See other Religion Articles
Title: Christ Was Not A Jew
Source:
israelect
URL Source: http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/ChristNotAJew.htm
Published: Jun 3, 2005
Author: WillieMartin
Post Date: 2005-06-03 09:45:20 by Itisa1mosttoolate
Keywords: Christ
Views: 3809
Comments: 183
Christ Was Not A Jew Jesus Christ Was Not A Jew: Does this shock you? We certainly hope it does. For it is time that Christians woke up to the fact that they have been brainwashed by the Jews with the "big lie technique" to the falsehood that Christ was a Jew. We ask you now, to set aside all prejudice in the matter and as God states in the Bible, "Come let us reason together." (Isaiah 1:18) There are two ways that a person can be a Jew; racially (which means a cross between the descendants of Esau and True Israelites 49; There is Edom [Esau is called Edom in Genesis 36:8. And Edom is in 'Modern Jewry' Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41) or religiously. Let us now see whether Christ fits either of these categories. Ninety49;five percent of the people that we know as Jews today, are mongrels; they are a product of the amalgamation of many races. The majority of the Jews are Asiatics, of Mongolian, stock, the descendants of the tribes of Khazars of Russia who accepted Judaism in 740 A.D. They are the descendants of Cain; No racial Jew is an Israelite. That's right, we repeat, NO RACIAL JEW IS AN ISRAELITE. The Bible itself identifies the Jews as the seed of Cain thereby identfying Satan as their father. (John 8:44) Christ said to the Jews, in the 23rd chapter of Matthew, verses 3349;35: "You serpents, you generation (race) of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore behold I send you a prophet, wise men and scribes and some of them you shall kill and crucify and some of them yuo shall scourge in your synagogues and persecute them from city to city that upon you may come all the righteous blood that has ever been shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel" (Note that carefully). Here Christ is saying to the Jews that they are guilty of the murder of Abel. Jesus could not have said this unless the Jews were/are the descendants of Cain. Christ goes on to say: "Unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Brachias who you slew between the temple and the alter." It's very plan! And it's in your Bible. Christ said to the Jews "You are guilty of the death of righteous Abel because you rfather Cain murdered him." It is also well for you to note here that Jesus further blames these Jews for all the deaths of righteous people from the beginning of time right down to this day. This is not a statement of man but of our Redeem, our King, our Savior. Christ never lied and spoke only the truth; every word contained in the sixty49;six books of the Bible is the Word of Almighty God. Are the Jews then God's Chosen People as some "fogbound, lying, deceiving, Judeo49;Chrisian Clergy" would have us believe? Far from it! Rather than being God's Chosen People, they are Satan's Children! Let us turn for proof of this, to the eighth chapter of John the 42nd verse. The Jews have just said to Christ, we are God's Chosen People, God is our Father. Christ did not answer the Jews the way ninety49;nine percent of our Judeo49;Christian preachers would do today. Rather, He said in the 42nd vers, "If God were your Father you would love me for I proceeded forth and came from God. Neitherdid I come of myself, but He sent Me. Why is it that you do not understand my speech. It is because yuo cannot hear my words." (Read carefully the 44th verse) where Christ said to the Jews, "Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks oa lie, he speaks of his own for he is a liar and the father of it." The Word "Jew" A Jew is a person whose religion is Jew49;dah49;ism (Judaism). The word Jew is not found in the original texts of the Scriptures, but in many English Bibles the word is an incorrect rendering of the latin word Judaeus, the Greek word Ioudaios, and the Hebrew word Yehudi. Although not found in either the Hebrew or the Greek Scriptures, the word Jew is an English rendering most often incorrectly translated from Yahudah, that is, referring to one belonging to one of the tribes of Israel (Yisrael) called Yahudah (Judah), a Yahudite. The word Jews, the plural of the word Jew, is incorrectly translated most often from the word Yahudim (descendants of the tribe of Yahudah). The letter 'J' was not in general use until after the 17th century as used in many Bibles for the word 'Jew' to substitute for the correct word Yahudite, or Yahudim. In some English Bibles we have received the word Juda, also an error in translation because the word derives from the Greek Iudaios, which in the English would be Judaios. Judaios was none other then a Greek diety (see W.H. Roscher's lexicon of mythology). As used in the Scriptures, the word 'Jew' is sometimes translated to refer to a Yudean (Judean) a native or inhabitant (which includes many diverse races and people groups living in the region) of Yudea (Judea). As the word 'American' includes many diverse peoples living in the Country called 'America'. The word very often refers to an advocate or adherent to the religion of the Yahudim, (Judaism), or it may in a few cases refer to a literal descendant of Abraham, Issac, Jacob/Israel, one of the descent of the tribe of Yahudah (Judah). In present day generic usage, the word has no relationship to the Hebrew or the Greek translated words in the Old or New Covenant Scriptures, and is associated primarily through an adherent or advocate of Jew49;dah49;ism (Judaism) the religion, but not through ethnics or race. Basically, a Jew is anyone who decides to call himself/herself a Jew. Within Jewish Circles, there are two other official ways one can become a Jew. One can be born from a mother who calls herself a Jew, or one can 'convert' to become a Jew. (A convert is called a ger which literally means stranger). Being born a Jew is pretty simple. If one's mother is Jewish (of the Jewish religion) then he/she is considered a Jew, if one's mother is not of the Jewish religion, then neither is the child officially a Jew. (It doesn't matter what the father is). Modern Jew49;dah49;ism began about 1000 AD, and is traced to Rabbenu Gershon of Mainz, Germany the 'Father' of the Ashkenazi Jews, which constitute approximately 90% of the worlds Jews. Modern Jew49;dah49;ism is not the Scriptural worship system of the Yahudim of the Scriptures. Jews do not actively encourage conversion; to a large degree they discourage it. This is the reason Jews have never had missionaries trying to convert non49;Jews. They want the convert but the convert must be 100% committed to being a Jew. Discouraging conversion helps to filter out those 'lacking the proper degree' of commitment. If the non49;Jew still wants to become a Jew, the male is circumcised. After he is healed, he immerses himself in a mikva. A mikva is a special pool of water which is used for many religious purposes in the religion of the Jews. (It must be made according to very specific rules). A female convert only has to immerse herself. The term 'Jew', has come to be used synonymous with the term 'Israel, Israelite', however, this is error. Scriptural Israelites were never called Jews, (Yahudim), unless they were so associated by their religion. Most modern Jews are not of the tribe of Yahudah (Judah), and are not 'Israelites.' They are called Jew(s) because of their religion, Jew49;dah49;ism (Judaism). Jew, Ashkenazi (Franco49;German, Eastern and Central European Jews) After the Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser V, in 74549;722 BCE, (for their sin before Yahweh), the Israelites were exiled into (Assyria), 2 Kings 17:549;7. They prospered during the years in Assyria, and became a huge number of people. Outgrowing the land area they eventually migrated North through the 'Caucasus Mountains', and into central and Western Europe forming the European Nations, and are known as Caucasians 'whites.' As these Israelites migrated they influenced many people groups, no longer having an organized religious priesthood, and not having a nation or national identity, these migrating people, descendants of Jacob/Israel nevertheless passed on their bits and pieces of the ancient Scriptural worship system which was corrupted through their many years of captive living in pagan Assyria. During the 7th century A.D. these bits and pieces of the corrupt worship system became a form of Jew49;dah49;ism and was embraced by the Khazar King, his court, and the Khazar military class, who are descendants of Ashkenaz. This new religion of Jew49;dah49;ism, became the religion of the Khazars, and forms most of modern cultic European Jewry. In common parlance the present day 'Jew' is synonymous with the 'Ashkenazi Khazar Jew'. Scripture refers to the Ashkenaz in Gen. 10:3, and in I Chron. 1:6, as one of the sons of Gomer, who was a son of Japheth, son of Noah. Ashkenaz is also a brother of Togarmah (and a nephew of Magog) who the Kazars, according to King Joseph, (of the Kazars) claimed as their ancestor. The people who refer to themselves as Ashkenazi Jews are not Israelites, and they are not Semites because they do not descend from Noah's son Shem. They are Ashkenazi Khazar Jews, who descend from Noah's son Japheth. Approximately 8549;90 percent of the Jews in the world call themselves Ashkenazi Jews. Present49;day Jew49;dah49;ism, was formally formed into it's basic cultic form about 1,000 years ago, (according to the Jews), when 49; Rabbenu Gershon of Mainz, Germany, published a ban on bigamy. This marks the recorded beginning of the Ashkenazi Jews*, and Franco49;German halachic** creativity. The word 'Ashkenazi' is not Hebrew for the word Germany, although the name has become 'associated' with Germany because many Ashkenazi Jews organized in Russia, Eastern Europe and Western Mongolia. *Ashkenazi 49; (Franco49;German, Eastern and Central European Jews). **halachic 49; loose 'interpretations' of Old Testament laws Jew, Sephardim (Spanish Jews) After the Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser V, in 74549;722 BCE, (for their sin before Yahweh), The Israelites were exiled into (Assyria), 2 Kings 17:549;7. The King then imported people groups from his country (Assyria) to replace the exiled Israelites to maintain and control the land of the exiles. The Sepharvaim were one of these people groups, along with Cuthahites, Arrahites, 2 Kings 17:24. They mingled with each other, along with Edomites, who had migrated Northward from Idumea (field of Edom), after Israel and the Yahudim (Judeans) were exiled. Adad and Anu were ancient gods of Babylonia and were also the gods of these pagan Sepharvaim people. The Sephardim Yudeans (Judeans) are a mongrel people whose descent is directly from a mixture of this Assyrian people group and the remnant of escaped Yudeans (Judeans) along with Edomites who had migrated into the land originally occupied by the Kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Yahudah (Judah). This made their religion also of mixed character, 2 Kings 17:2449;41. The people known as "Spanish Jews," are descended from the Canaanites, the people who colonized Carthage. Following its sack by Rome, they adopted this Sepharvaim, or Sephardim name for deceptive purposes and constitute 5% of world Jewry today. The Sephardim Jews speak Latino, a mixture of Spanish and Hebrew. The Sephardim Jews migrated West through Egypt, then North into Spain from Judea and Samaria before, during, and after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE,. This migration became known as the "Jewish 'Sephardim' Diaspora". Today, these Sephardim Jews are still using their ancient adopted name Sephardim (the spelling is a transliteration into English and not of significance). They settled in Spain, Portugal, the Eastern Mediterranean, Italy, the Balkans, Salonica and Macedonia, eventually emigrating into France and England, and Western Europe. The Sepharviam Yudeans (Judeans) were known as Samaritans during the time of Messiah, because they were living in Samaria, which was the area from which Israel was removed by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser V. The twelve apostles during the time if Messiah, were instructed not to enter the cities of the Samaritans, Matt. 10:5. Although the True Israelites of tribal descent, living in Samaria did received the witness of Yahshua and the message of redemption from the apostles, Acts, 1:8. Some of the mixed Samaritans also became proselytes to the Christian faith, Acts 8:449;25. The Sephardim Jews, (or Sepharviam Jews) are not of Israelite blood; they are not of the tribe of Yahudah although they were called Yudeans, 'Judeans', as an inhabitant, i.e. person living in the land originally occupied by the tribe of Yahudah of Israel). Their descent is mixed from Edom/Esau Canaanite stock. The Sephardim Jews, like the Ashkenazi Khazar Jews are not a Semitic people. The word Sephardim is not a Hebrew word for Spain, although the name has become 'associated' with Spain because many Sephardim Jews organized in Spain. Jew49;dah49;ism, (modern 'Judaism') Jew49;dah49;ism, is a cultic (ritual49;istic) religion which originated approximately 1000 CE, and is traced to Rabbenu Gershon of Mainz Germany through the publishing of his 'halachic creativity' (interpretation of Old Covenant laws), he thereby established the beginning of the modern cultic religion of Jew49;dah49;ism. Today the religion is also greatly influenced by the Babylonian Talmud, an ancient Pagan ritual49;listic system of various extreme opinions, interpretations, codes, rules, and regulations. The modern cultic religion of Jew49;dah49;ism has nothing in common with the Scriptural Cultic system of worship which was completely destroyed by Messiah as a religious system in 70 CE at the destruction of Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), Herod's Temple, and through the establishment of the New Covenant through Yahshua Messiah. Christianity, as a religious system of Faith, replaced the ancient system of Cultic (ritual49;istic) sacrificial worship. Jewish A term incorrectly applied to reflect anything pertaining to a Yahudite, a descendant of the tribe of Yahudah. In common use, the term 'Jewish' is now applied to things pertaining to the Jews. Scriptural accuracy has no bearing on the use of the modern term 'Jewish'.See also the word 'Israel'
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)
This is a good example of really bad writing as the author can't seem to stick to a point and develop it. It is also an example of a bad progaganda. Jesus was a Jew as were his parents. The author doesn't want to accept this PROVABLE fact.
Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 contains the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Matthew recorded Joseph's lineage. Luke recorded the family tree of Mary. Wikipedia may be a little more accurate.
What is this JEWS thing. You sound like a Nazi. -- Mekons4 posted on 2005-06-02 23:41:48 ET
The genealogy of Jesus through his legal father Joseph is given by two passages from Gospels, Matthew 1:2-16 and Luke 3:23-38. Both of them trace his line to King David and from there on to Abraham and Adam. These lists are identical between Abraham and David, but they differ radically between David and Joseph. Jesuss' father (legal) was not Joseph. It was God working a miracle.
He sure was! Consider: 1) He lived with his parents until he was 30. 2) He went into his father's business. 3) He thought his mother was a virgin. 3) She thought he was God. Slam dunk.
