Do you love your enemies?

[WhiteShark]

5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

If God hated His enemies, He wouldn't have sent His Son to die for them—which is to say, us. God's love toward man never ceases or diminishes. He earnestly desires the salvation of every man, even the most wicked. St. Isaac the Syrian teaches that even those in Hades are not deprived of God's love, though to them it is suffering:

As for me I say that those who are tormented in Gehenna are tormented by the invasion of love. What is there more bitter and violent than the pains of love? Those who feel they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. The suffering with which sinning against love afflicts the heart is more keenly felt than any other torment. It is absurd to assume that the sinners in Gehenna are deprived of God’s love.
[...]
Love is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by the presence of a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful.

[Kalarion]

I repent. I went back and actually read the parts of this thread that I'd skimmed before, and combined with the later posts it's clear that you have made an effort to think on these matters. My characterization was unfair and incorrect, I'm sorry for it.

In the dual interest of helping you respond to each person appropriately, and keeping me from being overwhelmed in my responses, I'm generally just going to directly respond to your posts quoting me from here on. In light of my apology I'll also be doing a lot of backtracking and revision of opinion.

If you're wondering why it takes me a long time to respond, it's because I'm struggling to understand your perspective even though it's clearly written.

I sympathize. I feel the same way. I don't know if this will help, but my main prior, the basis for everything I have to say about Christianity, is that the Bible is totally and completely True. When I say True, I mean very briefly that it speaks all necessary facts to us, in proper perspective, with love as its ultimate motivation. When I say love, I mean the desire that our ultimate good be achieved, that being a right relationship with God. The Bible tells us no lies regarding God's purpose for us, God's expectations for our relationship to him, His redemption of our brokenness, and what redemption looks like (that is, its effect and its general progress in our lives).

Secondarily, I have determined after years of personal introspection, research and prayer that Christianity is wholly and completely internally consistent. I have heard no argument for internal inconsistency to date for which I cannot determine for myself, or find amongst Christianity's great apologists, a clear and believable answer. I have wrestled with certain subjects which have come close, but those are for another thread (assuming anyone would even be interested). My final, and so far unanswered, conclusion is that Christianity can simply be rejected wholesale, on the charge of being false or because its tenets are unacceptable to someone on their face. But it cannot be rejected for inconsistency. There isn't any.

The large part of my snippy and brusque tone stemmed from the fact that the arguments you have so far brought forth are none of them new to me. For each, I either worked out to my own satisfaction an answer that was consistent with biblical Christianity, or have read the answers of others whose intellect and good faith I respect on matters I didn't understand for myself. Yet, having "dealt with" the various arguments of Christianity's interlocutors at a simplistic level, I have found to my immense frustration that this simplistic level appears to be all there is. I have not for years read or heard any achristian apologetic which did not retread the same ground. It has made me impatient and dismissive.

I suspect that you feel something akin to my frustration, from your perspective. Thankfully, you are wrong and I am not

-----

What WhiteShark wrote about the invitation being open to everyone implied a belief that everyone is of an equal nature & capacity to achieve this practically, otherwise it is a hollow platitude.

Personally, I believe the Bible can be interpreted as promoting the idea that there are hierarchies of people, but this belief doesn't mesh well with the idea that there is an open invitation to all humans. It's very centric to Caucasian peoples and a specific geographical location, which has certain implications. I can also see the Bible as being an attempt to instil pragmatic laws in response to some of the degenerate madness found in Babylon, Canaan, Egypt and Anatolia.

If you mean, "achieve" salvation and redemption, then I agree. Again, the one universal among functioning mankind (that is, leaving out the insensible and the cripplingly retarded) is that all of us are capable of (1) understanding that we are broken ("something is wrong"), and (2) understanding that there is someone who not only has the capability to fix us, but will do so if we ask ("I need a savior, and a savior is available"). Within that framework, hierarchy of people as far as their function in one type of society or another fits perfectly comfortably. The only notion I would categorically reject (and the line that separates me from true racialists) is that some physical, mental or spiritual characteristic of some race or people could completely exclude them from salvation (aside from their choosing to reject it, of course).

As here:

By blank slate, I mean like how Michael E Jones would say that all types of people are equally capable of being a Christian, because that's what a fair & just God would do, and the only problem with people is that they aren't trying to be Christian, and the impacts of culture & information or some kind of corruption.

