What is a Christian Zionist?

Bai Lan · Saturday at 6:17 PM

IBDaMann said:
This is an interesting term, because it uses "Synagogue" to mean a group/congregation of people instead of referring to a particular building, as the word "church" is often used.

"Synogogue of Satan" poses quite the imagery, of Satan's henchmen doing his bidding. I can see how a budding Christian church of very idealistic and enthusiastic worshipers might hurl that slur at religio-political opponents.

Are you implying that, in your opinion, Israel is the "Synogogue of Satan"?

Its the quakers.

The oatmeal people

IBDaMann · Saturday at 6:24 PM

Bai Lan said:
Its the quakers. The oatmeal people

They don't meet the requirements. While they certainly aren't Jews, they don't claim to be either.

Bai Lan · Saturday at 6:34 PM

IBDaMann said:
They don't meet the requirements. While they certainly aren't Jews, they don't claim to be either.

It seems like you have a working theory.

IBDaMann · Saturday at 10:27 PM

Bai Lan said:
It seems like you have a working theory.

I do.

What we know is that it was a mischeivous group of Samaritans (I call them "the bad Samaritans") who pretended to be Jews so that when they fuqked with the Christians, the Jews would be blamed. For example, they would go to rallies and pretend to be Jesus supporters, and then they would start chanting "He didn't rebuild the Temple! He didn't rebuild the Temple! ..." They HATED the Christians and began engaging in lawfare to get many of the Apostles crucified or flayed or what not.

Yeah, it was the Samaritans. It always is.

Bai Lan · Sunday at 6:11 AM

IBDaMann said:
I do.

What we know is that it was a mischeivous group of Samaritans (I call them "the bad Samaritans") who pretended to be Jews so that when they fuqked with the Christians, the Jews would be blamed. For example, they would go to rallies and pretend to be Jesus supporters, and then they would start chanting "He didn't rebuild the Temple! He didn't rebuild the Temple! ..." They HATED the Christians and began engaging in lawfare to get many of the Apostles crucified or flayed or what not.

Yeah, it was the Samaritans. It always is.

Or the webolos.

Bai Lan · Sunday at 6:46 AM

IBDaMann said:
I do.

What we know is that it was a mischeivous group of Samaritans (I call them "the bad Samaritans") who pretended to be Jews so that when they fuqked with the Christians, the Jews would be blamed. For example, they would go to rallies and pretend to be Jesus supporters, and then they would start chanting "He didn't rebuild the Temple! He didn't rebuild the Temple! ..." They HATED the Christians and began engaging in lawfare to get many of the Apostles crucified or flayed or what not.

Yeah, it was the Samaritans. It always is.

The Khazar Empire, also known as Khazaria, was a Turkic empire that dominated the southeastern region of modern-day Europe and Asia from the 6th to 10th centuries CE. The Khazars were a major trading empire, controlling a key artery of commerce between Eastern Europe and Southwestern Asia. They were also notable for their conversion to Judaism in the 8th century.
Key aspects of the Khazar

moon · Sunday at 9:29 AM

Here's a Christian Zionist, a Trumpian Zionist and a Polish Zionist having a good laugh at the former two;

Into the Night · Sunday at 3:49 PM

moon said:
Fucking idiot ^

You can't blame your fallacy on me or anybody else, moonbat.

moon · Sunday at 5:11 PM

Into the Night said:
You can't blame your fallacy on me or anybody else, moonbat.

Are you kidding ? You're my JPP dumpster.

Haw, haw.........................................................haw

Into the Night · Sunday at 5:33 PM

moon said:
Are you kidding ? You're my JPP dumpster.

Haw, haw.........................................................haw

Mantra 1a.Lame.

gfm7175 · Monday at 10:28 AM

Into the Night said:
'Zionist' simply means one that wants to re-establish Israel as a nation, which has been done.

Under that definition, it sounds like the term 'Zionist' is no longer relevant since the nation of Israel has already been re-established.

Into the Night · Monday at 2:09 PM

gfm7175 said:
Good question. I see/hear the term 'Zionist' thrown around fairly often, usually as an insult of some sort, but I have no idea what it is supposed to mean and I'm guessing that the people who are hurling the term around likewise have no clue what it means.

Oh, and you're a wayyyyycist.

'Zionist' simply means one that wants to re-establish Israel as a nation, which has been done.
Zion itself was a fortress on a hill just north of Jerusalem build by King David. That area is now incorporated into the City of Jerusalem itself.

moon · Monday at 4:21 PM

Into the Night said:
Zion itself was a fortress on a hill just north of Jerusalem build by King David.

There was no ' King David '. The name ' David' is modern and did not exist. Its nearest contemporary equivalent was ' Uncle '
You are a brainwashed twat.

' This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people – and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story – now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people’s emergence are radically different from what that story tells. '

Ze’ev Herzog and the historicity of the Bible - Noah Kennedy

Explore Noah Kennedy's discussion with Dr. Ze'ev Herzog on the historicity of biblical stories. Gain insights from a distinguished Israeli archaeologist

noahkennedy.net

Into the Night · Monday at 10:26 PM

moon said:
There was no ' King David '.

Go read the Bible, moonbat. David was a king of Israel.

moon said:
The name ' David' is modern

Nope. It's a Hebrew name, meaning 'beloved one'.

moon · Tuesday at 3:47 AM

Into the Night said:
Go read the Bible, moonbat. David was a king of Israel.

Nope. It's a Hebrew name, meaning 'beloved one'.

There was no such contemporary name - and Uncle's ' kingdom ' was a small tribal affair.
Get your foolish head straight- the Jews were never in Egypt, there was no 'exodus ', no parting of the seas, no pass-over , no Moses in the bullrushes, no stone tablets , nobody was 900 years old and nobody lived in a whale , you dumbass, brainwashed, attention seeking lemming.

Haw, haw..............................................................haw.

Bai Lan · Tuesday at 3:50 AM

moon said:
There was no such contemporary name - and Uncle's ' kingdom ' was a small tribal affair.
Get your foolish head straight- the Jews were never in Egypt, there was no 'exodus ', no parting of the seas, no pass-over , no Moses in the bullrushes, no stone tablets , nobody was 900 years old and nobody lived in a whale , you dumbass, brainwashed, attention seeking lemming.

Haw, haw..............................................................haw.

but.... there was eyewitness testimony, and scholars take eyewitness testimony very seriously, unless it's a hillbilly.

moon · Tuesday at 3:56 AM

Bai Lan said:
but.... there was eyewitness testimony.

Haw, haw, haw, haw.............................haw.
It's probably true that there were ancient shysters.

Bai Lan · Tuesday at 3:57 AM

moon said:
Haw, haw, haw, haw.............................haw.
It's probably true that there were ancient shysters.

no way.

everybody in the past was truthful.

moon · Tuesday at 7:50 AM