Thomas Jefferson explains Blue America: This guy has no frickin' idea what he's talking about. Reminds me of the time I was talking to a member of the Aryan Brotherhood in prison. He was a good-looking, surprising articulate and well-spoken guy. I don't remember his first name, but everybody called him Fred because his last name was Frederick. I brought up the point that Jesus was Jewish, and Fred said no, Jesus was White. How was that, I wondered. Fred looked at me strangely, and spoke as to a little child. He was White (you could hear that capital W when he spoke) because his father was White. His father? Joseph, you mean? No--the Holy Spirit. Fred was surprised that I purported to be a Christian and didn't know that Jesus was the product of the Holy Spirit raping Mary. I'm afraid I spluttered a bit. First, I decided to ask Fred how he knew the Holy Spirit was White. Again I got that "as to a little child" voice. The Holy Spirit is God, isn't he? I frowned. Well, yes...and? There you go! Fred exclaimed. Ah, I said. But if the Holy Spirit is God, I said, then how can he sin? Sin? Fred asked. Yeah, I said. Rape is a sin, right? Fred chuckled. It would have been a sin, he explained patiently, if Mary had been a White woman. But she wasn't; she was only a Jew. So then it's okay? I asked. He shook his head sadly at my benighted, feeble-minded inability to understand. What do you think? he asked. I didn't say it out loud, but what I thought was that I figured I had a pretty fair idea of why he was in prison.
NOLAJBS, did you mean to call me a Nazi too? I think the reason the two genologies differ is that one is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. Itsalmostoolate, why would you want to believe that Jesus is not a Jew and use such silly explanations to support this belief? It comes down to either choosing to believe those who make claims that Jesus wasn't a Jew or believing the Bible. I have choosen to believe the Bible as i have investigated its reliability many times on many issues and it has held up to my hard questions.
"Pure" evangelical poopy-doopy ... The Bible doesn't say Jesus was a Jew ... The Bible states that he was of the tribe of Judah ... which may or may not have any bearing as to whether he was a Jew or not. He certainly didn't have the character of a "Jew" ... a term that didn't even exist during the time of Christ. His primary antagonists were Pharisees, which today are Rabbis promoting the Babylonian Talmud just like their ancestors. Jesus called them vipers (snakes, serpents), and hypocrits.
Agreed.. for one reveals his Davidic tenealogy through Mary.. and the other through Joseph, for as Joseph was his adoptive father and according to the Law Jesus would also receive inheritance through Joseph..
Fatidic and Zipporah are correct: (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Amen.. What I do not understand is why it is SO important to those who take the stand that Jesus was not jewish? Yes Jesus did rale against those who preverted the word of God and the law and worshiped the words of men rather than the the word of God.. but that does not change the facts.. it makes no sense to me ..
Where Jesus is concerned, some will take any opportunity to cast doubt or obscure truth, while for other 'believers' it seems to be part of a needless and misguided interpretation that seeks to substitute the Church for Israel, and accordingly separate Jesus from Israel, so the substitution consequently 'aligns' Jesus with the Church and not Israel (again a needless and misguided interpretation).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Well this is where we do disagree.. I believe that Jesus was jewish.. but I am a partial preterist..and I do not try to separate Jesus from his jewishness.. for IMO when you see scripture from the standpoint of the OT is the New concealed and the New as the OT revealed.. it's quite the opposite.. for Jesus as he said is the fulfillment of the Law.. and the OT prophesies are of His first coming.. not some future or distant event..
In such matters, charity. I did not think you did 'separate Jesus from his jewishness' My view is best (albeit not entirely) described as prewrath-premillennialist, and I see the OT prophecies of two comings, first as the suffering/servant Messiah, second as the conquering Lord. I do use (and find it scripturally consistent) a quite literal grammatical historical hermeneutic. Perhaps we can discuss this sometime. I've done some very detailed timelines (which I could post - need to update some links) of the fulfillment of Dan 9:25-26 and yet to be fulfilled Dan 9:27 showing (IMO) the preterist view has some timeline inconsistencies. Hopefully an edifying discussion, not rancorous.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Well, if Jesus isn't Jewish, then he can't possibly be the Messiah from the line of David, and the whole foundation of Christianity (that is, followers of the Christ or Messiah) dissolves. Somebody who calls himself a Christian and says that Jesus isn't Jewish is to be patted gently on the head and pitied.
Zipporah never took the position that Jesus is not Jewish - she has argued to others He in fact is Jewish. You responded to Zipporah's post and thereafter seem to have misunderstood her position, yes?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I see them as one coming.. the suffering/servant Messiah AND the conquering Lord.. being that He conquered sin.. once and for all.. the wrath of God re sin taken out upon Himself.. and an 'escape' for those who will accept Him.. "Hopefully an edifying discussion, not rancorous"... Amen..
Thank you.. I do think possibly I was misunderstood.. or maybe Barak was in
agreement ? Sometimes it's hard to distinquish..:P
No, I wasn't disagreeing with Zipporah; I was reinforcing her point. Or at least I intended to be.
That is the way I took it when I first read your reply... :)
"Oh, Well that's different then. Neeever mind"
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
No. That is just my current tag line. If you click the link, you will see who said it as well as the appropriate (or inappropriate) context it was used in. ;-) You are correct. The two genologies differ, one is Mary's and the other is Joseph's.
What is this JEWS thing. You sound like a Nazi. -- Mekons4 posted on 2005-06-02 23:41:48 ET
I take offense to having my head patted and would offer this suggestion. Jesus was descended from the Davidic line, Jesus was of the House of Israel as well as the Tribe of Judah, and could still be non-Jewish. The typical assumption is that Israelites were also Jews ... this is not necessarily true. While many people appear to be awakening to the thousands of years of deception and deportation of so-called Jews, they also appear to cling to false teachings and Jewish "fables" related to the heritage of modern Jewry. It's OK for people to think and believe whatever their own investigations cause them to believe, but don't pat my head or pity me because I may not agree with the same theory as you. The fact is, the comment quoted above is a condescending barb intended to shut the mouths of those wishing to submit a differing opinion.
"Jews" is the Anglicization of the Hebrew word "Y'hudim," which means "people from the tribe of Judah." It's not some spooky, shadowy term whose etymology is only known by the Enlightened Elite. If you wish to add to it another meaning, one that is spooky and shadowy, known only to you and your buddies, and carefully designed not to fit Jesus, then that's your lookout; and I suppose it entitles you and your buddies to say to one another, "Jesus wasn't Jewish, heh heh." But most people understand "Jewish" in its true sense--that is, "descended from Y'hudah ben-Avraham," and when you tell them, "Jesus wasn't Jewish," then you're being dishonest. There is, in Judaism, great rabbinic controversy over the question, "Who is a Jew?" (There is great rabbinic controversy over everything.) But such controversy is far too esoteric for somebody like you to get a handle on without learning a lot more than you know now. There is no rabbinic controversy over whether or not Jesus was Jewish. It wouldn't hurt you to learn a little Hebrew. It's not that hard (Hebrew is a very small language, about as much smaller than English as English is smaller than Greek), and it wouldn't take much of it to keep you from making an ass of yourself in public. That's exactly what it is--except for the word "opinion." The question of whether or not "Jews" is the English form of "Y'hudim" is about as open to opinion as the question of whether or not blue light has a shorter wavelength than red light. Sure, you can hold a contrary opinion if you like; you will simply be wrong and consequently irrelevant. Irrelevance must be a heavy burden to bear. You poor dear. [pat pat]
To believe that the word Jew is relevant one must ignore the fact that only a small portion Judah/Benjamin returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian Captivity. Most of the small portion (less than 50,000) were inter-racially mixed with Babylonians. This means that MANY of the Tribe of Judah/Benjamin did not return to Jerusalem, leaving wide open the opportunity for many of them to have escaped the inter-breeding and the vile Talmudic Teachings.
There is something about this part that does not make sense to me, as if it's looking at it all from a selfish (?) angle, though I'm certainly no expert on this topic. But it just doesn't sit right somehow, like "let's have this guy take all the blame so we can go around commiting bad acts".
And I'm just trying to figure it all out!
Well that is not exactly how it
works.. God cannot look upon sin..and we all are under the law of sin and
death.. unless we have paid the 'price' which WE on our own.. not by deeds or
sacrifice.. we can never pay.. The bible tells us that 'without the shedding of
blood there is no remission of sin'.. so under the Law there were animal
sacrifices.. those sacrifices did not truly pay the 'price'.. they were only
temporary.. do you remember in the OT in Exodus when the blood of a lamb was put
around the doorframe and the angel of death passed those homes by? This was a
prophesy of what was to come.. Jesus is the 'lamb of God'.. it prophesized that
with Jesus's sacrifice death.. spiritual death would pass over us... it foretold
of the future provision Christ would make.. In Romans it says: Rom 6:20-22
(which refers back to a passage in Jeremiah) When you were slaves to sin, you
felt no obligation to righteousness, and what did you get from this? Nothing but
experiences that now make you blush, since that sort of behavior ends in death.
Now, however, you have been set free from sin, you have been made slaves of God,
and you get a reward leading to your sanctification and ending in eternal
life... SO if we accept Christ's sacrifice for OUR sin.. which we were slaves to
before we accepted his provision.. We are set free from sin.. not free TO sin
but free from it.. we are no longer slaves to sin.. And in Rom 6:23 Sin PAYS
its servants: the wage is death. But God GIVES to those who serve him, his free
gift is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord... We have a choice to
live under sin.. which does pay us.. death.. spiritual death.. but if we accept
Jesus' sacrifice that paid our debt.. for us.. which all of us 'owe'.. we are
freed from sin and death and have the free gift of not death.. but of eternal life.
Good explanation on the purpose of sacrifice, that cleared that up a bit, as I've never gotten that one, though I still don't get why God would have wanted animal's blood shed for him. Another thing, people talk about Jesus dying for our sins, as if no one else has ever died to save others, but there have been lots of people throughout history who have died so that others could live, such as countless soldiers and assorted brave souls. That's another point that has always bothered me. Okey I'll shut up now!
True there have been people who've died for others but.. those people couldnt pay the price for sin.. only a perfect person.. one without sin would be able to do so.. and only Jesus Christ who is God Himself in human form was born without sin and died without sin.. So .. God Himself paid the debt for us all..
My rabbi explained it this way, without using any intimidating jargon. (Note: this is completely extra-biblical; if it doesn't help you, forget it.) Imagine sin as a kind of gooey, disgusting black substance that sticks to your soul and accumulates during your life. God and sin are incompatible: where God is sin cannot be, and where sin is God will not go; that's just the nature of things. Therefore, if you die with sin all over your soul, your soul cannot go to be with God: it has to go somewhere that God isn't. Spending eternity separated from the presence of God is called Hell. But if you could get somebody to clean the sin off your soul for you and take it out of the presence of God, then there'd be nothing stopping your soul from going to be with God...which of course is what we call Heaven. No other human person can help you with your sin, because they all have sin problems of their own. But Jesus, never having sinned even once, had a nice sparkling clean soul that he can scrape your sin onto, if you want. Then he can take that sin somewhere else while you go to be with God. There are some holes in this analogy, and it leaves a lot of questions to be answered, but it does clearly explain a few things lots of people get wrong about Christianity. First, Christianity has nothing to do with balancing evil works with good works. The number of good works you do has nothing to do with whether or not you get into Heaven: the only question is whether there's any sin on your soul or not. Second, God does not decide who gets into Heaven and who doesn't. Individual people decide whether they want to have clean souls or not. As a matter of fact, to get slightly Biblical for a moment, because of certain promises he's made, as long as your soul is clean, God couldn't keep you out of Heaven even if he wanted to...and if it's not, he can't let you into Heaven no matter how much he loves you. So it's really your choice, not his.
No that is a very good explanation! What I don't get is how some Christians appear to think that all they have to do is believe Jesus is the son of God and then they can do whatever they want to. It seems to me that if someone is sincere about being a Christian they would conduct themselves in a manner according to how the bible says we should behave. That's been a big stumbling block for me, it seems to me if a person loves God they should want to be good and do good. I have started reading the bible this past year and it does seem to imply that how we conduct ourselves while on this earth does matter. So I can't help but wonder about those Christians who say all you have to do is believe Jesus is the son of God and he died on the cross for your sins and then you get to go to Heaven, as if that is all there is to it.
My response to this would be that if you believe what you're supposed to believe, and you understand what you're supposed to understand, then it'd be logically inconsistent for you to be what Christians would call "unrepentantly in sin." I don't think that good works will get you into Heaven, but your works spring from what you believe. As James said, "Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by what I do."
I have started reading the bible this past year and it does seem to imply that how we conduct ourselves while on this earth does matter. So I can't help but wonder about those Christians who say all you have to do is believe Jesus is the son of God and he died on the cross for your sins and then you get to go to Heaven, as if that is all there is to it. On one hand they are right.. we cannot save ourselves.. for how would God judge? Would it be that it takes 100 good works? Or how about the person who did 99? Would he then be 'out'? For it is not by our deeds but rather by His.. But the scripture also tells us.. in James.. Faith without works is dead.. so what we do, as Christians.. is a result of our salvation it is a natural thing for the Holy Spirit comes to reside in us.. as Christians.. James wrote about works to the early Christians because they made the same error.. because they believed, rightly, that salvation isnt by works.. by what we/they do or did.. so James was 'putting them straight' .. letting them know that as Christians their works were a result of their salvation ...
Exactly what I was trying to say but you said it in far fewer words..
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.. People decide themselves? What if a murderer said he had no remorse and thought his soul was clean? What about a sociopath?
Nothing you said was relevant concerning Jesus being a Jew! Believe what ever in the hell you want but to say that Jesus wasn't a Jew because you know of know place in the Bible where it states, "Jesus was a Jew" makes you look willfully ignorant.
There's a difference between thinking and being, wouldn't you say?