I think it's difficult for me to see a difference, in terms of redemption, when it's made clear that everyone is given the same set of ultimatum and the same role model to follow.

I agree with E Michael Jones. I don't understand your difficulty with the universality of the chance of redemption, since at its base redemption is incredibly simple: "Dear Lord, I'm fucked up. I want to be made whole. Please save me." The end. One people, culture or race (henceforth, "person") or another may have a harder or easier time with this process, but it is by no stretch of the imagination impossible or even objectively difficult (regardless of relative difficulty from one person to another).

The final sentence in this quote makes me think you're conflating the Christian redemption process (being saved) with transformation (being made whole/perfect). As far as achieving a right relationship with God outside His salvation is concerned, we all do indeed have the same ultimatum and role model:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in Heaven is perfect.

and, apart from God's work, will achieve exactly the same result:

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God

And no matter how close one person or another gets, it only counts, as they say, with hand grenades and nukes. We need our savior, no exceptions.

-----

You're preaching to the choir about Universalism & Egalitarianism, but "Universal" is literally in the etymology of Catholicism.

Yes, the one universality I explicated: we all have the access and the ability to ask for, and receive, salvation. Nothing else about humanity is universal, and nothing, period, is egalitarian. Egalitarianism is a cancerous heretical growth from Christian thought which has poisoned the world since its conception.

-----

Fairness is a concept. If your concept of God doesn't recognise the concept of fairness, how can any claim that he is fair?
It's another matter if you don't claim this, as I'm not even criticising being unfair. I'm just trying to tackle some of the contradictions I've noticed.

I'm saying, it's the other way around. Fairness doesn't define God. God defines fairness. Fairness comes from our understanding of His attributes.

-----

I think you're taking it a bit too literally to avoid answering the simple question here...
The 'alien' stuff is just like a turn of phrase to describe someone that is completely unaware of things like hell/ heaven, etc. Could have come up with a more imaginative thing but I didn't think it'd be an issue. It's very interesting that you're both not only reluctant to answer it, you chastise me for asking it in the first place. Does that not indicate that I am correct in my assessment?

You're right, my tone was dismissive and probably came off as evasive as well. The dismissiveness was (wrongly) intentional, the evasiveness was not. I wasn't trying to avoid your hypothetical, I was trying to ask for information that would inform and fundamentally change my answer, depending on your response. I'll just answer both scenarios.

If we take as a given that the aliens have a need for eternal salvation, then I would preach it as I would generally to a person: "you are broken, you need to be made whole, God can make you whole, ask for His healing."

If we take as a given that the aliens were not in need of salvation, I wouldn't bother with the topic. There wouldn't be any point.

-----

Not all writing has equal merit or plausibility.

Indeed not. By that measure, the Bible has by far the greatest amount of primary source verification of historical claims of any book, ever. It's not even close. If we consider whether the factual claims of the Bible should be assumed correct based on preponderance of verification, we would be forced to side with it.

-----

No.
I still don't understand the definition of "materialist" religious members of RPGHQ seem to use. It feels like a meaningless pejorative.

You may assume whatever you wish but your acceptance of those assumptions as truth, doesn't make it true.

It seems that your answer here is a knee-jerk reaction & defence mechanism, because you don't want to confront the idea that someone who thinks about these subjects would come to the kind of opinions I'm stating.

A materialist rejects, on its face, the veracity of any claim that does not originate in the empirically verifiable, physical universe. All mental exercises - philosophy and so forth - must originate from material conditions, and nothing else.

Indeed. I was wrong. I hazard instead that you are speaking to people much like yourself now.

No, my "defense" mechanism is normally just not to respond. And I don't have a problem with someone coming to different conclusions than I have on the subject of Christianity. Rather I have a prejudice similar to yours, formed by what I wrote: the vast majority of those I've talked to of your persuasion (just as with your description of, "spoken to enough Catholics to understand...") are sheep. Eventually I came to the conclusion that that's just the way the world is; most people don't think deeply on these subjects. They work on a set of unconscious assumptions that they can verbalize at a very simple level, and that's good enough for them. Realizing that changed a lot of my opinions on other topics, actually.

