UWasntThere
Superstar
Fukk Piers Morgan
THIS IS A COTDAMN LIE LMAOOOO
ARAB MILITIAS WERE ALWAYS THE AGGRESSORS PRE-1947
You have simple comprehension failures. Do some research please, you are coming across like an imbecile.
Jews have killed or supported the killing of millions of muslims within our lifetime, and many before our time. If you want to refute it, bring me evidence (we know you cant, you stil havent answered why the jews followed the Moors out of spain - in fact you showed that you didnt even know anything about that).
I suggest you just take the L like @DoubleClutch and keep it moving
JEWS WERE EXPELLED FROM SPAIN DUMMY LOLLLLLL
JEWS HAVE NEVER BEEN THE AGGRESSORS.. ANY JEW AGGRESSION HAS BEEN IN DEFENSE
PROVE ME WRONG
Are you intentionally stupid? You still fail to answer why they followed the Moors? Tell me, where did they stay? Ill allow you to run to gemini again like a little bytch, as we know that you have zero historical knowledge
Jews are bloodthirsty aggressors, factually. See the millions killed in the middle east over the las 3 decades. . . . Retard
JEWS WERE EXPELLED BY CHRISTIANS BUT ALLOWED TO STAY ON MUSLIM LAND AS SECOND CLASS CITIZENS U IDIOT
THAT DOESNT MEAN IT WAS ALL PEACHES N CREAM
JEWS HAVE NO REASON TO BE BLOODTHIRSTY U COTDAMN MORON
IF JEWS WERENT SURROUNDED BY A SEA OF NATIONS THAT DONT WANT US TO HAVE A LAND IN THE REGION, THERE WOULD BE ZERO REASON FOR JEWS TO BE HEAVY HANDED IN DEFENSE
COMMON SENSE NOT SO COMMON WIT U JIHADIST APOLOGISTS
You're getting there now, Zionist scum fakkit - so as you say, they were protected by the Moors then
You blood thirsty zionist fakkit "IF" . . . *proceeds to blame others for the reason illegal jewish/zionist settlers support the killing of millions of their neighbours that took them in from christian massacres*
Yeah, you should probably step away and take the L, you looking real dumb out here![]()
![]()
Battle of Tel Hai - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
![]()
1920 Nebi Musa riots - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
![]()
1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Black Hand (Mandatory Palestine) - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Black Hand (Mandatory Palestine) - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
![]()
Jaffa riots (April 1936) - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
![]()
1938 Tiberias massacre - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
"THEY TOOK GOOD CARE OF THE JEWS BEFORE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ISRAEL״
![]()
the fact it's called IslamoPHOBIA - like it's just some irrational fear that you can't help, shows how normalized and mainstream it has been for decades.
• Verses 28–29 refer to premarital sex (not rape, in the Hebrew) with an unbetrothed virgin. The verb used is taphas (seize) and shakab (lie with), often interpreted as seduction or force without her being pledged. The punishment is financial and obligates marriage meant to protect the woman from abandonment in a patriarchal society.
This does not apply to modern Christian ethics, these were civil laws for ancient Israel not prescriptions for Christian practice.
Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17), and the New Covenant does not mandate these punishments.
In our legal system, the offense is against the woman; the essence of the crime is the fact that the woman has not consented to the sexual act. In the Deuteronomic family laws, the offense is seen first of all as a violation of the claims of the man who controls the woman's sexuality. The essence of the offense is that the man's claims have been violated. The seriousness of the crime is determined by the nature of the man's claims. Sexual intercourse with a married or betrothed woman is a capital offense whether or not the woman has consented. Sexual intercourse with an unbetrothed girl is a minor offense whether or not the girl has consented. The woman's consent or lack of consent comes into play in determining whether she, as well as the male offender, is guilty of the violation of the claims of her husband, prospective husband, or father. (p37, footnote)
I would like to add that the LXX seems to strengthen the claim that the sex is not consensual:
ἐὰν δέ τις εὕρῃ τὴν παῖδα τὴν παρθένον ἥτις οὐ μεμνήστευται καὶ βιασάμενος κοιμηθῇ μετ’ αὐτῆς καὶ εὑρεθῇ...
Literally:
"If anyone finds a girl, a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lies with her forcing (her), and he is discovered..."
Just doing the “lords work” brotherBrother D.C. is relentless with these threads.![]()
My guy
You seem very well versed on the Old TestamentMy guy
These are not new arguments you are coming up with.
Are trolling or asking serious questions?
Deuteronomy 22:28–29 doesn’t use the Hebrew word typically associated with rape (anah), and instead uses taphas (seize) and shakab (lay with), which in most times refer to premarital sex or seduction, not violent assault. That’s why the punishment is marriage and a fine and not death as in the rape case a few verses earlier (Deut. 22:25–27), where the woman cries for help and the man is executed.
The septs choice of “biasamenos” in this passage is a Greek wording choice not the original Hebrew.