(1). It comes down to either choosing to believe those who make claims that Jesus wasn't a Jew "or believing the Bible". (2). "Pure" evangelical poopy-doopy ... The Bible doesn't say Jesus was a Jew ... The Bible states that he was of the tribe of Judah ... which may or may not have any bearing as to whether he was a Jew or not. He certainly didn't have the character of a "Jew" ... a term that didn't even exist during the time of Christ. His primary antagonists were Pharisees, which today are Rabbis promoting the Babylonian Talmud just like their ancestors. Jesus called them vipers (snakes, serpents), and hypocrits. RE: (A). I'm sure ignorance isn't willful on your part, nonetheless the shoe fits the foot in your mouth. RE: (1). I was merely refering to your ignorant remark quoted above. You're the one that concluded that the Bible "says" Jesus was a Jew, when it says nothing of the sort. RE: (2). My statement in response to your ignorance didn't include any reference to my "beliefs," ...
Christ Was Not A Jew Jesus Christ Was Not A Jew: Does this shock you? We certainly hope it does. For it is time that Christians woke up to the fact that they have been brainwashed by the Jews with the "big lie technique" to the falsehood that Christ was a Jew. We ask you now, to set aside all prejudice in the matter and as God states in the Bible, "Come let us reason together." (Isaiah 1:18) There are two ways that a person can be a Jew; racially (which means a cross between the descendants of Esau and True Israelites; There is Edom [Esau is called Edom in Genesis 36:8. And Edom is in 'Modern Jewry' Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, p. 41) or religiously. Let us now see whether Christ fits either of these categories. Ninety-five percent of the people that we know as Jews today, are mongrels; they are a product of the amalgamation of many races. The majority of the Jews are Asiatics, of Mongolian, stock, the descendants of the tribes of Khazars of Russia who accepted Judaism in 740 A.D. They are the descendants of Cain; No racial Jew is an Israelite. That's right, we repeat, NO RACIAL JEW IS AN ISRAELITE. The Bible itself identifies the Jews as the seed of Cain thereby identfying Satan as their father. (John 8:44) Christ said to the Jews, in the 23rd chapter of Matthew, verses 33-35: "You serpents, you generation (race) of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore behold I send you a prophet, wise men and scribes and some of them you shall kill and crucify and some of them yuo shall scourge in your synagogues and persecute them from city to city that upon you may come all the righteous blood that has ever been shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel" (Note that carefully). Here Christ is saying to the Jews that they are guilty of the murder of Abel. Jesus could not have said this unless the Jews were/are the descendants of Cain. Christ goes on to say: "Unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Brachias who you slew between the temple and the alter." It's very plan! And it's in your Bible. Christ said to the Jews "You are guilty of the death of righteous Abel because you rfather Cain murdered him." It is also well for you to note here that Jesus further blames these Jews for all the deaths of righteous people from the beginning of time right down to this day. This is not a statement of man but of our Redeem, our King, our Savior. Christ never lied and spoke only the truth; every word contained in the sixty-six books of the Bible is the Word of Almighty God. Are the Jews then God's Chosen People as some "fogbound, lying, deceiving, Judeo-Christian Clergy" would have us believe? Far from it! Rather than being God's Chosen People, they are Satan's Children! Let us turn for proof of this, to the eighth chapter of John the 42nd verse. The Jews have just said to Christ, we are God's Chosen People, God is our Father. Christ did not answer the Jews the way ninety- nine percent of our Judeo-Christian preachers would do today. Rather, He said in the 42nd verse, "If God were your Father you would love me for I proceeded forth and came from God. Neither did I come of myself, but He sent Me. Why is it that you do not understand my speech. It is because you cannot hear my words." (Read carefully the 44th verse) where Christ said to the Jews, "Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own for he is a liar and the father of it." The Word "Jew" A Jew is a person whose religion is Jew-dah-ism (Judaism). The word Jew is not found in the original texts of the Scriptures, but in many English Bibles the word is an incorrect rendering of the latin word Judaeus, the Greek word Ioudaios, and the Hebrew word Yehudi. Although not found in either the Hebrew or the Greek Scriptures, the word Jew is an English rendering most often incorrectly translated from Yahudah, that is, referring to one belonging to one of the tribes of Israel (Yisrael) called Yahudah (Judah), a Yahudite. The word Jews, the plural of the word Jew, is incorrectly translated most often from the word Yahudim (descendants of the tribe of Yahudah). The letter 'J' was not in general use until after the 17th century as used in many Bibles for the word 'Jew' to substitute for the correct word Yahudite, or Yahudim. In some English Bibles we have received the word Juda, also an error in translation because the word derives from the Greek Iudaios, which in the English would be Judaios. Judaios was none other then a Greek diety (see W.H. Roscher's lexicon of mythology). As used in the Scriptures, the word 'Jew' is sometimes translated to refer to a Yudean (Judean) a native or inhabitant (which includes many diverse races and people groups living in the region) of Yudea (Judea). As the word 'American' includes many diverse peoples living in the Country called 'America'. The word very often refers to an advocate or adherent to the religion of the Yahudim, (Judaism), or it may in a few cases refer to a literal descendant of Abraham, Issac, Jacob/Israel, one of the descent of the tribe of Yahudah (Judah). In present day generic usage, the word has no relationship to the Hebrew or the Greek translated words in the Old or New Covenant Scriptures, and is associated primarily through an adherent or advocate of Jew-dah-ism (Judaism) the religion, but not through ethnics or race. Basically, a Jew is anyone who decides to call himself/herself a Jew. Within Jewish Circles, there are two other official ways one can become a Jew. One can be born from a mother who calls herself a Jew, or one can 'convert' to become a Jew. (A convert is called a ger which literally means stranger). Being born a Jew is pretty simple. If one's mother is Jewish (of the Jewish religion) then he/she is considered a Jew, if one's mother is not of the Jewish religion, then neither is the child officially a Jew. (It doesn't matter what the father is). Modern Jew-dah-ism began about 1000 AD, and is traced to Rabbenu Gershon of Mainz, Germany the 'Father' of the Ashkenazi Jews, which constitute approximately 90% of the worlds Jews. Modern Jew-dah-ism is not the Scriptural worship system of the Yahudim of the Scriptures. Jews do not actively encourage conversion; to a large degree they discourage it. This is the reason Jews have never had missionaries trying to convert non-Jews. They want the convert but the convert must be 100% committed to being a Jew. Discouraging conversion helps to filter out those 'lacking the proper degree' of commitment. If the non-Jew still wants to become a Jew, the male is circumcised. After he is healed, he immerses himself in a mikva. A mikva is a special pool of water which is used for many religious purposes in the religion of the Jews. (It must be made according to very specific rules). A female convert only has to immerse herself. The term 'Jew', has come to be used synonymous with the term 'Israel, Israelite', however, this is error. Scriptural Israelites were never called Jews, (Yahudim), unless they were so associated by their religion. Most modern Jews are not of the tribe of Yahudah (Judah), and are not 'Israelites.' They are called Jew(s) because of their religion, Jew49;dah49;ism (Judaism). Jew, Ashkenazi (Franco-German, Eastern and Central European Jews) After the Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser V, in 745-722 BCE, (for their sin before Yahweh), the Israelites were exiled into (Assyria), 2 Kings 17:5-7. They prospered during the years in Assyria, and became a huge number of people. Outgrowing the land area they eventually migrated North through the 'Caucasus Mountains', and into central and Western Europe forming the European Nations, and are known as Caucasians 'whites.' As these Israelites migrated they influenced many people groups, no longer having an organized religious priesthood, and not having a nation or national identity, these migrating people, descendants of Jacob/Israel nevertheless passed on their bits and pieces of the ancient Scriptural worship system which was corrupted through their many years of captive living in pagan Assyria. During the 7th century A.D. these bits and pieces of the corrupt worship system became a form of Jew-dah-ism and was embraced by the Khazar King, his court, and the Khazar military class, who are descendants of Ashkenaz. This new religion of Jew-dah-ism, became the religion of the Khazars, and forms most of modern cultic European Jewry. In common parlance the present day 'Jew' is synonymous with the 'Ashkenazi Khazar Jew'. Scripture refers to the Ashkenaz in Gen. 10:3, and in I Chron. 1:6, as one of the sons of Gomer, who was a son of Japheth, son of Noah. Ashkenaz is also a brother of Togarmah (and a nephew of Magog) who the Kazars, according to King Joseph, (of the Kazars) claimed as their ancestor. The people who refer to themselves as Ashkenazi Jews are not Israelites, and they are not Semites because they do not descend from Noah's son Shem. They are Ashkenazi Khazar Jews, who descend from Noah's son Japheth. Approximately 85-90 percent of the Jews in the world call themselves Ashkenazi Jews. Present-day Jew-dah-ism, was formally formed into it's basic cultic form about 1,000 years ago, (according to the Jews), when Rabbenu Gershon of Mainz, Germany, published a ban on bigamy. This marks the recorded beginning of the Ashkenazi Jews*, and Franco-German halachic** creativity. The word 'Ashkenazi' is not Hebrew for the word Germany, although the name has become 'associated' with Germany because many Ashkenazi Jews organized in Russia, Eastern Europe and Western Mongolia. *Ashkenazi - (Franco-German, Eastern and Central European Jews). **halachic - loose 'interpretations' of Old Testament laws Jew, Sephardim (Spanish Jews) After the Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser V, in 745-722 BCE, (for their sin before Yahweh), The Israelites were exiled into (Assyria), 2 Kings 17:549;7. The King then imported people groups from his country (Assyria) to replace the exiled Israelites to maintain and control the land of the exiles. The Sepharvaim were one of these people groups, along with Cuthahites, Arrahites, 2 Kings 17:24. They mingled with each other, along with Edomites, who had migrated Northward from Idumea (field of Edom), after Israel and the Yahudim (Judeans) were exiled. Adad and Anu were ancient gods of Babylonia and were also the gods of these pagan Sepharvaim people. The Sephardim Yudeans (Judeans) are a mongrel people whose descent is directly from a mixture of this Assyrian people group and the remnant of escaped Yudeans (Judeans) along with Edomites who had migrated into the land originally occupied by the Kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Yahudah (Judah). This made their religion also of mixed character, 2 Kings 17:2449;41. The people known as "Spanish Jews," are descended from the Canaanites, the people who colonized Carthage. Following its sack by Rome, they adopted this Sepharvaim, or Sephardim name for deceptive purposes and constitute 5% of world Jewry today. The Sephardim Jews speak Latino, a mixture of Spanish and Hebrew. The Sephardim Jews migrated West through Egypt, then North into Spain from Judea and Samaria before, during, and after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE,. This migration became known as the "Jewish 'Sephardim' Diaspora". Today, these Sephardim Jews are still using their ancient adopted name Sephardim (the spelling is a transliteration into English and not of significance). They settled in Spain, Portugal, the Eastern Mediterranean, Italy, the Balkans, Salonica and Macedonia, eventually emigrating into France and England, and Western Europe. The Sepharviam Yudeans (Judeans) were known as Samaritans during the time of Messiah, because they were living in Samaria, which was the area from which Israel was removed by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser V. The twelve apostles during the time if Messiah, were instructed not to enter the cities of the Samaritans, Matt. 10:5. Although the True Israelites of tribal descent, living in Samaria did received the witness of Yahshua and the message of redemption from the apostles, Acts, 1:8. Some of the mixed Samaritans also became proselytes to the Christian faith, Acts 8:4-25. The Sephardim Jews, (or Sepharviam Jews) are not of Israelite blood; they are not of the tribe of Yahudah although they were called Yudeans, 'Judeans', as an inhabitant, i.e. person living in the land originally occupied by the tribe of Yahudah of Israel). Their descent is mixed from Edom/Esau Canaanite stock. The Sephardim Jews, like the Ashkenazi Khazar Jews are not a Semitic people. The word Sephardim is not a Hebrew word for Spain, although the name has become 'associated' with Spain because many Sephardim Jews organized in Spain. Jew49;dah49;ism, (modern 'Judaism') Jew-dah-ism, is a cultic (ritual-istic) religion which originated approximately 1000 CE, and is traced to Rabbenu Gershon of Mainz Germany through the publishing of his 'halachic creativity' (interpretation of Old Covenant laws), he thereby established the beginning of the modern cultic religion of Jew-dah-ism. Today the religion is also greatly influenced by the Babylonian Talmud, an ancient Pagan ritual49;listic system of various extreme opinions, interpretations, codes, rules, and regulations. The modern cultic religion of Jew-dah-ism has nothing in common with the Scriptural Cultic system of worship which was completely destroyed by Messiah as a religious system in 70 CE at the destruction of Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), Herod's Temple, and through the establishment of the New Covenant through Yahshua Messiah. Christianity, as a religious system of Faith, replaced the ancient system of Cultic (ritual-istic) sacrificial worship. Jewish A term incorrectly applied to reflect anything pertaining to a Yahudite, a descendant of the tribe of Yahudah. In common use, the term 'Jewish' is now applied to things pertaining to the Jews. Scriptural accuracy has no bearing on the use of the modern term 'Jewish'.See also the word 'Israel'
I "know" that the comment above is an honest sentiment ... but have you considered that "if" it were possible for us to answer it by "figuring it all out" that we (humans) WOULD THEN BE GODS !!! It's bad enough that some of us think that already !
Well you did say that individuals take the decision that God does not decide so therefore if as you say it's a matter of a decision by the individual then there is no difference between thinking and being..
I don't know where this stuff is coming from, but it is a fact that Jesus Christ was born a Jew. He was born in Israel. The Israelites were and are Jews. He was called a Rabbi: check the Bible.
A pregnat Mexican woman comes over the border and has a baby. What is the baby called?
"Catholic"
Jose? Maria?
Don, I don't know how much knowledge you have related to the Captivity of Judah, the sons of Judah, Perez and Zarah ... and the ensuing return from captivity ... without a pretty fair understanding of these people and events ... it's impossible to understand the fraud perpetrated for political purposes regarding the so-called "chosen" ones ... I couldn't be absolute in stating who ARE the chosen people ... but I can be perfectly certain who AIN'T !
So, you are saying the Bible has it wrong?