-----

The stasi in my country are not far from throwing people into Gulags for hate speech so... yes it IS comparable?
You're missing the point of why I posted that "hilariously aggravating take"-- it is a threat. The police ENFORCE through providing a threat to deter crime. Part of that crime is not paying the state their dues, just as a robber uses violent threats to motivate people into obediently handing over their property.
In future, please take into consideration what I'm responding to instead of making your own assumptions.

I didn't miss the point you ninny . And I'm not sure what you mean by asserting comparability. I wasn't arguing that.

I was trying to demonstrate that the idea that there are consequences for not behaving according to the expectations of those in power over you is perfectly natural and normal. I don't have a problem with it per se. My problem (if any) would be with the circumstances surrounding it. In the specific case of God eternally separating Himself from those who refuse him, or that such separation may involve perpetual torment (in whatever fashion it may happen to manifest), I don't have a problem with it. Any more than I would have with, say, a father refusing to have anything to do with a sodomite son. If the son subsequently bug-chases himself into becoming a walking Garden of Nurgle and runs himself into an early grave, should we be angry at the father for what happened?

-----

This does little to help me to imagine or conceptualise what is being promised. I assure you, I have read the Bible.

Well, my answer wasn't meant to. Because the answer is, talking about eternal salvation in the context of its not being necessary is completely non-sensical. If you don't need salvation, what's the point of bringing it up? You talk about salvation after you recognize there's a need to be saved.

-----

That's a very round-about way of saying "No, hell was intended and completely under God's control."

No, it was a very direct way of saying, "Yes, God is able to save us from the consequences of our sin, and He has done so". The gift has been offered. It just has to be accepted.

-----

There is what it explicitly teaches or claims, and then there is what it implies to me and my opinion of it. Your Catholic beliefs are quite niche, and not the most popular Christian beliefs, so I'm not sure where the egotism & snobbery is coming from. Apologies for not knowing the 'King's English' to a sufficient degree, but I think you are actually using sophistry here.

I'm raising a point, and you're trying to circumnavigate it without actually tackling it head-on. By doing so you weigh the discussion down with tangent upon tangent, as there are other things which I could be lured into arguing about, which is not very helpful.

I'm not Catholic, but yes, I would agree that my beliefs are very much in the minority in this day and age. The sheep are under new management, it seems. The egotism and snobbery comes from the fact that I know the truth, of course . And no, I wasn't hiding behind sophistry. However, my accusation was predicated on my assumption of whether you'd tried thinking seriously about this stuff, and as I've said a few times already, I think my assumption was wrong.

What is the point being raised? I've tried very hard to be as direct and succinct as possible in answering exactly what's been quoted. No circumnavigation was intended.

Tell me the point you're getting at with your posts and I'll talk about that instead.

[Mondain]

Don't you guys find it strange the old testament and new contradict so much on this topic?

[Mondain]

Idk I'd be a bit suspicious if the jew book said "yeah kill your enemies" but the goy book said "spread your ass cheeks for them"

[Red7]

Idk I'd be a bit suspicious if the jew book said "yeah kill your enemies" but the goy book said "spread your ass cheeks for them"

but its the word of god, jews told me so!

[Red7]

also i love jews, jews rock. i keep all my money in jewish bank as jordan peterson said, these guys know their stuff so they should be in charge

[Atlantico]

Your journey? Boy, this ain't no star wars.

@maidenhaver is possibly the dumbest nigger on this forum

[Red7]

@ArcaneLurker Does man have free will? If so, any man, whatever his intellect and proclivities, can be a Christian. You don't have to be smart. You just have to love God. This isn't tabula rasa. Every race and individual has his own innate inclinations. For some, it may be harder than for others. What's universal is the opportunity.

when advanced hostile alien space jews race conqures or breeds new species as their slave race, convincing their slaves to "love" is most jewish/cheapest strategy. why waste resources to police subjects if u can dupe em into loving their enemy/aka self police and self censor.

in order to have fee will once must have ability to create. if u can dupe other actors to create what u want u can harvest enormous power. in other words hostile god can be weaker than humans in their creative/probability push output and feed on harvested human cattle to compensate their weakness and capitalizing on tehcnological edge.

which they had done.

[Red7]

Your journey? Boy, this ain't no star wars.

