Worst examples of pseudohistory

If you include Estonia in that, then I'm triggered

fuck you, we were around since at least the middle ages, even had our own mythology and religions and shit

WE

no we were never kangz because russians and swedes refused to fuck off

our culture has existed for a long time though

>absolute goods and evils
>RIGHTFUL (x) CLAY
>technology is a linear process
>(race) is so inferior to us because (factor that isn't connection to other civilizations through trade)
>(x) authoritarian despot/(x) communist regime wasn't that bad
>eternal (x)
>conspiracy theories
>righteous genocide

>they covered everything in spices to disguise the taste of the rotting meat they were eating
>they drank only beer because they knew that the water was dirty and would make them I'll

These normally get brought up within minutes of each other. The amount of cognitive dissonance required is staggering.

>Jesus was literally a Jewish heretic.
There was Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, and what would become Christians (who were obviously differentiated from Pharisees and Sadducees). To call Jesus a "Jewish Heretic" isn't correct. He was a different sect of an ancient religion.

Claiming "Jews and Judaism" are historical anachronisms (which doesn't at all track with me) doesn't really seem to address the issue. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you claiming that the "real Jews" died out prior to the time of Christ and Christianity was built from the foundations of a FAKE Jewish faith and tradition, and therefore didn't really come from Judaism?

I mean, I just don't see how the argument works here. Setting aside just how "Jewish" Jesus himself was or wasn't, the construction of the Christian faith was built upon the Abrahamic teachings and tradition straight from Judaism.

"At the height of the Cold War in [year]..."

I have heard this phrase applied to absolutely every single year from 1917 to 1991.

>1917
really nigga

A think the late 1940s-early 1960s is reasonably the height of the Cold War tbph

Yes, really.

what kinda retards do you hang around? the height of the cold war is indisputably the 60s

>Conflating the Cold War with the First Red Scare, confusing everyone in the process.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare

There was a second flareup in the early 80s after detente failed.

>Haha the Holy Roman Empire wasn't Holy, Roman or an Empire because Voltaire said so and he's smart so there

>the construction of the Christian faith was built upon the Abrahamic teachings and tradition straight from Judaism.
No, it was straight from the religious practice of several near eastern Judean sects which derive various traditions from Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon, ect.

Textbooks, documentaries, articles, etc.

Pretty much anyone who wants to hang some cheap extra gravitas tosses this phrase on the front of their discussion. I've even heard applied to years in the detente period in the '70s.

They had planets at least.

Ah, I think I follow. So the Jews were just one sect that came from the Israelites, while Jesus came from different one.

Which one? The ones I'm seeing still claim Jewish origins.

>technology is a linear process
How can anybody think that

Ask /pol/.

>Deus Vult Starter pack.jpg

"Jew" and "Judaism" as the English language can comprehend it means a particular religion which formed in the 6th century based on the Babylonian Talmud. The word used in the new testament, Judean, had several different meanings at the same time. Modern Jews aren't any more Judean than Christians or Muslims, and the various sects and traditions they come from don't have any more or less claim to the title either.

Things change; it doesn't mean the origins and ties are lost.

New to the conversation, but the Babylonian Talmud is itself drawn from older teachings, and a set of oral traditions and written texts that are at least claimed to go back to Moses.

If you want to say that's enough of a difference that it counts as a different religion, I suppose that's legit, but by the same sort of logic, you can't really claim that Jesus, the Apostles, or Paul were "Christians", or at least not in the modern sense we use the word "Christian".

At which point, what the hell does the conversation even mean?

my grandmother grew up drinking wine as a four year old in rural 1930s Romania, people most certainly did drink alcohol because of sub standard water sources

>He doesnt know Bach was actually a Black Moor

LMAO I WAS LIKE LMAO

nigga aint een woke AF

>Things change; it doesn't mean the origins and ties are lost.
I'm not saying they are. I'm saying they aren't more or less valid than other claimants.

>If you want to say that's enough of a difference that it counts as a different religion, I suppose that's legit, but by the same sort of logic, you can't really claim that Jesus, the Apostles, or Paul were "Christians", or at least not in the modern sense we use the word "Christian".

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have traditions and documents which prove the continuation of Christianity to the present day. They very much are the same religion of Christ and Saint Paul.

>implying they werent relatively freer than the ginga teikoku
>implying they didnt reside on planets
>implying they werent' allied against the ginga teikoku

In all fairness it wasn't

Jet fuel can melt steel beams

>implying they didnt reside on planets
they reside in space ships. duh

Nothing. Splitting hairs over how Jewish Christianity is or isn't is just splitting hairs.