No, I'm not saying that at all ... I'm saying you might !
i think it would be American.
Yeah...right.
Could you explain to us what American immigration laws have to do with the topic?
#1 for all practicle purposes there is immigration laws #2 a newborn is called "American", no matter where the mother came from
Seconded (is that a real word?) Jesus WAS a Jew. And I am not at all sure why this is such a big deal.
" I intend to live forever -- so far, so good
Not sure .. other than admitting that Jesus was a Jew takes issue with their world view..
Trying to make Jesus a Jew is like placing a square peg in a round hole, avoids his divinity, and the whole notion of the unblemished sacrifice ... besides screwing with my world view ... Ha !
Avoids his divinity and the notion of unblemished sacrifice? I absolutely disagree..
OK
http://reluctant-messenger.com/judahs_sceptre_206.htm
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/The_Last_Stand.html THE LAST STAND by Professor Revilo P. Oliver (Liberty Bell, November 1987) I HAVE RECEIVED a copy of a book, first published in 1936 and now reprinted by the Christian Book Club of Hawthorne, California (price unstated). It may fairly be described as the last stand of what I call Western Christianity, the religion that was for so long accepted by our race, and which has now been almost totally extinguished by the Judaeo-Christian cult that has monopolized virtually all pulpits and provided so lucrative a racket for the rabble- rousing hokum-peddlers of electronic evangelism. The author contends that, as is certainly true, Western Christianity was basically an Occidental religion, although it brought with it numerous and potentially ruinous Jewish accretions. The book propounds an hypothesis that is historically possible, and therefore to be sharply distinguished from the bizarre cult now in vogue in some insignificantly small circles, called "British Israel" or "Identity," which is not only historically preposterous but is contumelious and insulting to our race. Instead of claiming that the filthy, vicious, and barbarous tribe of swindlers and marauders whose disgusting exploits are described in the "Old Testament" were Aryans, which is ethnologically injurious as well as historically absurd, Dr. Jacob Elon Conner (1862-c.1940) contends that the founder of Christianity was an Aryan. His book bears the title, Christ Was Not a Jew. His thesis is one that, like many other astonishing propositions, cannot be categorically disproved, and is therefore entitled to fair and judicious consideration. You will be offended by the title, which is tantamount to saying "Manager is not a nigger," using a title as a personal name. Dr. Conner did not know, or more probably just ignored, the fact that 'christ' is the English derivative of a Greek word that the Jews oddly adopted in their Yiddish dialect of koine Greek to translate the Hebrew word that also appears in English as 'messiah.' For this misuse of the word Dr. Conner had sufficient reasons, for, although he never specifically confronts the question, he would certainly contend that 'Jesus' either (a) was not really the name of the person so called in the "New Testament," or (b) was given him as an alien and racially misleading name, as was done, for example, to Sir Isaac Newton and Thomas Jefferson, neither of whom was a Sheeny, although the first bore the name of a mythical Jewish hero and the second was baptized with the Aramaic word for 'twin.' For that matter, Dr. Conner himself was an Aryan, but had imposed on him in infancy the name of a celebrated Jewish scoundrel, who, true to his racial instincts, swindled even his own father. Dr. Conner really produces a doctrine essentially that of Marcion, of whom he seems not to have heard. I have frequently mentioned the Marcionist version of early Christianity, especially in connection with the effort of the late Dr. David Hamblin to revive it. It was the earliest form of Christianity that became current among fairly civilized peoples and appears to have had, for a time, the greatest number of such adherents and to have been the major Christian cult. Until quite recently (and possibly even now), the oldest extant inscription from a Christian church came from a Marcionist church that was destroyed in the persecutions begun by the so-called Fathers of the Church as soon as they got their hot hands on governmental power and could use it to suppress competition. Dr. Conner, apparently without knowing it, undertook the task Dr. Hamblin set himself à bon escient. He tried to salvage Christianity by formulating a Marcionist theology, unaware that Marcion had done so in the Second Century. Had he known of his predecessor, he would surely have lamented the virtually complete destruction of the Marcionists' Christian gospels, and he could very profitably have argued from the pitifully exiguous traces of those gospels that we now have to their probable content as confirmation of his thesis. He would also have had to face the inescapable historical question why the motley gang of shysters known as the Fathers of the Church gave first priority to exterminating a prevalent version of Christianity which clearly separated that religion from the Jews' barbarous superstitions -- why the Fathers of the Church, many of whom sought popularity by denouncing the Jews, made such desperate and finally successful efforts to saddle Christianity with the grotesque and poisonous filth of the Jews' book, which they called an "Old Testament," and thus identified their deity with the ferocious Yahweh who had chosen the parasitic race as his pets and, like them, hated civilized mankind - - until he supposedly changed his muddled mind in the First Century. I shall try to summarize Dr. Conner's argument, which I commend to the attention of everyone who is seriously interested in Christianity, whether believer or skeptic.(1) I shall have to begin, however, by clarifying, as concisely as I can, the relevant geographical and historical considerations. (1. I shall not waste time calling attention to minor historical errors, none of which is crucial to the argument, and most of which come from Dr. Conner's sources. The worst, perhaps, is his reliance on Dr. L. A. Waddell's Makers of Civilization (London, 1929; reprinted, New Delhi, 1968). Waddell was a learned man whose error in trying to read Sumerian as an Indo-European language was less gross than that of almost all of his contemporaries, who were trying to read it as a Semitic tongue. The real howler in the present volume was made by the anonymous author of the nineteen pages of Addenda, which include, in addition to valuable supplements of Dr. Conner's work, a purported letter from Pontius Pilate, which the Reverend Mr. William Dennis Mahan was inspired by his piety to forge in 1879, apparently without knowledge of the several forgeries produced by the Christians in early centuries of the present era.) THE GALILEANS The christ who is the hero of the "New Testament" is said to have been a Galilean, born in Galilee, which was a land populated by the residue of the many peoples and races that had dominated or traversed it from time to time during five millennia. A considerable part of the residual population was of Aryan descent at the time the territory became part of the empire of Alexander the Great, under whom and his successors Greeks (including Macedonians) occupied the cities as the ruling class and made them centers of their high culture and civilization. The territory called Galilee (of which the boundaries were always fluid and uncertain) was bordered on the south by Samaria, which was likewise populated by the residue of many nations, and had likewise been given a high culture by the Greeks, who made the capital city, Samaria, a colony of Macedonians released from Alexander's armies. South of Samaria lay Judaea, where the woes of Palestine began when Cyrus the Great conquered the Babylonian Empire and in 538 B.C. occupied the great city of Babylon, which was betrayed to him by the hordes of Jews who were swarming in that center of commerce. To reward them for their treason, and also, no doubt, in the hope that he could induce the treacherous parasites to leave his new territories, Cyrus gave them (as did the British twenty-six centuries later) the right to impose themselves on the natives of Palestine. Although most of the Jews frustrated Cyrus's hopes by remaining in Babylon to prey on the population and international commerce, a swarm of them did occupy Judaea and start kicking the natives around. That territory, therefore, was held by the ancient Zionists when Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire. ZIONIST AGGRESSION During the wars of the Diadochi which followed the death of Alexander, the Zionists, with the open and surreptitious help of the colonies their parasitic race had established throughout the civilized world, and by cozening several Aryan governments (including the Roman), flourished in Judaea, and in the second century B.C. began to expand their territory in much the same way as their modern successors, i.e., by invading adjacent territories, slaughtering the valuable part of the population, and forcing their savage god's religion on the lower classes, who were retained in a servile status to cultivate the ground and perform manual labor, which is, as we all know, beneath the dignity of Yahweh's Master Race. Their aggression and expansion was made possible by the wars between the civilized nations that had interests in Palestine and the clandestine support of the Jews lodged in their territories. A particularly notable case occurred in 103 or 102 B.C., when the Zionists were saved by the Jews whom the Queen of Egypt, Cleopatra III, had foolishly permitted to attain positions of authority in her government and army. It is not known what intrigues and influences led the Seleucid king, Antiochus VII, who had sternly repressed the Zionists' aggression on their neighbors in his domains, to make, in 132 B.C., the foolish and fatal blunder of overruling the advisers who urged him to clean out the Judaean pest-hole and populate it with races amenable to civilization. His tragic blunder and his subsequent defeat by the Parthians permitted the Zionists, under a Jew who had assumed the civilized name of Hyrcanus, to resume their aggressions. They invaded the territory of Samaria, surreptitiously assisted, of course, by the Jews who had infiltrated it as traders, tavern-keepers, usurers and other predators, and also by a large body of peasantry, of uncertain race but probably Semitic, who had earlier accepted the cult of Yahweh. In 120 B.C. the Zionists' mercenary troops stormed the capital city, the last stronghold of the Macedonians. Then followed, naturally, the wholesale slaughter of goyim that always brings the bliss of righteousness to Jewish hearts, and the forced conversion of the survivors to the cult of Yahweh, including, with wonted sadism, circumcision, which was inflicted on all males, with death as the only alternative. One purpose of the coerced conversion, of course, was to ensure the docility of the Judaized serfs, who, as farmers, artisans, and the like, were to serve their Zionist masters. The eldest son of Hyrcanus, who called himself Aristobulus and simulated a great admiration of Greek civilization to further his ambitions, began the Zionist conquest of Galilee, which was completed by his brother and successor, Alexander Jannaeus, who was remarkable, even among Jews, for the ferocity of his conquests and rule. We may be certain that Galilee, like Samaria, had been infiltrated by Jewish predators, who facilitated the Zionist conquest, but there is no evidence of a body of peasantry comparable to the group of worshippers of Yahweh in Samaria. The conquest, naturally, proceeded as in Samaria, with slaughter and conversion at sword's point of the survivors, almost all of the lower classes, to the worship of Yahweh. In connection with these conversions we should note a point which, if my recollection is not at fault, was first shrewdly made by Dr. Conner. He was thinking of Aryans, but it is equally applicable to Semites. Polytheistic peoples in general believe, reasonably enough, that every place, countryside, forest, river, fountain, lake, and mountain, has its own genius loci, while a superior deity may preside over a city or territory as its deus loci. The concept, which is familiar to everyone from Classical literature, survived in Christianity, notably in the Catholic cult of shrines.(2) There is a Jewish tradition, for what it is worth, that at a much earlier date the ferocious Jew- god became established in the territory of Samaria as its deus loci. It is stated in the Jew-Book (Reg. IV = Kings II, 17.26-27) that the Samaritans, who, of course, were not Jews, were induced to accept Yahweh as the 'god of the land,' on the grounds that Samaria had earlier been infested by Kikes, whose god had probably remained in the hills after the Jews were deported. The Samaritans, we are told, added the local god to their pantheon, but many of them had the good sense to retain as much of their own superior cults as they could, just as the superficially Christianized peasantry throughout Europe retained much of their native 'pagan' religions (e.g., the trees and other symbols that were used in celebration of the Winter Solstice and so retained when that festivity was called Christmas). Some Samaritans, perhaps under coercion, gave exclusive adherence to the Jews' god and so became the ancestors of the Yahwist peasants I mentioned above. (2. I gave an especially clear example in Liberty Bell, September 1985, pp. 10- 11.) The unfortunate Galileans of the lower classes, on whom the Zionists, with their racial arrogance and animosity, forced their savage god and their barbarous rites as the alternative to massacre, were, as we have said, a polyphyletic population that probably included a fairly large number of descendants of early Aryans (how large a percentage we have no means of knowing), who, belonging to the peasantry, had lost most of their culture, but probably retained, perhaps subconsciously, their racial instincts, at least to some extent. Like the other Galileans, they doubtless suffered much from the smoldering civil war among the Jews that began in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, when the Pharisees, who were racially incapable of civilization, revolted against the Jewish aristocracy, who were Sadducees from policy or culture.(3) (3. It is likely that many of the Sadducees, who tried to become civilized, were sincere in their defection from Judaism. They were exterminated by the Jewish majority with its fanatical and insuperable hatred of civilized mankind.) We can well believe that oppressed peoples, who had been forced to conform to the Jews' religion, at least potentially resented their overbearing and insolent masters. Such was the situation in Galilee near the end of the first century B.C., when, according to Christian chronology, was born the individual whom I, in discussing Dr. Conner's work, shall call 'Christ' to avoid the personal name which he does not use. 'CHRIST' Dr. Conner believes that his 'Christ' was racially an Aryan, belonging to the peasantry, who, perforce, conformed, at least outwardly, to the Judaism that had been so ruthlessly imposed on them, but may have been like the natives of lands that were Christianized in recent times, who conformed to Christian customs and attended churches, without becoming real votaries of the alien religion, which they interpreted in terms of their own mentality, if they did not simply reject it in secret. He admits, therefore, that 'Christ' was subjected at birth to the Jews' savage and disgusting rite of circumcision,(4) that his Aryan parents and he conformed to Jewish customs, accepted the rabbis as religious authorities, and were probably ignorant of the religions of more civilized peoples, except insofar as the peasants heard rumors from outside about cults they had been taught to abhor. All that is undeniably possible. (4. Which is physically and psychologically highly injurious, at least to persons of our race, and quite possibly even to children of the Jewish race and thus a means of inducing their participation in the racial fanaticism and hatred that gives that race its solidarity against all other peoples. On the funeste effects of this savage rite, see the admirably concise book by Nicholas Carter, Routine Circumcision: the Tragic Myth (London, Londinium Press, 1979). ) Dr. Conner contends, furthermore, that all specific statements in the "New Testament" to the effect that 'Christ' was a Jew, such as the obviously spurious and conflicting genealogies in the gospels attributed to Matthew and 'Luke,'(5) are interpolations and forgeries, which he imputes chiefly to the Jewish sect of Ebionites, who are known to have contributed to the "New Testament" the horrible Apocalypse and most of the "Epistle to the Hebrews" which is circulated under the name of Paul, although it cannot be the work of any of the authors of the other epistles attributed to him. (5. There never was a man named in Greek Loukas, any more than we have men named 'Texan' or 'Georgian.' The adjective is territorial and simply means 'a man from Lucania,' a region of which the capital city was Luca, modern Lucca.) Here, of course, we come to the fatal defect of Christianity, its Bible. Dr. Conner, like Marcion, simply jettisons the whole of the vile "Old Testament," so questions about its text are irrelevant, and makes the religion depend exclusively on the "New Testament." But his "New Testament," his only source of information about what the earnest Aryan peasant advocated, is the collection that was put together by the Fathers of the Church, who selected for inclusion gospels and other screeds which, according to Dr. Conner's theory, had already been heavily interpolated and distorted by the Jews. Now we can usually detect, by linguistic and stylistic tests, interpolations in first-rate authors for whom we have a generally sound text (e.g., spurious lines in Ovid), but when we are dealing with a collection of tales by numerous writers, all of them low-grade, the problem becomes philologically insoluble and the only criteria are internal consistency and historical plausibility. And when we have a collection of stories for which there is no independent verification, the certainty that large parts must be spurious invites the conclusion that the whole may be equally fictitious. That is particularly true when we are dealing with stories told by Jews, a race for whom forgery is as natural as breathing, as Dr. Conner himself must concede. So, even for the "New Testament," as for the Bible as a whole, we come to the necessary conclusion that if the text is not 'inerrant,' but contains much that is indubitably false and intended to deceive, then, even if some parts of it are genuine, we have no secure means of distinguishing them from the rest, and since there is no means of verifying any of them, the only safe procedure is to reject the whole. With so much of a caveat, let us continue with Dr. Conner's argument, having conceded that his theory that 'Christ' was an Aryan peasant in Galilee is possible and cannot be disproved, which, of course, is very far from making it probable.