@maidenhaver is possibly the dumbest nigger on this forum

is it because he used double negation which niggers use and it actually means "bro u in star wars"
or is it because in reality there are hundreds more hostile species infesting this cumbucket of a planet than in lame star wars?

[cbranst2]

Don't you guys find it strange the old testament and new contradict so much on this topic?

Nah. Before the fulfillment of prophecy there was only adhering to the Law. Christ freed us from the Law, so there became conflicts, overturned tables, animals driven out of the temple, that sort of thing.

I'm not real good with loving my enemy. But when I'm in public I make it a point to deal square with everyone, be polite and courteous, helpful if they have an accident. No matter how I feel about them. In a way that's more for myself and my own self-regard. Definitely not perfection, mostly selfish, but adheres to the spirit of the command.

[Red7]

Don't you guys find it strange the old testament and new contradict so much on this topic?

Nah. Before the fulfillment of prophecy there was only adhering to the Law. Christ freed us from the Law, so there became conflicts, overturned tables, animals driven out of the temple, that sort of thing.

I'm not real good with loving my enemy. But when I'm in public I make it a point to deal square with everyone, be polite and courteous, helpful if they have an accident. No matter how I feel about them. In a way that's more for myself and my own self-regard. Definitely not perfection, mostly selfish, but adheres to the spirit of the command.

new testament/curent jew version is just designed to appeal to vaginas and low t ppl
most of ppl do not pay attention to coherence or commons ense but all that love bullshit is making them feel happy and gay

[ArcaneLurker]

If you're struggling to see the contradictions here's one: It goes from communal stoning of adulterers or the sexual immoral, etc, to "only stone people if you're without sin, which non of you are."

[Nammu Archag]

If you're struggling to see the contradictions here's one: It goes from communal stoning of adulterers or the sexual immoral, etc, to "only stone people if you're without sin, which non of you are."

when you realize that Jesus was the ancient Hebrew version of a hippie it makes total sense

[Xenich]

Don't you guys find it strange the old testament and new contradict so much on this topic?

Nah. Before the fulfillment of prophecy there was only adhering to the Law. Christ freed us from the Law, so there became conflicts, overturned tables, animals driven out of the temple, that sort of thing.

I'm not real good with loving my enemy. But when I'm in public I make it a point to deal square with everyone, be polite and courteous, helpful if they have an accident. No matter how I feel about them. In a way that's more for myself and my own self-regard. Definitely not perfection, mostly selfish, but adheres to the spirit of the command.

new testament/curent jew version is just designed to appeal to vaginas and low t ppl
most of ppl do not pay attention to coherence or commons ense but all that love bullshit is making them feel happy and gay

Society isn't failing because Christians held to Christs teachings, it is failing because they did not. He never taught tolerance, nor to reward laziness, the corrupt, immoral, greedy, vile, and wicked. The Talmudic Jews (Pharisees) revel in this and Christ called them out for what they were, servants of their true father. These self named "Jews" convinced Christians that they were the chosen ones, that even with their denial of Christ, murdering him, and continued promotion of wicked ways, somehow they got a special pass from God and were the rightful heirs to his blessings. All the while they continued to corrupt the world, just as they did when Christ called them out and the Bible even warns of those who will call themselves Jews, but will not be and will serve to enslave the world through their treachery as the "Synagogue of Satan".

While the Bible has been altered some... over the years depending on what you look at (for instance, passages that once referred to the Greeks, were mistranslated to mean gentile, or entire books were removed), but the biggest "change" was not in the alteration of the text itself, rather the "summaries" that became popular with the Scofield bibles in the early 40's which altered meaning for the sake of pushing the trend of Zionism. Things like claiming Genesis 12:3 was a promise to the Jews for blessings and some land mass, when in fact later in Galatians 16:3-29, it specifies all who accept Christ are Israel, not some piece of land the Zionist claim).

[RK-9]

No, I do not love them, and I do not intend to improve on this either.
That said, I have always made an attempt to reconcile and turn an enemy into at least a neutral party. When my attempt fails, I do not try again and consider the effort fruitless from then on.
I also do not wish them harm or tragedy. If they choose to hate a peaceful man, that is their problem, not mine.
I become indifferent to their hatred and move on with my life. If tragedy befalls them, I do feel sorry and usually that's that; but sometimes I pray depending on the severity of whatever it is they're going through.