It's still a sandpeople religion that has no place in Europe or the New World and never should have.

>a sandpeople religion that has no place in Europe or the New World
>i'll just LARP away 2000 years of my ancestors and history in deference to my meme ideology

25 YEAR RULE REEEEEEEEEEEEE

You have to go back.

>(x) authoritarian despot/(x) communist regime wasn't that bad
Isn't it true that some authoritarian dictators were more benevolent than others?

Though I agree this one is misused a lot.

"greeks and romans were white"

Actually, I got one.

the other night, I was told while playing DnD with friends, that knights armor used to be so heavy that they would climb trees to get on horses because they couldn't get on the horse otherwise.

this prompted another member of the group to say "If you can't climb a horse with your armor, how do you climb a tree?"

I wouldn't say stunned, but the man didn't have a comeback

Much of accepted US history is bunkum.

>The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have traditions and documents which prove the continuation of Christianity to the present day.

And again, how is that different from Judaism, other than "MY religion is the one that's right"? The Jews too, have traditions and documents which 'prove' (if you accept their provenance, which is dubious in both their case and with Christianity's) an unbroken tradition to their holy figure.

That's before you even get into the fact that the religion that Paul preached is almost certainly NOT the one that Jesus preached, or the rather radical differences in practice from his day to the 1054 split, let alone today. You seem to be very much a double standards sort of guy.

Your missing the point. Christians, Jews, Muslims and others can trace back to the Old Testament with equal validity.

The RCC church (and by extension, Orthodox) have a lot of writings by saints, recorded history, ect which very clearly links them Christ and St. Paul.

The Jews today, as well, have many writings linking them to the foundation of rabbinical Judaism in the 6th century.

>Ancient North Africans were black
Of course the black supremacist WE WUZ KANGZ is bullshit, but after Nubian conquest and integrated Dark skinned aristocrats there were many black, politically prominent North Africans but you are correct in saying they weren't all niggers. Not that much of a mistake on your part.
>Christianity comes from Judaism
>Pseudohistory
The first Christians were Jews. My father is an Epsicopal priest/prominent figure in the theological community. I studied deeply, however amateurishly, the history of Christianity. The first followers of Christ did not call themselves Christians and for about 200 years worshipped in Jewish temples alongside their conservative Jewish brethren. After several violent revolts from the early Christians, they officially broke away and formed their own cult before that remained slowly grew. By embracing logic and humanism they converted waning Jews and Roman citizens (which included members of ex-jewish states) who had little to no faith in the Imperial cult.

>The RCC church (and by extension, Orthodox) have a lot of writings by saints, recorded history, ect which very clearly links them Christ and St. Paul.

And the Jews have a lot of writings by old Rabbis (or at least are purported to be such) which link them to Moses and the prophets of the Old Testament, and to spiritual leaders far, far older than the 6th century. Why doesn't that count but the RCC material does?

>The Jews today, as well, have many writings linking them to the foundation of rabbinical Judaism in the 6th century.

Which themselves link further back, to both the Temple Period and beyond in time. Again, why are you suddenly saying that it's not a continuation of the Old Testament Judean religion?

>"Nazis fixed the German economy."

The Bible was composed by many people with different viewpoints.

The New Testament was not supposed to be a continuation of the Old Testament but instead partially an indirect critique of the values present (keep in mind I said "present" and not explicitly trascribed as the religion was mostly orally spread) in the Old Testament and partially a presentation of values misplaced from popular the popular Jewish thought.

>Everything in the Middle Ages was backwards
>people never bathed before the modern age
>most people dropped dead by 45
>Africans never went beyond the hunter-gatherer stage
>communist regimes killed (94) (100) (150) (200) (400) (1) (million/billion/trillion) people

The church has the Old Testament linking them to Moses as well. Its about timespan. That group of ancient people known as Judeans had many different sects. Some become Jews as the English language perceives them, some became Christians.

At this point your arguing your particular brand of Abrahamism is the valid evolution of the ancient Israeli religion, and the others are heresies. I'm saying that's not case historically, but a misconception.

What's the cognitive dissonance?

I don't know much about this period of history, but they certainly couldn't have made it worse? Could they? I thought the reichsmark was worth nothing after WWI and retained some value after WWII

>everything about turkish rule in the balkans was bad
>turks didnt have a positive impact on conquered lands

Obviously a figure like post-1948 Josip Broz Tito, Albert Rene, or Ian Smith would be better to live under than someone like Robert Mugabe, Francisco Macias Nguema, Teodoro Obiang, or Roberto d'Aubisson. That being said, no regime is immune to criticism.