(6) (6. He does impose some strain on our credulity when he argues that his 'Christ' went into Judaea because he recognized it as the pest-hole of the inhabited world, from which sprang the parasites who preyed upon and afflicted the low-class population of his native Galilee. Of course, all passages in the "New Testament" which state or suggest that he was a would-be messiah are Jewish forgeries. Dr. Conner's 'Christ' wanted only to persuade the Jews to abandon a religion that was incompatible with civilization and the instincts of decent men. He had nothing to do with the Jesus who is a segment of the composite god invented by the dominant sect of Christians and bizarrely and most implausibly identified with Yahweh.) RACIAL PSYCHOLOGY Dr. Conner's major and more cogent argument is generally similar to the one familiar from Houston Stewart Chamberlain's Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, but is expressed more trenchantly and with less conciliatory concession. It is the utter incompatibility of Christianity as it is generally understood with the Jewish mentality. Christianity, even in the debased form peddled by the salvation-hucksters of television, purports to be a universal religion, available to everyone on equal terms. That is a conception foreign and possibly incomprehensible to the Jewish mind. "Judaism as a world religion," says Dr. Conner, "is a contradiction in terms." That is indubitable, except in the sense that the Jews' racial religion can be understood as embracing the world in the way explicitly stated in the Talmuds, according to which Jews are species of life vastly superior to all others and the only people who may properly be called human and who have "human rights," especially the right to own property. Aryans, Mongolians, and others, though biped, have no more rights than swine and, like swine, cannot own property, so whatever they have really belongs to the Jews, who naturally and justly take it from them by fraud and deceit when it is not safe to do so by force. Dr. Conner enforces this argument by an admirable analysis of the Jews' innate and genetically determined character. He points out, by the way, that much of what makes some Jewish writings acceptable and even attractive to Occidentals really comes from the Occidental languages into which they were translated from Hebrew, a crude and primitive language, "about like Choctaw," and inadequate for expressing logical thought or factually accurate narrative.(7) Had the Jews' Holy Book remained in their sacred dialect of Old Phoenician (Western Semitic), it would be regarded today as a curious relic of Oriental barbarism, below the level of, e.g., Babylonian and far inferior to Arabic. When the Jews translated their collection of myths into koine Greek, a language alien to their native mentality, which they learned much as they learn English today, the language forced them to make the translation much more specific and coherent than the original. And when that original was translated into English (on the basis of the Septuagint's rendering of the Hebrew), the zealous translators gave it a literary grace and force that, for the most part, they supplied and read into the rebarbative original. (7. Languages, of course, are an index to the mentality of the races that use them. And, whatever may be said by the nihilists who assert that everything is as good as everything else, our appraisal of all languages that are not Indo- European must be made in terms of our own racial mentality. A good contrast between Jewish and civilized thinking will be found in Professor Thorleif Borman's Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek (Philadelphia, Westminister Press, c.1960). As a professional theologian, Borman presents Hebrew in the best possible light, but cannot conceal the vast difference in mental processes. He could have gone much farther. Dr. Conner's summary, in which he mentions only the fundamental difference in the verbs, is adequate for most purposes. One such significant detail will suggest the whole. Ex ungue leonem! ) Ethnologically, Dr. Conner's conclusions may surprise some who do not expect them to have been apparent in 1936. On the basis of blood tests that were then available (and, of course, long before the publication of the elaborate haematological analysis by Dr. A. E. Mourant that I have so frequently cited), Dr. Conner concluded rightly that the Jews are a hybrid race, principally combining Semitic and Negroid blood, and probably including a variety of minor strains from already mongrelized Semites and Negroes. On the basis of some slight historical indications, he plausibly concludes that the Jews originated in the land called Ethiopia, which took its name from the Semites of Arabia Felix who invaded and conquered it and then destroyed themselves by miscegenation with the indigenous niggers -- the land that in modern times and until recently was known by a more descriptive and accurate name, Abyssinia ('land of mongrels'). This, the author remarks, explains the fact that although the Jews had Semitic blood, spoke a Semitic language (Aramaic), and had sacred books in a Semitic dialect known to their rabbis, there has always been an instinctive antipathy between Jews and the Arabs and other real Semites. Dr. Conner sees that the Jews purloined their Biblical tales from superior peoples and then Judaized and degraded them. He gives a neat contrast between the crudity of the few ethical parts of the "Ten Commandments" and the more comprehensive and superior ethics of an Egyptian Prayer to Osiris, written many centuries before the world was, so far as is known, afflicted with Jews. Maurice Samuel has told us authoritatively that Jews always conceive their Yahweh as a big Jew, and Dr. Conner reached the same conclusion, that Yahweh is "a magnified Jew, the personification of their race, the embodiment of Jewish needs, desires, ambitions, and that exclusively... The [primitive and "post-simian"] rite of circumcision... together with the denial of property rights to those outside of their race, still persist as fundamental characteristics of Judaism, for they are embedded in the racial nature of the Jew to an ineradicable degree. One may read in the Talmud today that none but Jews have any right to private property whatsoever." He contends, quite plausibly, that no Jew could honestly and sincerely propose a religion that would cancel his race's innate right to own the world, and that therefore to believe that 'Christ' was a Jew is to assume a psychological impossibility. YAHWEH'S RACE The most valuable and cogent part of Dr. Conner's book is his concise analysis of Jewish character as disclosed by the race's activity throughout recorded history. This part of the book I commend to everyone who takes serious thought about our plight today, whether or not he is interested in religions. The author forthrightly dismisses the cavils and qualms of persons who are acquainted with Jews who are, or seem to be, kindly and inoffensive, even cultured. Races, like other biological species, must be judged as a whole, and this is particularly true of a versipellous race that instinctively uses deception as a weapon in its clandestine war on all other races. Regardless of how properly you may like individual Jews, and granting the likelihood that many of them are honest and sincere, Dr. Conner tells us that "we must indict the whole race, for the 'good Jews' do not denounce the racial program." A clear and cogent argument can be drawn from the consideration that if our country is invaded, we must destroy the invading army, regardless of the possibility that there may be in it men whom we would personally like; and even if we have met and do like some individuals in it, that fact is simply irrelevant in the military situation. Throughout history, the Jews have always and invariably attacked nations by infiltrating their territory under specious disguises, and then applying gradually the method that Dr. Conner perfectly summarizes in one short sentence: "First defile, then destroy." That says it all. If you know that, you can understand all the rest. The Jews subvert nations they attack by preconizing virtues and "social goods" that are the opposite of their own covert racial standards but serve to anaesthetize their victims and make them docile prey. They agitate for "equality" to facilitate the imposition of their own immeasurable superiority, and for "economic justice" to mask their conviction that all the property in the world justly belongs to them. They preach "tolerance" to facilitate their own intolerant hatred of all other races, whom they regard as lower animals. They denounce "racism" and agitate for "human rights," with the secret reservation that they are the only race that is human. The Jews always whine about "prejudice" and "persecution." On this Dr. Conner remarks: "Parasites are always 'persecuted,' or deserve to be. The much- advertised 'pogroms' in Russia were no more than a parasite had a right to expect -- hardships in return for parasitic practices. If a race finds a Jew to be obnoxious in manners or otherwise, it is not persecution or prejudice to shun him, nor even to use harsh measures to get rid of him." Dr. Conner wrote, of course, before the Jews concocted their grandiose hoax about a "Holocaust" and manufactured to support it the innumerable fictions and forgeries (e.g., "Anne Frank's Diary") that they are now trying to impose on their sentimentally thoughtless victims, but the Jews have been whining about "persecution" for millennia, as instinctively as a mosquito whines about your ear before inserting his proboscis to draw your blood.(8) (8. Coincidentally, a review in the current issue of Speculum sent me to a little book published by the Jewish Institute of Religion of Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati in 1984, The '1007 Anonymous' and Papal Sovereignty: Jewish Perceptions of the Papacy and Papal Policy in the High Middle Ages. The author, Kenneth R. Stow, who must be a Jew despite his name, examines a Jewish account of a horrible persecution of God's Darlings in northern France in the early Eleventh Century, and finds in it gross anachronisms that force him to conclude that the "persecution" never took place, and that the reports of it were forged in the Thirteenth Century to support the Jews' claim that only the Papacy had legal authority over their international race, since they could always be assured of Papal protection.) We must at this point notice one highly significant parallel that seems to have escaped Dr. Conner's notice. When the Fathers of the Church got to work to spread their monopolistic brand of Christianity, they concocted, with typically Yiddish effrontery, an enormous hoax that imposed on their Christian dupes for centuries and challenges comparison with the Jews' recent Holohoax. The scurvy Fathers, by forgery and lying, put over the myth that the early Christians, sweet, innocent little lambs, had been persecuted by the wicked Romans for their pious faith. The fact is that the Romans never harassed or troubled anyone for his religion, however absurd. The Romans did prosecute criminals, including revolutionary conspirators. Nero did execute a pack of Jewish Bolsheviks, known as Chrestiani, just as modern subversives are known as Marxists; the Chrestiani had confessed to setting the disastrous fire that destroyed a large part of Rome and killed thousands of Romans, and their execution was certainly proper. No reasonable person can object to it, although he may regret the excessive cruelty that pleased Romans who had just suffered loss of property and perhaps the death of loved ones. When enough time had elapsed to obscure recollection of the event, the sneaking Fathers, by changing 'Chrestiani' to 'Christiani,'(9) made a martyr story of it so that they could whine about "persecution," and they supported it with ancillary hoaxes, including the hundreds of horror stories about "martyrs," tales that were invented by writers such as Jerome, who, in one of his letters, complains of the stupidity of a Christian contemporary, who thought that it mattered that the characters in the stories had never existed and the horrible incidents described had never taken place. The fiction served to propagate the "True Faith" and that was all that mattered. Jerome's attitude toward truth is simply typical of the whole gang of churchmen.(10) (9. This may have had a basis in fact. The revolutionary agitator and terrorist named Chrestus probably did pose as a christ, and it is not impossible that the very earliest Christianity really was the nihilistic conspiracy masquerading as a cult of 'love,' like the bloody cults of 'brotherhood' today.) (10. For thousands of examples of Christian hoaxes, see the admirable work of Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity (New York, Knopf, 1930). Seven or eight years ago, a correspondent led me to believe that a reprint of this highly useful book was in preparation, but if it was published, I did not hear of it.) "A domestic and secret enemy," observes Dr. Conner, "would never declare war openly. For the nation it would preach 'pacifism,' but practice private warfare against the Gentile citizenry of the state that shelters it. The Jew is able to make headway against the modern political state which must proceed by slow and legal processes, while Jewish methods and means are concentrated into hidden and dictatorial hands, garbed in a so-called religion. Its power is not in its own numbers, but in the members of Christian churches who have never yet been undeceived as to the true nature and objects of this alien cult." That is indubitable, and it is certain that for fifteen centuries, despite the anti-Jewish animus of Western Christianity, the religion was the shield of the Jews in their depredations on European peoples, and it became their most powerful weapon in their subjugation and ruin of our race, which now appears irretrievably doomed to extinction by its own folly. TAKE YOUR CHOICE Dr. Conner admits that the pure and elevating doctrines of kindness and justice, including the claim that "the Kingdom of Heaven is within you" (whatever that means), preached by the earnest and noble-souled peasant from Galilee, was much interpolated and altered by the Jews to faciliate their parasitism when they revised the gospels included in the "New Testament." There remains one psychological problem. Granting that the message of 'Christ,' as it is generally understood, could not have been preached sincerely by a Jew, as Dr. Conner says, can we be certain that that doctrine, which appealed to our race, was not devised by Jews to bait a trap? One need not postulate an elaborate scheme plotted in advance. It could have been worked out experimentally and by tentative trial and error through control of the Fathers of Church until the design that had proved most effective in practice was put in definitive form no later than the Decretum Gelesianum, which was probably forged around 515, after which only minor improvements could be made. As historians of religion, therefore, we are left with only the choice between two explanations. Either (a) the magnanimous Aryan peasant whom Dr. Conner calls 'Christ' did exist and did preach in vain to the Jews a lofty and idealistic message of justice and mercy which they and the Church corrupted and distorted, or (b) the whole tale, including the attractive parts of the doctrine attributed to a Jesus in the "New Testament," was a Jewish invention, designed as a vehicle to carry the lethal infection that eventually destroyed the Aryan mind and will, and, so far as can now be foreseen, has assured the extinction of the race the Jews hate most of all.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
While I may be hesitant to accept all contained in your very interesting post ... I couldn't agree more with the depiction of those we refer to as "jews" ... forgery being as natural as breathing etc.,
Well to say this is preposterous is an understatement..