[OnTilt]

No, I do not love them, and I do not intend to improve on this either.
That said, I have always made an attempt to reconcile and turn an enemy into at least a neutral party. When my attempt fails, I do not try again and consider the effort fruitless from then on.
I also do not wish them harm or tragedy. If they choose to hate a peaceful man, that is their problem, not mine.
I become indifferent to their hatred and move on with my life. If tragedy befalls them, I do feel sorry and usually that's that; but sometimes I pray depending on the severity of whatever it is they're going through.

There's probably room to nitpick but despite saying you don't love your enemies your behaviour as you describe it would fit the bill I think.

[OnTilt]

Don't you guys find it strange the old testament and new contradict so much on this topic?

If you're struggling to see the contradictions here's one: It goes from communal stoning of adulterers or the sexual immoral, etc, to "only stone people if you're without sin, which non of you are."

This isn't the contradiction that people think it is, and honestly is just one tier above "Well if God can do anything, can he make a rock heavier than he can lift?" type arguments.
Some scheming Jews were trying to set up a situation to force Jesus' hand as a 'gotcha' moment, and he used it to teach a lesson instead.

Although to be fair, it is one of the more difficult passages to fully wrap your head around. I'm not 100% sure that I get it myself. Suffice it to say that Jesus' mission here was one of forgiveness and redemption (judgement and damnation are for next time) -- and this anecdote serves to remind us to be merciful in our own lives. This doesn't mean that adultery is suddenly okay, or that it isn't still the purview of the authorities to punish adulterers.

[Red7]

If you're struggling to see the contradictions here's one: It goes from communal stoning of adulterers or the sexual immoral, etc, to "only stone people if you're without sin, which non of you are."

to fags are cool and church is too masculine.

wonder how many altar boys fucked by now. if my dad had made me altar boy i would kill him even if i had to flee country.

[Red7]

If you're struggling to see the contradictions here's one: It goes from communal stoning of adulterers or the sexual immoral, etc, to "only stone people if you're without sin, which non of you are."

when you realize that Jesus was the ancient Hebrew version of a hippie it makes total sense

he was warrior actually. they (aliens ofc) evacuated him after staging his death. kinda like hitler and kennedy when to think about it

[aweigh]

[Red7]

no faith that dosent stone disowned whores and fags deserves respect to be honest

at least muslims are still somewhat willing to kill their enemies. christian kuk be like "put your other soy cheek"

[ArcaneLurker]

This isn't the contradiction that people think it is, and honestly is just one tier above "Well if God can do anything, can he make a rock heavier than he can lift?" type arguments.
Some scheming Jews were trying to set up a situation to force Jesus' hand as a 'gotcha' moment, and he used it to teach a lesson instead.

Although to be fair, it is one of the more difficult passages to fully wrap your head around. I'm not 100% sure that I get it myself. Suffice it to say that Jesus' mission here was one of forgiveness and redemption (judgement and damnation are for next time) -- and this anecdote serves to remind us to be merciful in our own lives. This doesn't mean that adultery is suddenly okay, or that it isn't still the purview of the authorities to punish adulterers.

Despite first making out this was a reddit nothingburger, your reply doesn't really tackle the issue.

[maidenhaver]

If you're struggling to see the contradictions here's one: It goes from communal stoning of adulterers or the sexual immoral, etc, to "only stone people if you're without sin, which non of you are."

Yeah, because his first coming was to give the world a second chance, not judging it. In his next visit, he judges us. The jews wanted to purge the world.

[Red7]

person that loves my enemy cuases me harm (or at least disappoints me by not causing harm to my enemy) , ergo is my enemy (or is worthless)
i would say love to my enemies is act of hatred towards me, ergo making all christians hateful people, assuming common enemy.

those who love their enemies are enemy to themself and most likely their friends. which makes them not friends really.

do not be friends with weak ppl, they are not asset, just liability. kind alike vagina

[Red7]

If you're struggling to see the contradictions here's one: It goes from communal stoning of adulterers or the sexual immoral, etc, to "only stone people if you're without sin, which non of you are."

Yeah, because his first coming was to give the world a second chance, not judging it. In his next visit, he judges us. The jews wanted to purge the world.

so u love jews?