>At this point your arguing your particular brand of Abrahamism is the valid evolution of the ancient Israeli religion, and the others are heresies. I'm saying that's not case historically, but a misconception.

No, that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you have an enormous number of documents from a variety of religious figures, which are usually formatted as claiming the authority of some long dead religious leader, whose views always seem to be remarkably in line with the present day values of when the text is discovered.

Quite frankly, I don't believe any of you guys. I don't think that the Jews of today practice the same beliefs as the "Rabbinic Jews of the 6th century who in turn were probably only casually connected to the Pharisees (to say nothing of the sects that didn't make it, like the Essenes) of the 1st century, who themselves were probably only tangentially connected to the practices of the almost certainly henotheistic Hebrews who arose in the 8th century B.C or so.

Similarly, I don't believe that the modern Church practices the same beliefs and rituals that the church of a thousand years ago practiced, nor do they in turn practice the same beliefs as Jesus and Paul, who had some VERY different views from each other a mere 20ish years apart. And that is assuming the core Christian documents like the Gospels are accurate and honest; given the number of mistakes they make in what should be common 1st century Judean knowledge of their purported authors, I doubt that too.

What I'm claiming, is that saying that Christianity is the same religion as what was going on in the first century, despite the vast differences, while simultaneously saying that modern Judaism is from 6th century Rabbinic Judaism which is completely distinct from earlier Judaisms, is hypocritical in the extreme.

Not him, but the Weimar republic never had to have peacetime rationing of food. The Nazis were at that point in 1937.

>Jews invented circumcision
I'm Jewish, against the practice, and still know this. Why is this meme still around?

t. noam chumpsky

Some misunderstanding may have occurred. I'm saying modern Christianity is the living continuation of the religion of Jesus and Saint Paul. Numerous writings, traditions and customs back this up. I'm not saying its the exact same practice. Judaism, likewise, can trace itself to Pharisees of Christ time.

Where we differ is this. The ancient Israeli religion had several different sects, each who thought they were the true decedents of Abraham. Christianity didn't form from Judaism, Christianity is just another continuation of that same Judean religion that Judaism came from.

So what you're trying to say is that Christianity is to Judaism as Neanderthals are to Cro-Magnons.

>I'm saying modern Christianity is the living continuation of the religion

What the hell does that even mean? How far do you stray before you're no longer a "Living continuation"?

>the religion of Jesus and Saint Paul.

Considering that the two almost certainly preached extremely different things, I very much doubt this in the conjunctive sense.

> Numerous writings, traditions and customs back this up.

We have 0 writings about what Jesus was actually doing, saying, and believing, and a lot of writings that purport to be from eyewitnesses of him but clearly aren't, and then traditions drawn from these. You'll forgive me if I take them with a very large grain of salt.

>Christianity didn't form from Judaism, Christianity is just another continuation of that same Judean religion that Judaism came from.

And I'm agreeing with that last part, but I'm saying that "Christainity", or if you want to divide it further, a bunchy of different sects of Christianity, formed from a chain of tradition that has since veered from the "primitive Christianities" of the 1st century at least as much as Rabbinic Judaism has veered from Pharisism. (or whatever the proper demonym is, I'm not really sure) Saying one is a "living continuation" and the other isn't is a double standard based on, as far as I can tell, your personal convictions in one.

....maybe?

>And I'm agreeing with that last part, but I'm saying that "Christainity", or if you want to divide it further, a bunchy of different sects of Christianity, formed from a chain of tradition that has since veered from the "primitive Christianities" of the 1st century at least as much as Rabbinic Judaism has veered from Pharisism. (or whatever the proper demonym is, I'm not really sure) Saying one is a "living continuation" and the other isn't is a double standard based on, as far as I can tell, your personal convictions in one.
No. How is modern Judaism any more of a living continuation to Old Testament Judaism? than Christianity Pro tip: it isn't.

earlychristianwritings.com/
This is how Christianity is a living tradition.

>No. How is modern Judaism any more of a living continuation to Old Testament Judaism? than Christianity Pro tip: it isn't.

I'm not 100% sure what you're saying with this, but I *think* you're denying the equivalence. If you're not, and I"m arguing against a strawman, please forgive me.