besides screwing with my world view Willie Martin's reference materials are outlined at: The Christian Israel (Identity) Truth. Here are a few titles therefrom: Willie Martin's "bible study" materials are also promulgated by the Christian Party. Here is Willie Martin (now a physicist and cosmologist as well a bible teacher) at http://christianparty.net/ einsteinmartin.htm on Albert Einstein: When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, WE FIND THAT HIS ONLY BRILLIANCE LIES IN HIS ABILITY TO PLAGIARIZE AND STEAL OTHER PEOPLE=S IDEAS, PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN (A typical Jewish expertise). Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this story. Willie Martin's theology ('Christ was a caucasian', 'USA is restored Israel', 'Jesus was not a Jew', etc) and his bible exegesis is so bad and distorted that in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "It's not right. It's not even wrong. " I may (as I did above in post #9 address some of the more silly arguments offered by Martin/noone22. But for now, I may offer some thoughts in addition to Zipporah's answers to to Diana's questions. My purpose in this post was only to expose the underlying agenda in Willie Martin's writing, and provide lurkers with some links where they can review Martin's writing's for themselves. This may help to place the arguments being offered in a recognizable context.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
You can spam this thread with a million irrelevant words which will only demonstrate that you are not only stupid but also evil. My response is not for your benefit but for others who may be deceived by your irrelevant wordiness. Jesus was born to two Jewish parents whose geneologies you can read in Mathew and Luke. That makes Jesus a Jew. Jesus kept the Jewish law perfectly and that makes Him a Jew. The Bible is full of references to Jesus' Jewish roots and fulfillment of Jewish prophecies. John wrote that salvation comes from the Jews and Jesus is our salvation. That makes Jesus a Jew. It comes down to believing your irrelevat silly word games or honestly looking at relevant words to determine their sense and meaning. In other words, your word plays or the Bible. You believe in your silliness and i believe the Bible. From now on you, noone222, are a non-entity to me. I have no more pearls for you to trample and i will not answer a fool lest he think he is wise (only in his own eyes, of course).
That's OK by me ... you could at least support "your" pearls with a little scripture prior to the name calling, rather than expect others to swallow those "huge" pearls whole ...
Thanks.. One cannot follow Christ Jesus and reject His own words..for then you are following 'another' Christ.. Jesus taught and spoke of the law and taught and quoted the prophets.. 1 John 4: 1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
I very much appreciate your taking the time to respond to so much distortion that it is difficult to know where to begin. Thank you, Starwind. Since it is obvious that those who proclaim patently obvious distortions and lies are not honest in their search for understanding and truth, i think it is best not to get sucked into a point-by-point rebuttal of their lies as you then enter their distored reality of weird presuppostions. Where will it end for as soon as you rebutt one lie, they pop up with more--it's easier to make things up as you go than honestly examining the text for clues to obtaining an accurate understanding. Notice how these dishonest, dishonorable ones ignore what is inconvienent and disturbing to their hateful world view and rely on extra-biblical sources to support their prejudices. There are many points of belief and conviction where honest, truth-seeking individuals can disagree based on differing understandings of biblical texts, and we can come together here to share reasons, but this vile so called "Christian" identity movement is not one of them as their fruits reveal. I would not want this forum to be identified with such movements as we are then all tainted by their hatreds and distructive agenda.
In the Footsteps of Heroes
Let me first say that I am in the learning process, willing to listen or read the analysis of others investigations, eager to know the "TRUTH" wherever that leads. I sometimes think we all have preconceived or even implanted opinions, that we must admit that we have been manipulated in so many other ways aside from our spiritual belief systems, so why shouldn't they have been tinkered with when they are so important. When I find that someones analysis has a basis in fact or history, I don't necessarily believe it, nor do I "pitch it" out of hand ... I take my time and consider it. Main Stream Media is tainted, the educational system is tainted and we are to assume the theological institutions haven't been. Look at the right wing conservative (puke) Christian support for the butcher of Baghdad, George "w" Bush. This man isn't consistent with Christianity, and is a member of the Skull and Bones death cult. People have thought the world was flat, that slavery was legal (lawful) and the earth was the center of the universe. I don't have all of the answers, that's for sure and I readily admit it. However, others that sometimes place their opinion above that of others haven't even bothered to do the research to support their claim, and resort to name calling, innuendo and hyperbole ...
I agree there are points of disagreement regarding scripture that Christians can have disagreement.. but we worship the same Lord the same Christ.. the same gospel. Cults come in many forms.. and I see them all as having the same problem.. whether they be Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way, the United Pentatcostal Church and even Christian Identity.. they preach another Christ another Jesus..another gospel. This forum is not a Christian forum but many are Christians who post here.. just as there are atheists..possibly some of the other cults that I listed... and maybe Hindus? I dont know.. but if religious articles/opinions are posted, then as Christians declare the true gospel then the light of that gospel will reveal the darkness..
To which scriptures are you referring?
Amen. Yes. Much like battling a Hydra. Rather than attmept to cut off each head, just go for the heart. Expose the big lie, rather than each convoluted distortion. That would be tragic. Yet another forum rent by the enemy's hatred and manipulative lies. Our Lord exhorts us: "you are in the midst of wolves; be wise as serpents, yet gentle as doves" (Mat 10:16)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Oh yeah, Willie Martin and others believe that the caucasion people are the sole ethnic descendants of Jacob/Israel. I'm not so sure. While I believe that white people are descended from Jacob/Israel, I also believe other races could also be descendants as well. We don't know positively what the racial make-up of the hand-maidens that bore him children happened to be. The early migrations of the Tribes cannot be positively traced, however, much evidence supports the notion that whites are his descendants. The one factor that is very hard to deny is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promises. Those calling themselves Jews today cannot even claim the first one, that they would be many Nations and an innumerable multitude.
And the Pope is not Catholic. Give me a break...
Agreed: So what about when He said to the Pharisees (Talmudic Rabbis) Ye are of your FATHER the DEVIL and the lusts thereof ye do ... he was a "MURDERER" from the beginning (reference to the 1st murderer, Cain) and the truth does not abide in you for he (their father) is a liar and the FATHER of it (reference to the Father of lies the serpent/satan).
The late Dr. Oliver was on the right track. What he wrote in "The Last Stand" is far more plausible, i.e. less preposterous, than the biblical myth and dogma accepted as fact by true believers. "Every religion is true oned way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphores, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble." JOSEPH CAMPBELL, THE POWER OF MYTH (1988)
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
IMO its quite obvious what Jesus meant.. he was speaking SPIRITUALLY not physically.. It is very wrong headed to take one scripture and build an entire doctrine from that scripture.. Two or more 'witnesses' ..God in human form as Jesus came to earth to deal with the spiritual problem of mankind..
Caucasian means of the Caucasus Mountains (bounded by the Black and Caspian Seas to the east and west, Russia to the north, and Turkey and Iran to the south). Willie Martin claims "Your Savior, YAHSHUA (JESUS CHRIST), was a Caucasian", ie Christ came from Caucasia (the Caucasus Mountains) or that his descendants did and came to American where caucasians are called "whites". Think about your argument. Jesus was a Caucasian and his descendants. You are arguing Jesus Christ biologically fathered a race of children from the Caucasus Mountains. Such is your world view that you don't want screwed with (well screwed with any further).
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Not going to try to convince you that Christianity is truth.. for that revelation must come from God Himself through the Holy Spirit..
Read your own words. Jesus was speaking directly to the Pharisees. He was speaking to their spiritual leadership from Satan. Christ did not say all twelve tribes of Israel (Hebrews, Israelites, Jews whatever name you wish to use) are of their father the devil. He was speaking to and about the Pharisees, castigating them for their religious falsehoods. But you already knew that.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I see no problem with the discussion/debate on this or any other topic. As long as each person is attempting to support their point of view with research and with the absense of personal attacks, I believe that this can be productive and informative for all. I would hope that we are all capable of recognizing that the various positions of posters are their individual opinions and not that of the forum as a whole.
I don't reject Christ, just the biblical myth and dogma. The belief that becomes truth for me come from my inner God-given light.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
IMO the biggest flaw is the reference to the Abrahamic covenant, in that they say it was a fleshly promise.. but of course, repeatedly in scripture it states that the seed of Abraham are those of FAITH.. the people of faith inherit the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.. Gal 3:7 7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. and Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ... therefore, it is not the flesh.. and this is why in Galatians 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.... it is said the GOSPEL was preached unto Abraham.. it was the promise of Christ Jesus.. to those of faith..
Agreed. Without personal attacks, and I would venture to say without spamming a thread as well. Any topic can be discussed with civility. It is the lack of civility which tears forums apart, not the diversity of views.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
So you say you do not reject Him but you reject His words .. this to me makes no sense..
Exactly..
Thomas Jefferson had problems with the Bible so he wrote his own version. Perhaps, through a feeling of inadquacy, I haven't attempted such a venture
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
That makes sense. I think the heart has to be in the right place. It's just that over the years I've run into too many Christians who are either uppity (for no apparent reason) or think because they believe in Jesus they can lie, cheat and steal, get drunk or just do whatever. I admire those Christians who do behave according to the laws God has given us.
Second, God does not decide who gets into Heaven and who doesn't. Individual people decide whether they want to have clean souls or not. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.. People decide themselves? What if a murderer said he had no remorse and thought his soul was clean? What about a sociopath? That's another good point; what about people who are sociopaths, have damaged brains or are just born with brain-wiring that makes them incapable of caring about others, or makes them highly impulsive and prone to bad behavior? Because we are not all the same, everyone does not start out on the same level, everyone is put together differently.
American Citizen?
Well the bible does have a prophesy about this and Christians: “And I shall give them one heart, and shall put a new spirit within them. And I shall take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances, and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God” ..so.. it is about the 'heart'.. of course not the physical heart.. but it's not only just by our choices we make but God Himself changes those who know Him..
Hm Jefferson had some issues of which I was not aware..
A Goggle search will add to your knowledge of Thomas Jefferson. I might add that many of the founders were deists.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
Well said, and spot on, Zip. It's always about redefining Jesus and His ministry that separates Christians from cults. It is pure evil to redefine Jesus and seek to ensnare others in a system of bondage and spiritual darkness. False prophets/teachers have evil fruits always characterized by hate, bondage and fear. The so-called Christian Identity movement are hate mongers and race baiters and liars, like their father the devil.
Jesus speaking to the Jews: John 8:42-47 43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
In the Footsteps of Heroes
Thanks, you've added "specific evidence" to support this article. "I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not." Isaiah 66:4, KJV "... because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" 2 Thessalonians 2:10b-11, KJV
John 7:13 John 19:38 John 20:19 In the Footsteps of Heroes
The Self-Chosen terrorized Mel Gibson until he deleted this from The Passion of the Christ Matthew 27:25 In the Footsteps of Heroes
Why does the Pope wear a Yamaka? http://www.zionjudaica.com/project/shop/subcategory.php?catid=43
I may disagree and vehemently disagree.. but as Chris said debate and discussion as long as it's civil.. is the goal. So if you disagree please add to the discussion.. for I think it's important that those who do take issue with others stance or beliefs contribute so there is both sides to this issue or any other..
Are these the scriptures that you were refering to?
#2 a newborn is called "American", no matter where the mother came from American immigration laws have zilch to do with whether or not Jesus was a Jew. Have you been drinking?
As my man running for govenor of the pitiful state of TX would say, "They don't make jews like Jesus, anymore." Friedman for Govenor
{{{{{{kisses}}}}}}
He was speaking to the children of satan ... otherwise he was a politician ... not God. (I don't think God needs to use rhetoric to make His point.) Otherwise maybe he was kidding ... just joking around, trying to look important. When one considers that God spoke and "nothing" became "everything" ... one must also consider how careful God must be when speaking. When Christ told those little serpents who and what they were ... he was speaking in the physical ... not the spiritual !
Otherwise maybe he was kidding ... just joking around, trying to look important. When one considers that God spoke and "nothing" became "everything" ... one must also consider how careful God must be when speaking. When Christ told those little serpents who and what they were ... he was speaking in the physical ... not the spiritual ! Not so.. Jesus was speaking of their spiritual condition.. for what did He say? My kingdom is NOT of this world.. The people wanted to make Jesus King they too thought His purpose was physical.. so: "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone" (John 6:15)... Repeatedly scripture tells us that the inheritance is to those of FAITH.. the seed of Abraham are those of faith.. therefore, if Jesus was speaking of the physical.. then would it not be said that those who inherit the promises of Abraham be due to genetics rather than of faith?