[ArcaneLurker]

If you're struggling to see the contradictions here's one: It goes from communal stoning of adulterers or the sexual immoral, etc, to "only stone people if you're without sin, which non of you are."

Yeah, because his first coming was to give the world a second chance, not judging it. In his next visit, he judges us. The jews wanted to purge the world.

The laws I'm referring to aren't any more Jewish than the rest of their holy text.
You're basically confirming there is a contradiction but that's because the OT is corrupted.
What about Matthew 5:17?

[Anon]

Idk I'd be a bit suspicious if the jew book said "yeah kill your enemies" but the goy book said "spread your ass cheeks for them"

You know it's the new testament that made people be wary of jews for almost 2000 years right?

[Lord of Riva]

I do. I am well aware that in another live in another situation I would as well be the "enemy". Loving your enemy is nothing more than the acknowledgement that to err is human and that we are all capable of being evil. Therefore I try to forward as much good will as humanely possible. I'm not a patient person, so people I tell people who irritate me that they are annoying but I try to be as open, even to them as much as I can.

EDIT: And I am irreligious.

[Xenich]

Sorry if this goes off to the side a bit, but it crosses over a little bit about what is being discussed about Jews and the laws. I also think it is extremely interesting and important in the process of studying the word as the Bibles history brings into clarity what many aspects of its topics are discussing.

It is a common Jewish mistruth to proclaim the old testament is "Jewish". While some portions do concern Judah and his descendants (ie the line of kings to which Christ eventually fulfills), most of it is a historical account involving many peoples and places who are not Jewish, but are descendants of Abraham and Israel (Jacob). Consider that Jews didn't even exist until born of Jacob and Leah many generations later from Abraham and this is where you find that while Jews may be Israelites, not all Israelites are Jews (ie the nation of Israel is not Jewish, the nation of Judah was) .

► Show Spoiler

► Show Spoiler

Also note, the tribe of Benjamin is not listed in land commonly as a kingdom, as they were essentially the managers/accountants over the 12 tribes ( 13 tribes total) and resided in Judah. Its boundaries are difficult to fully realize, but it sat between the Israel and Judah. It is also of note that Paul while called a Jew by some, referred to himself not as such, rather as from Benjamin (as was considered Jesus). The largest confusion in this issue is how people are referred to, whether it be by bloodline, or geography. Jesus was of the line of David (Judah's line), but he was born in Benjamin and referred as such. Not on the following map, Ephraim and Manasseh are separate, but are referred to as Israel (they both received the Blessing of Many nations from Jacob (Israel) when he adopted and bestowed it upon them (Judah receiving the Staff of Kings blessing that his line would produce the true King).

► Show Spoiler

While the Bible does warn about getting hung up on genealogies, it is an important tool in giving an understanding of what is happening. When you look at the bloodlines, the times they occurred, and what was going on in the text at the time, it tends to create a clearer picture of the word, especially when you look at the claims made by Talmudic Jews. It doesn't add up.

Also, an interesting side point is that recent DNA tests show that the Israel we know to day is primarily comprised of Canaanites (ie the Ashkenazi Jew), not Israelites which have no attachment to the blood of Abraham or that of Judah (Jewish). Canaanites are descendants of Cain and these are the Synagogue of Satan, the Pharisees to which Jesus rebuked and warned the people about. Another interesting note is that this same study found there to be more Israelites in Palestine than there were in "Israel".

► Show Spoiler

Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

[maidenhaver]

If you're struggling to see the contradictions here's one: It goes from communal stoning of adulterers or the sexual immoral, etc, to "only stone people if you're without sin, which non of you are."

Yeah, because his first coming was to give the world a second chance, not judging it. In his next visit, he judges us. The jews wanted to purge the world.

The laws I'm referring to aren't any more Jewish than the rest of their holy text.
You're basically confirming there is a contradiction but that's because the OT is corrupted.
What about Matthew 5:17?

I didn't say they were inherently jewish. The pharisees wanted a messiah based on their false interpretation that he would kill all the jews' enemies and make a theocracy with himself as king over the world, which is satanic, like a lot of doomsday cultists want. If you believe their interpretation of the OT, you get contradictions, because they weren't reading scripture with mercy. The jews were acting like Jonas and hating their neighbors.