But, if you wish to accept the Jewish claims, then you have a continuation of canonical scriptures from Moses down to Yehuda Hanassi, which confirm a consistent theology, cosmology, and divinely mandated mode of behavior, including a set of authority as to who is and who isn't allowed to speak in God's name, mandate laws for people to follow.

While some practices have changed, most particularly in regard to animal sacrifice and certain laws of ritual purity, the state of divine command is constant and the line of authority is clear. It's a continuation.

So what? The Jews too, have a long list of texts that go far back into antiquity. What exactly is your point? The Mishnah, the Briaita, the Tosefta take up pretty much where Ezra and Nechemiah leave off, and that's not even counting books that were penned but ultimately rejected from their canon.

That meant they got food. Under weimar they starved

1. Christianity was not a heresy of Judaism, but an equally valid sect of the Judean faith which would later solidify into the Christian, Jewish and Muslims religions as well as Gnostics, Yazidis, ect.
2. Christianity can trace itself back to at least the 50s AD, but the actual substance of claims always went further back to the Old Testament. In this way its living, because these writings have always built upon each other.

Literally every "mainstream" list of best US presidents is all wrong.

I fucking hate this one.

>hurr durr I love science and rationality and empiricism and the scientific method
>now let me jack off for the next half an hour because Giordano Bruno based his cosmology off of a divine revelation he had in a dream and talk about he was right and his heresy trial held back progress for generations when he WAS LITERALLY ESPOUSING SOMETHING HE HAD SEEN IN A DREAM THAT JUST HAPPENED TO BE RIGHT AS A MATTER OF COINCIDENCE AS HE ALSO BELIEVED THAT JESUS WAS A JEWISH WARLOCK ON THE BASIS OF A DREAM AS WELL

NdGT can fuck off for putting him in Cosmos and starting this meme.

Also when people say the Rohingya are indigenous people of Rakhine state aka the entire media they rustle my jimmies to not end.

BENGALIS OUT

+ the picture of Thich Quang Duc being used to show opposition to the Vietnam War. It was to protest the persecution of Buddhists by Diem's regime.

>1. Christianity was not a heresy of Judaism, but an equally valid sect of the Judean faith which would later solidify into the Christian, Jewish and Muslims religions as well as Gnostics, Yazidis, ect.

By whose standards? Who made you a judge and jury as to what counts as an equally valid sect and what counts as a heresy? For all we know, Christianity as it is practiced in modern times is a "heresy" to Jesus's Christianity, and the Ebionites or another long dead group were the ones who were practicing the sort of Christianity Jesus was.

>2. Christianity can trace itself back to at least the 50s AD, but the actual substance of claims always went further back to the Old Testament. In this way its living, because these writings have always built upon each other.

Modern Judaism can make the same claims. The "Rabbinic Judaism's" Gemara builds upon the Old Testament, as well as older rabbinic writings and teachings like the lost book of Rabbi Akiva, half of the damn thing is Rabbis shouting [citation needed] back at each other. These books would in turn build upon each other to produce things like the Moreh Nevuchim, or the Shulchan Aruch.

Plus, Christianity can NOT trace itself back to at least the 50s AD, at least not to any unified set of beliefs. They couldn't even agree as to the nature of God until the Council of Nicaea, and even then, you had groups like the Arians who hung around for a long long time. If you're going to claim that Modern Judaism is a successor belief that sprount out of Ancient Judeanism like branches from a tree, I see no reason to give Christianity any special treatment in that department.

2/2

If building upon a series of texts that each links back to the next and eventually leads you to the OT, then they're both "living faiths". If it's about continuity of belief and practice that sets you up as to whether you're the same religion or a successor religion, I'm struggling to come up with a standard of similarity that leaves you with the conclusion that one is the same practice as its forebear but not the other.

I said from the beginning, Christianity did not come from Judaism but that they came from the same source. No where did I deny the validity of Judaism, or Islam, or anything from also coming from that source. That would be a theological issue, not a historic one.

If we're doing Vietnam memes
>that picture of a south vietnamese soldier shooting a handcuffed vietcong in the head being used to illustrate how evil those mean americans were

No, you've simply said that

A) Modern Judaism is distinct from Ancient Judeanism (or whatever you want to call it). Modern Judaism starts around 600, presumably because of the Gemara. I am sourcing this from this post.B) That Christainity started with Jesus and what is practiced today, while not necessarily the same stuff that Jesus preached, is a "living continuation" of it.