After thinking about your questions and seeing the generally good answers you got from Zipporah and Barak, I thought what might be more helpful is to have a larger context of God's eternal kingdom in which to understand the bible, a kind of 'bible big picture'. What follows is, IMO, biblical, but I did not attempt to tie every sentance to a verse. Undoubtedly you may have questions and some may have arguments. I'm willing to offer clarification or scripture backup as may be requested. Everything flows from God's attributes: God is loving. Somewhat like a human who wants a faithful loving spouse on whom to lavish affection, gifts and kindness, God wants to lavish His love and gifts on someone. It is the very nature of Love to want to be loving, but on what?. On mankind. God created man in His own image (a likeness to God's spirit and a physiology that Christ Himself would 'wear') to be loved by God, and to worship and love God in return. But to genuinely love requires free will. A preprogrammed or forced "love" is not love at all. So for God to be genuinely loved by His creation, that creation must have the free will to disobey as well as to love in return. But God is perfect. Disobedience is sin and God will not tolerate sin and sin can not exist in God's presence. Somewhat like a deepsea diver who can not survive at the surface with excess nitrogen still dissolved in their blood, the reduced surface pressure allows the nitrogen to "boil over", killing the diver. Similarly, sinful man can not survive in the presence of God because God's holiness 'kills' any sin-filled creature in His presence. The sin must be removed for the creature to survive in God's presence, as well as be acceptable to God. God has perfect foreknowledge. God is 'outside of time' and knows the future, including the decisions we will or will not make. God foreknew when he created mankind (to be loved and to genuinely love God in return) that mankind would freely, willingly disobey and sin instead of love God. God is sovereign and has established laws of holy behavior (like the 10 commandments) and God is justice. God can not allow lawbreaking and sin to go unpunished. God does not let people off, plea bargain, waive penalties, or grant parole. But God is merciful. God wants to forgive the disobedience and remove the sin from whomsoever freely and willingly wants the sin to be removed and to be forgiven. But the only person who could 'pay the price' of sin and live to tell about it, is God. And so in an amazing act of mercy, love and self-sacrifice, God sacrificed Himself (Jesus Christ) on the Cross to pay the penalty (under God's law) of all the sins of all mankind for all time. God chose Israel to be His people, to be both a living testimony of God's existence and character, and to bear the Messiah (God's salvation) Jesus Christ. And through the Hebrew people, God has demonstrated His character and offered salvation to all the world, first to the Jew then to the Gentile. And so Jesus is 100% God and 100% human. Only a human can stand in humanity's place of punishment. Only God can pay the price to redeem all humanity. God substituted sinless Jesus on the Cross for us. God substitutes Jesus' perfection for us in exchange for our sinfulness. Jesus got our perfect punishment, we got Jesus' sinless perfection in God's eyes; quite a loving and merciful deal wouldn't you say? The only expectation from God is that we (of our own God-given freewill): This goes back to the Old Testament sacrifices. Blood means and provides "life". Sin results in "death". Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sin. When someone offered a sacrifice they had to lay their hands on it in the presence of God and the high priest. The unblemished animal (a lamb of man, raised and brought by a man) was offered to be killed (its life blood drained out) as a substitute for their sin (unblemished physical life exchanged for blemished spiritual death). Laying their hands on their sacrifice was how they identified their personal sin with their personal sacrifice - not for God's benefit but for their own acknowledgment and admission. " Acceptance" of Christ's sacrifice and offer of salvation is the same identification of each persons sin with their personal sacrifice, Jesus - the Lamb of God. In the Old Testament sacrifices, a mere animal was not sufficient to permanently pay for sin, it only "rolled it over" for another year, but it taught the Israelites (and us) the purpose of sacrifice and to look forward to the day when the Lamb of God (Jesus Christ) would shed His sinless blood, sufficient to redeem all mankind permanently in God's eyes once and for all. For those who reject Christ's offer, imagine the anger of a father whose son sacrificed his life in a war for a neighbor's kid and that kid says to the grieving father, "I didn't need or want your son to die for me, I can do it myself. Thanks but no thanks, pal. Besides, you don't really have a son do you - you old fool". Now try to imagine Christ's suffering (both physical and spiritual) as well as His obedience and faithfulness (He shed His spiritual robes to take on human form), and then try to imagine God the Father's ultimate wrath at those who would dismiss Christ and His suffering as nonexistent, needless or trivial, or worse, try to exploit it for self gain or to oppose God's purposes. The Lake of Fire awaits. For those who turn to Jesus, in my experience, they do because God's Love has won them over. They think about what they have done, the eternal punishment they have earned, and what God still offers in spite of that. Eternity in Heaven. It's somewhat like Prince Charming finds (Sin)derella after the ball; she dirty, filthy and oppressed by her wicked stepmother and stepsisters, despairing and hopeless in her condition; the Prince, love in his eyes and heart, seeing her for who she truly can be (a pearl of very great price), and the Prince steps in, buys out the stepmother & stepsisters and says "I love you. Please marry me. Wait for me. I'll come back to get you and take home with me to my kingdom and castle". That is something like what Jesus is offering us. Would you not shout His name to the rooftops for the kind of wonderful person He is? So, God in His foreknowledge and all knowing omnipotence, looks to the heart to see if the confession and remorse are sincere and genuine. Liars and posers are seen by God for what they are, and God drums his fingers and waits for them to get it. Those who are sincere, God forgives, notes their names in the Book of Life, gives them the Holy Spirit as a kind of 'down payment' to seal the deal and regenerate their spirit (so as to eternally cancel the second death), and then begins the process of life transformation within the new believer - they are "born again of the Spirit" and their subsequent Christ-like or spirit-lead works demonstrate their genuine faith - the holy spirit transformation is evident in their works, in their entire life. By our love they will know us. But the transformation is gradual, it is a process. The deep sea diver is not instantly brought to the surface nor is all the nitrogen removed at depth. It is gradually removed in a slow steady ascent. There are obviously false Christians, like there are false anythings. Anyone can claim anything. But the evidence is in their fruit or our fruit. Look at the gifts and judge the fruit and know whom is truly following Christ. Transformed believers do not continuously sin. We make mistakes. We fall back. But we get up, seek God's help to be better and get back in the fight. We decrease sinful behavior, striving (but seldom achieving) to stop altogether. We strive to be more holy & righteous. Our own sin becomes loathsome and we despair as did Paul when we do what we don't want, and don't do what we do want. If you don't see the Spirit at war with the flesh, it's likely because the flesh has no opposition. Brokenness is the sign of a Spirit-indwelt transformed life. One of the mysteries is that God not only created us with free will to choose to accept or reject Him, God also predestined (chose with foreknowledge) who would be saved. It is a kind of spiritual friction or tension between two seemingly irreconcilable concepts. Choosen by God but created free to choose otherwise. But then Gods thoughts are not our thoughts nor His ways our ways. A great deal of the more serious theological debates pivot around this very issue. I mention it because it deserves careful thought, study and prayer, but you can rest in God's written assurances, that if you sincerely believe on Jesus then you will have eternal life, and this issue becomes interesting but somewhat after the fact (of your salvation). Almost as if God wanted a theological conundrum to occupy "the kids" and give them a reason to search out the scriptures. So, God wanted to lavish His love on His creatures and be loved by them in return. He created them with free will, knowing they would sin, knowing He would sacrifice His Son for that sin, knowing how narrow was that gate and that only a few would find it. Life on earth is a kind of boot camp for Heaven. "What is life, but preparation for eternity" as Erwin Lutzer put it. A series of good works prepared before hand that we might lay up treasure in heaven - a training ground for our minds, souls and spirits, to observe and learn God's ways and prepare to co-reign as His Bride for all eternity.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Amen... and the SINderella analogy ..excellent.
Thank you kindly.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I believe that is indeed the case. Too many people expect life to be perfect, then become angry when everything is not to their liking. This was an all-around excellent post, many good points and info!! Oddly I understand the space/time issue, like we are embedded in a space/time graph while on earth, but when we die our souls come out of it, I realized that some time ago, time and space only exist in the physical life.
I did want to elaborate a bit on this question. Zipporah answered: We were (many still are) captives to sin. Enslaved to both a sinful nature (a fleshly, carnal proclivity to disobey God's law) and destined for the ultimate penalty of eternal spiritual death - separation from God - perhaps what Jesus experienced on the Cross when He cried out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" ie Where are you? My entire eternal existence up to now was in close intimate contact with you, Abba (Daddy) and now I'm alone, in spiritual darkness, cutoff from contact. If it tormented Jesus, imagine the eternal torment of those condemned. But while we were yet slaves to sin on Satan's auction block, the only person who could afford the price stepped up and bought us. We were slaves. We had no say in the matter. Satan had no legal grounds to object, the asking price was offered. In fact Satan was delighted thinking Christ would be dead and Satan left to rule the slaves anyway. But God. (An amazing two words). But God, raised Jesus from the dead. And Satan, who as the father of sin bore responsibility for Christ being accused, scourged, and crucified, Christ (who unlike anyone else in all history was perfectly innocent and blameless of all the charges Satan had brought against Jesus) was now Satan's downfall because for the first time Satan had effectively accused and convicted an innocent man. But God, (in Jesus) alive and risen now 'owns' the slaves and Satan is guilty of false accusations and murder. Jesus not only redeemed all humanity but He turned the heavenly legal tables on Satan.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Better still, we will never taste death, and if Jesus' resurrected body is any indication, we will have physical existance that transcends space and time. After resurrection, Christ entered the upper room appearing to the now 11, seemingly "beamed in" through walls and locked doors. To doubting Thomas Jesus said stick your fingers in the wounds in my hands and my side. In another passage he was hungry and ate food. Resurrected physical bodies that feel, eat, transport across time and space with eternal lifetime warranty against rust, decay, parts & labor.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
The people wanted to make Jesus King they too thought His purpose was physical ... then would it not be said that those who inherit the promises of Abraham be due to genetics rather than of faith? The "My Kingdom is not of this world" is a statement made to Pilate at another time under different circumstances altogether. Pilate wasn't a Pharisee. What about when he told the Pharisees that their teachings made His Father's Laws of no effect, was that "spiritual" too ? The Pharisees didn't want to make Him King, they wanted Him dead ! The debate that has gone on forever related to Faith vs. Grace isn't the one we were having. I'm not completely settled on that one. However, I have a theory relative to genetics. An earlier discussion on this thread mentioned "redemption" ... In "common law", which came to us from Great Britain and was part of their culture from ancient times, and was even known in Biblical times, redemption was a legal situation wherein a family member could take the place of another family member in paying the price for a crime. Doesn't the Bible say we were paid for with a price and wasn't that price the death of Christ? The possibility that there is a difference between "redemption" and "salvation" should not be ignored. I'll be the last one to say "God" can't do whatever He chooses, He being the Potter and me the clay. This scenario gets into whether one conceives predestination and free will as compatible. DNA and genetic markers sure might help when the "harvest time" comes, and we know that genetic predispositions exist for many things, including life-span and disease. The teachings of James and Paul are at variance, one teaching works, the other teaching grace. James writings weren't placed into the Bible until 500 A.D. James stayed in Jerusalem and Paul went to the gentiles (nations). Luther castigated James and supported Paul. (I honestly don't know for sure but do know that Jesus stated he didn't come to change the law, but to fulfill it, while also saying not a jot or tittle of the law would change, and scripture also says that God never changes, being the same yesterday, today and forever.) Sometimes I think it's presumptuous of us to have these debates. In the end it isn't going to matter what each of us thinks because ultimately "THERE IS TRUTH" whether we have it exactly right or not. I only try to keep my mind free from the indoctrination that I received from the Catholic Church, which has little bearing on truth when compared to scriptures. Paul stated: "Study the scriptures to show thyself approved" ... is this not works in some degree ? One last thing: Many scriptures have God referring to "MY PEOPLE ISRAEL" ... isn't this a physical reference ... and if not why do we have this flesh to lug around ? This is strictly food for thought. John, the one considered to be the one Christ loved or his "insider" favorite, wrote from Patmos of the false prophet that would convince many to worship the beast, and that there were anti-christs among us even at that time. Paul was a pharisee, learned under Gamaliel, the most learned of all Pharisees, and Paul never walked with Jesus. While John is writng about the destruction of those accepting the Mark of the Beast being imposed upon people by some "govt" authority in Revelations, Paul is writing that we should submit to all government authority in Romans 13. This is a problem area for me. Faith, as we have generally been instructed through churchianity, is to believe in Christ as the Savior that was born of a virgin, suffered died and rose from the dead to pay the price for our sins. Satan believes, will he be saved ?
1st I qualified my statement as it regarded my own research. I further stated that I wasn't convinced that all were white or caucasions, because of the four mothers that bore Jacob's children, 2 were possibly non-white. Leah and Rachel were white, as was Rebecca the aunt of Leah and Rachel. [Here is a little surprise that can be found in "Strong's Concordance or Zondervan's dictionary of the Bible: Laban, brother of Rebecca and the father of Rachel and Leah ... Laban in the Hebrew means "white"] Let me reiterate here that it is NOT as IMPORTANT to me who are the so-called chosen people of promise as it is to clearly point out that the people claiming to be are liars and their lie is terrorizing the entire world. The State of Israel is not Biblical, it is a fraud because the people operating it are not descended from Abraham, and it is the focal point of WW III. And while we edge ever closer to this all out war that will require us to sacrifice our children to it, unlearned Christians continue to support anti-christ Bush remaining adamant about protecting the phoney State of Israel that exists based upon the falsely claimed promise to Abraham and can be clearly discerned by reading Genesis Chapter 10:3 (see Ashkenaz grandson of Japeth NOT SHEM) .... The descendants of Japeth (NIMROD) built Babel, developed the Babylonian Talmud and even claimed to be god. When one considers the simplicity of just taking a look at the geneology at Genesis 10/11/12 where it confirms what I am stating, and the stubborn refusal of Christians to do so in order to comply with the high priests of Baal running their church, is "willful ignorance" ... caveat: I haven't always been aware of this and am not trying to act like a know it all ... we as a civilization are approaching a time of terror of our own making. "My people are DESTROYED for lack of knowledge" ... I am admitting to you that I resisted this information for a long time until I became convinced of it through study, not Willie Martin or anyone else. I am reminded of the scripture that says: "they loved a lie more than the truth" Starwind, I would appreciate a little restraint on your part when making remarks about "MY" worldview ... until at least you have a little better knowledge of it ... PLEASE This may not be of consequence to this conversation but people (I don't remember exactly whom) have remarked about Moses being a "JEW" as if he were a student or adherent to Judaism. The first Synagogue in Jerusalem didn't exist until AFTER the captivity of Judah/Benjamin, and was brought back from Babylon.
