always Catholics that accepted the Gospel, were born again, and went to heaven throughout the duration of the Roman Catholic Church's existence. I'm just glad Martin Luther came along to guide European Christians back on the right track. And Martin Luther was a Jew-aware Gigachad, so that was a bonus.

Just so you know, I'm not against you. I just think we have very strong opinions that clash. →→→ I even agree that (those nowadays calling themselves) "Jews" are stealing everything they can and claiming it as theirs. ←←← I just think that it's more nuanced than "all Jews who ever lived were reptilian demons from Mars".
Here's what I think happened:
Because of their unbelief in Jesus, Jerusalem got sacked in AD 70 like Jesus himself predicted. In Revelation, the "Jews" (by blood) who didn't believe in Jesus are called this:
[THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT:
"I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan."]
Then their Rabbis made a heretical sect of Judaism called "Rabbinical Judaism" about 200 years later, which was basically Babylonian paganism. Sometime after they converted Tatar/Khazar Turks to the north in Russia to this heretical (and probably already demonic) sect of Judaism between 200-800 AD (I don't remember when). The former group of "Jews" may have also intermixed somewhat with the latter in the later centuries but that is irrelevant. This specific tribe (or confederation of) Turks were already infamous as parasites, robbers, murderers and most importantly: Doppelgangers, identity thieves. Worst of all, their religion was _already_ demonic and star worship-based.
They then entered Europe in about the 1200s AD and intermarried with European Royalty and set up merchant guilds. Now this elite of Eastern Europeans claiming to be (descended from) swarthy dark-skinned Afro-Semitic-speaking peoples (despite coming from Russia originally).

The whole point of this is NOT to shift blame from one group (Middle Eastern) to another group (Ashkenazi Khazar), but on the contrary, to illustrate that
1. (Even though) It _was_ by God's grace →→→ to Abraham (from Ur in Iraq, the modern border where anciently all of humanity came from both before and after the Flood), Issac and Jacob (and thus the rest of the world) ←←← that salvation was brought, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S TRUE;
2.It's not by blood that we are saved, but by faith (you know this already).
In fact Abraham himself was "counted righteous by faith". Romans 4:3:
"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
All the physical stuff, the laws about clean and unclean, were just a shadow of the real Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus rules over. So claiming to be the original _civilization_ who wrote both the Old and New Testaments is futile, since it's the inheritance of the
→→→ promise of salvation ←←← that we should aspire to claim through faith in Jesus Christ.