What I am saying is that you have yet to illustrate whatever standards you're using to make such a claim in such a way that they aren't flat out falling on their face. You've never demonstrated what kind of disjunct of continuity of belief or practice is enough to say that something is no longer a "living continuation" and is a new religion. The closest you've gotten to illustrating the concept is in this post , where you've siad

>but the actual substance of claims always went further back to the Old Testament. In this way its living, because these writings have always built upon each other.

But it is such a standard that if applied to modern Judaism, you would lead to the conclusion that it too is a "living continuation", and thus not started in 600ish.

> That would be a theological issue, not a historic one.

You very much seem to be basing your historic categorization based on a theological judgment, namely when a religion properly continues as opposed to splitting off into a new faith.

earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html
Since you need this again. Browse away.

Everything Great Man Theory related

So what? Yes, there are early Christian writings. That doesn't mean a damn about continuity of practice, and if you're trying to make your claim based on continuity of theological scholarship, the Hebrews have that too, and therefore your claim that it started in around 600 is baseless.

I'm not sure how I can make my point any clearer, but your list to the existence of early Christian writers doesn't even address it.

Judaism as term originates later. The Greeks, Romans, and "Jews" of the 1st century called themselves Judean, which had different meaning than Jew.

You can find continuity of practice by the recorded history of the martyrs. I fail to see what's hard for you to accept.

This, one hundred percent.

>implying Judaism is from the Torah

>Jesus was literally a Jewish heretic.
wew

>My father is an Episcopal priest
>Episcopal
>priest
Your father is a heretic and not a priest.
>the first followers of Christ did not call themselves Christians and for about 200 years worshiped in Jewish temples alongside their conservative Jewish brethren.
No. This is 100% wrong.

I am replying to all now. Christianity is not New Judaism. Judaism as it exists today is a schismatic religion created by the Pharisee sect of rabbis during the Second Temple period. They had apparently received some mystical revelation called the Oral Talmud, later to be written down as the Babylonian Talmud. The Talmud is the holy book of Judaism - not the Torah. The most conservative Jewish rabbis of today teach Talmudic doctrine as having precedence over the Torah, because the conservative Jewish rabbis are ideologically descended from the Pharisee sect. Liberal (and humanist) Jewish rabbis teach that nothing in the Torah is real and are just good stories to live their lives by, while having respect for what is taught in the Talmud and teaching some of it.

The only reason Jesus was treated like a heretic was because the Pharisees were winning in a Second Temple theological battle. The religion of the Pharisees was nothing like how Judaism was. They did away with the priests that were central to the Old Testament faith, conveniently making Judaism the religion of the rabbis.
Jesus was a super conservative Torah teaching Old Testament believer, who preached to the Torahites who became the first Christians. The reason why Judaism changed so radically after Christ was because the Pharisees caused a schism as they could not accept Christ as High Priest.

The Pharisees wanted nothing to do with the early Christians, and went around persecuting them where they could find them. Early Christians wanted nothing to do with the Jews either.

continued

Early Christians wanted nothing to do with the Jews either. If you knew anything about early Christianity, you'd know about the Didache. In the Didache, several customs are altered for the express purpose of not being Jewish or being associated with the Jews. The fasting days were moved to Wednesday and Friday to not appear Jewish.
Look up the Council of Jerusalem, which was an event that took place in Acts. The whole purpose of the council was to have a conclusion on the place of Jewish customs in Christianity. Peter's vision of the falling blanket with unclean animals and his authority in the early Church what put the issues to rest. They rebuked the ideas of the Judaizers who taught that you needed to be circumcised and follow Jewish customs to be Christian.

You are, quite literally, offering a semantic argument. An incorrect one at that. You look at say, Philo's writings on Moses, and you see not only a continuity with past "Jews", but one that extends outside the land of which he includes himself, living in Alexandria. It was certainly different to how say, the Romans viewed "Judeans", which were the native inhabitants of Judea.

Well, I don't see Christians giving up their wealth to follow mendicant preachers. I don't see them killing each other over trinitarian differences, which 1st century Christians did a lot of. You have the enormously differing practice involving clerical celibacy, the existence of replacement theology, which was certainly not something Jesus was doing or his associates like James were preaching, you have the primacy of Christmas as opposed to Pentecost as the primary holiday of the Christian calendar, and probably more stuff I'm not familiar with.

And again, if that's similar enough that it's still the same religion, why can't you make the claim for other religions that also change their actions?

>The Talmud is the holy book of Judaism - not the Torah.

You will not find a single Rabbi who agrees with this. You will, however, find a bunch of Rabbis who say that the Talmud is essential to understanding the Torah.

>The most conservative Jewish rabbis of today teach Talmudic doctrine as having precedence over the Torah, because the conservative Jewish rabbis are ideologically descended from the Pharisee sect.

Please source a few who in fact say this.

>They did away with the priests that were central to the Old Testament faith, conveniently making Judaism the religion of the rabbis.

Then why does the Talmud go into requirements for Priestly action, purity, how the sacrifices are to be done, etc

>Jesus was a super conservative Torah teaching Old Testament believer, who preached to the Torahites who became the first Christians. The reason why Judaism changed so radically after Christ was because the Pharisees caused a schism as they could not accept Christ as High Priest.

Well, if Jesus was a "super conservative Torah teaching Old Testament believer" then surely he would never put forth his own claimancy to the High Priesthood, since it was a hereditary office, and last I checked, his dad wasn't Ciaphas.

>They rebuked the ideas of the Judaizers who taught that you needed to be circumcised and follow Jewish customs to be Christian.

I.E., there was a significant number of them until Paul came along?

>You are, quite literally, offering a semantic argument. An incorrect one at that. You look at say, Philo's writings on Moses, and you see not only a continuity with past "Jews", but one that extends outside the land of which he includes himself, living in Alexandria. It was certainly different to how say, the Romans viewed "Judeans", which were the native inhabitants of Judea.
You seem to have missed this. The review doesn't even argue for it, I said early I agree with it. Its not a semantic issue, its a translation issue and an important one at that. marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/judean-jew-jesus-paul/

>Mossadegh was literally the Persian Bernie Sanders popularly elected in a landslide and was going to save the country until the US decided to turn democratic Iran into a monarchy just to be mean.

>You seem to have missed this. The review doesn't even argue for it, I said early I agree with it. Its not a semantic issue, its a translation issue and an important one at that. marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/judean-jew-jesus-paul/

That again, is completely irrelevant to what I've been saying. There was not a unified meaning of the term "Judean" in 1st century parlance. Hell, even the article points out that Ioudaios in a single work doesn't have a precise meaning, and has to be contextually understood.

The article, by the way, uses some rather weak historiography, with statements like this

> he served them in trying to quash the incipient churches of Jesus’s disciples not only in Judea but also in Jewish communities elsewhere —in synagogues in Damascus — where the authority of the High Priest stretched

that are quite simply incorrect, which makes me dubious of her other, linguistic conclusions.

Just because the period from circa 476, to, oh, say 800 or 1000 AD is somewhat historically obscure, does not mean that it cannot usefully be assigned the epithet of "dark ages". I certainly wouldn't have wanted to have been alive at that time, and indeed, circumstances did generally regress across the continent so far as we are able to understand them, some impressive illuminated gospels notwithstanding. So that takes care of that.

Your latter point is a sort of contrarian stupidity that hardly merits dignification, but we will try this to see whether you bite.

If as you rhetorically say, "Christiniaty does not come from Judaism", then /what exactly do you have in mind/ by that absurdity? You can try this two ways: you can argue that Christianity is ontologically different from Judaism in various ways (and thus possibly be obliged to ignore the historical connection, which is contextually the central point that your original assertion is obliged to defend), or you could explain why common printings of the Christian Bible contain a rather large block of information which is referred to as the Old Testament. Go on.

(You will pretend to easily dispatch these points by presenting evidence, which elucidation will necessarily make it that much easier to dispatch you totally.)

She's arguing against it, and an unqualified reviewer. The point is, Judean existed. "Judaism" did not.

>The point is, Judean existed. "Judaism" did not.

You certainly haven't proven that. You've created an arbitrary term to distinguish from a different arbitrary term, both of which have been used in dozens of contexts to refer to mutually exclusive groups of people.

About the only way you could make such a claim stick is to use it as definitional for a paper or something you'd write, where you'd define "Judaism" and "Judean" as different things. If you're the same user who wrote then you're quite literally arguing from your conclusion, especially since you seem to take it as a given that "Judean" has a meaning defined insofar as how it's used in the New Testament and not say, in other sources.

This.
I hate to deal in absolutes but pretty much anyone who disagrees with this is just trying to bait you or being an edgy kid

What is conspiracy theory and if rightful clay can have certain meanings.

top tier autism m8

Buddhism never existed either m8, know why? Cause in your distorted reality ideas and beliefs changing over time somehow makes them invisible, non-tangible things