Agreed (even though using language like VERY WRONG HEADED is unnecessarily provocative) ... I haven't proferred a doctrine. I have not taken "a" scripture and made it the basis for anything. I was thinking to write that even in our man made court system it takes a preponderance of evidence to support a verdict of guilty in a non-capital offense. I believe I have weighed a proponderance of evidence, and am still searching, admitting that I am convinced that I will never achieve total understanding. However, to date I am certain that many accepted beliefs of the churches such as the State of Israel have NO basis in scripture, actually violating scriptural truth. One can hardly dismiss the negative impact the State of Israel is having upon the world today, and this is not a "spiritual" fact but a most physical one. If the geneologies listed ad nauseum in Genesis mean nothing, WHY ARE THEY THERE ?
This reference was to Jacob/Israel's descendants (The twelve tribes) not Jesus', as I have no way of determining whether Jesus had any descendants.
Whether or not Jesus was speaking to Pilate at another time does not negate the premise.. I cited this particular scripture but there are others which state the same.. "What about when he told the Pharisees that their teachings made His Father's Laws of no effect, was that "spiritual" too ?" Actually yes. The Pharisees were the 'keepers of the law.. the Torah but the Law had become a side issue so to speak to them.. they focused on the oral tradition and put it before the Torah and in doing so they were misleading the people just as those false teachers today mislead people and what does the bible say about false teachers? That is what Jesus was saying. The Pharisees weren't concerned about the spiritual condition of people or themselves..their 'hearts'.. all they were concerned about was keeping the Law and the oral tradition the physical aspects of that law.. the do's and don'ts.. They also believed in an earthly King a ruler.. because they focused so heavily on the physical they were unable to 'see' the divine, the spiritual and that Jesus had come as that King.. not an earthly King but as a spiritual King.. "my kingdom is not of this world" and yes they wanted Him dead. Because He dared to challenge them and their power was as risk for many of the people were following Him. Jesus challenged them for mainly their spiritual blindness. He called them 'blind guides': Matt. 23:13..Matt. 23:23-26: "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in... Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these things ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee...." As far as genetics.. you have said why is there such a focus on genetics the begats etc.. for one purpose and one purpose only.. To show that Jesus himself was who He said He was.. to show that He was in fact the rightful heir to the throne.. but as I said the kingdom was not as they thought.. it was a spiritual one.. a heavenly kingdom come down from heaven. John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: {13} Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God... NOT of blood.. but of God.. a spiritual birth not one of genetics.. Again the scripture in Galatians: Galatians 3:8-9 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. {9} So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham... what this is saying is it was the GOSPEL of Christ Jesus that was being preached to Abraham.. not a genetics lesson.. those who believe are the heirs.. for Jesus was the seed.. and we who believe are the heirs of the promise. On Luther: Luther's words are not cannon. Luther was stuggling with the Roman Church's focus on works.. therefore, he placed great importance on grace due to the revelation he received through the HS regarding the grace of God that saves not the works of men.. Satan believes in that he knows the truth and rejects it as many people today do.. they enjoy their condition..
Leading others INTO a DITCH ... Straining at a gnat ... SWALLOWING CAMELS WHOLE !!! Churchianity has been and continues to serve their sheoples CAMELS ... what's for lunch ???
Hey ... take a moment to contemplate this: Revelations tells us that there will come a man or authority thinking to change the days and the times ... many believe this was Constantine or a later Pope, not that it matters much in the larger picture. Today "MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of people will attend (churchianity) services, calling it the "SABBATH" ... when any dictionary plainly states it is the day of "SUN-WORSHIP" while the Old Testament repeatedly states that the honoring of the true Sabbath will be "A SIGN BETWEEN THEE (us) AND ME (God) "FOREVER" the evidences of manipulative fraud are surrounding a blinded prey ... Easter, Christmas and Good "FRIDAY" are other examples of frauds perpetrated by those we are supposed to trust in the pulpit ... but can't ! [The Bible further tells us that "THEY" will make merchandise of our souls ... we have been warned ! I'll give it a rest so as not to appear argumentative ... peace be unto you all !
On Revelation, I view the book from a partial preterist or amillienial viewpoint so it would take pages of explanation .. but the short version.. is this, the book is a picture of the church.. in allegory. Not some future event that can be interpreted with the newspaper. One needs to see the book through the eyes of those to whom it was written. Well re the sabbath.. what does the bible tell us? Jesus is Lord of the sabbath..and He is the fulfillment of the Law.. therefore, if we are one of His.. then we keep the sabbath daily for Jesus is in us.. remember the veil was torn.. releasing the spirit.. so no longer do we have to go somewhere to worship Him.. He is with us.. and in us.
by doing a search on christianity and mithraism, one can easily find the roots of the mythological/contemporary belief. As well, by doing a search on 'egyptian book of the dead' and 'the ten commandments' one can find the original egyptian sources for these supposedly uniquely given laws... any serious person who is qualified to discuss such matters would also know about the origins of the 'faith' (doctrine today accepted as 'truth') concerning the Council of Nicea and Constantine. so much of what Christians believe is not factually accurate, or even supported by the bible. But, that's what they get...they've decided to listen to the views of other men as the source of truth, though Christ specifically mentioned the 'divine counselor' as the one who would advise, etc. That's all organized religion can ever be, a crappy second choice for the sleeping. Mercian Order of St.George Christianity or Mithraism It is surprising that Christianity was to become the international religion, when one considers that the already well-established religion of Mithraism was a natural challenger for that title. Up until the time of the Emperor Constantine, it was the latter religion which was more popular within the framework of the Roman Empire, and Christianity was regarded as being only one sect amongst numerous other sects. It was only when Constantine decreed that Christianity was to be the state religion, that Mithraism, together with a host of other religions and sects, was put into the melting pot, and ideas of that religion, most suited for the Christian purpose, were absorbed into the new state-approved religion. Mithraism, the religion followed by those who worshipped the sun god Mithra, originated in Persia about 400 BC, and was to spread its Pagan ideas as far west as the British Isles. In the early centuries of the Christian era, Mithraism was the most wide-spread religion in the Western World, and its remains are to be found in monuments scattered around the countries of Europe, which then comprised the known civilised world. Mithra was regarded as created by, yet co-equal with, the Supreme Deity. Mithraists were Trinitarian, kept Sunday as their day of worship, and their chief festivals were what we know of as Christmas and Easter. Long before the advent of Jesus, Mithra was said to have been born of a virgin mother, in a cave, at the time of Christmas, and died on a cross at Easter. Baptism was practised, and the sign of the cross was made on the foreheads of all newly-baptised converts. Mithra was considered to be the saviour of the world, conferring on his followers an eternal life in Heaven, and, similar to the story of Jesus, he died to save all others, provided that they were his followers. For three centuries both religions ran parallel, Mithraism first becoming known to the Romans in 70 BC, Christianity following a century later, and it wasn’t until AD 377 that Christianity became sufficiently strong to suppress its former rival, although Mithraism was to remain a formidable opponent for some time after that, only slowly being forsaken by the people. It was only the absorption of many Mithraist ideas into Christianity which finally saw its downfall. The big turning point was brought about by the Congress of Nicaea in AD 325. Constantine, a great supporter of the Christian religion, although not converting to it until the time of his decease, gathered together 2,000 leading figures in the world of theology, the idea being to bring about the advent of Christianity as the official state religion of Rome. It was out of this assembly that Jesus was formally declared to be the Son of God, and Saviour of Mankind, another slain saviour god, bringing up the tally of slain god-men to seventeen, of which Mithra, together with such men as Bel and Osiris, was included. Just as Nicaea can be regarded as the birthplace of Christianity, so too it can be regarded as the graveyard of what we imagine Jesus taught. From that time onwards, Christianity was to absorb the superstitions of Mithraism, and many other older religions, and what was believed to have happened to earlier saviour gods, was made to centre around the Nazarene. The coming of Christianity under state control was to preserve it as a religion, and was the death knell of all other sects and cults within the Roman Empire. Had Constantine decided to retain Mithraism as the official state religion, instead of putting Christianity in its place, it would have been the latter that would have been obliterated. To Constantine however, Christianity had one great advantage, it preached that repentant sinners would be forgiven their sins, provided that they were converted Christians at the time of their Passing, and Constantine had much to be forgiven for, He personally did not convert to the new religion until he was on his death bed, the reason being that only sins committed following conversion were accountable, so all sins committed by a convert, prior to conversion, didn’t matter, and he could hardly have sinned too much whilst he was lying on his death bed. Mithraism could not offer the same comfort to a man like Constantine, who was regarded as being one of the worst mass-murderers of his time. The Emperor Julian, who followed Constantine, went back to Mithraism, but his short reign of only two years could not change what Constantine had decreed. His defeat, and death, at the hands of the Persians, was used by the Christians as an argument in favour of the new, against the old, being looked upon as an omen that Christianity had divine approval. If Julian had been spared to reign some years longer, the entire history of international religion would almost certainly have been different. Under Emperor Jovian, who followed Julian, the substitution of Christianity for Mithraism made further progress, and old Pagan beliefs, like the Virgin Birth, Baptism and Holy Trinity, became generally accepted as the basis of the state religion. The early Christian idea of Unitarianism was quickly squashed in favour of Trinitarianism, and those who refused to accept the Holy Trinity were put to the sword, the beginning of mass slaughter in the name of religion, which was to go on for centuries. http://members.aol.com/MercStG/ChriMithPage1.html The Influence of Mithraism on Christianity When Mithraism is compared with Christianity, there are surprisingly many points of similarity. Of all the mystery cults Mithraism was the greatest competitor of Christianity. The cause for struggle between these two religions was that they had so many traditions, practices and ideas that were similar and in some cases identical. Many of the similarities between these two religions have already been alluded to, but there are many others of greater or lesser significance. The belief in immortality, a mediator between god and man, the observance of certain sacramental rites, the rebirth of converts, and (in most cases) the support of high ethical ideas were common to Mithraism as well as to Christianity. In fact, the comparison became so evident that many believed the Christian movement itself became a mystery cult. "Jesus was the divine Lord. He too had found the road to heaven by his suffering and resurrection. He too had God for his father. He had left behind the secret whereby men could achieve the goal with him."[Footnote:] Enslin, op. cit., p. 190. There were many other points of similarity between these two groups. Let us look at a few of them: (1) Both regarded Sunday as a holy day. (2) December 25 came to be considered as the anniversary of the birth of Mithra and Christ also. (3) Baptism and a communion meal were important parts of the ritual of both groups. (4) The rebirth of converts was a fundamental idea in the two cults. (5) The struggle with evil and the eventual triumph of good were essential ideas in both religions. (6) In both religions only initiates who passed through certain preliminary phases of introduction were admitted to the mysteries which brought salvation to converts. There were many more similarities between Christianity and Mithraism--most of them purely superficial. These which have been mentioned are largely only surface likenesses because the reasoning behind them is quite different, but the general effect is almost startling. The sacraments of baptism and the eucharist have been mentioned as rites which were practiced both by christians and pagans. It is improbable, however, that either of these {were} introduced into Christian practices by association with the mystery cults. The baptismal ceremony in both cases (christian and mystery) was supposed to have the effect of identifying the initiate with his saviour. But although baptism did not originate with the Christians, still it was not copied from the pagans. It seems instead to have been carried over from Jewish background and modified by the new ideas and beliefs of the Christians. The eucharist, likewise though similar in some respects to the communion meal of Mithraism, was not a rite borrowed from them. There are several explanations regarding the beginning of the observance of the Lord's Supper. Some held that the sacrament was instituted by Jesus himself. Others saw it as an out-growth from Jewish precedents. Still others felt that, after the death of Jesus, the disciples saw in their common meal an opportunity to hold a kind of memorial service for him. On the whole, early Christians were not greatly concerned about the likenesses between the Mithraic cult and their own. They felt at first that these competitors were not worthy of consideration, and few references to them are found in Christian literature. When Mithraism became widespread and powerful, it attracted so much attention that certain Christian apologists felt the need to present an explanation for the similarities in their respective characteristics. The only one they could offer was quite naive, but it was in keeping with the trends of thought in that age. They maintained that it was the work of the devil who helped to confuse men by creating a pagan imitation of the true religion. The greatest influence of Mithraism on Christianity lies in a different direction from that of doctrine and ritual. It lies in the fact that Mithraism paved the way for the presentation of Christianity to the world of that time. It prepared the people mentally and emotionally to understand the type of religion which Christianity represented. It was itself in varying degrees, an imperfect example of the Galilean cult which was to replace it. It encouraged the movement away from the state religions and the philosophical systems and toward the desire for personal salvation and promise of immortality. Christianity was truly indebted to Mithraism for this contribution, for it had done this part of the groundwork and thus opened the way for Christian missionary work. Conclusion That Christianity did copy and borrow from Mithraism cannot be denied, but it was generally a natural and unconscious process rather than a deliberate plan of action. It was subject to the same influences from the environment as were the other cults, and it sometimes produced the same reaction. The people were conditioned by the contact with the older religions and the background and general trend of the time. Many of the views, while passing out of Paganism into Christianity were given a more profound and spiritual meaning by Christians, yet we must be indebted to the source. To discuss Christianity without mentioning other religions would be like discussing the greatness of the Atlantic Ocean without the slightest mention of the many tributaries that keep it flowing. BIBLIOGRAPHY {2} Cumont, Franz, The Mysteries of Mithra, The Open Court Publishing Co., Chicago, 1910. Dhalla, M. N., History of Zoroastrianism, Oxford University Press N. Y., 1938 pp. 183-192. {4)} Dill, Samuel, Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Macmillan and Co., 1905, pp. 585-626. {5)} Enslin, Morton S., Christian Beginnings, Harper and Brothers Publishers N. Y. and London, 1938, pp. 186-200. {(8)} Halliday, W. R., The Pagan Background of Early Christianity, The University Press of Liverpool, London, N.D., pp. 281-311. {10)} Moore, George F., History of Religions, Vol. 1, Charles Scribner's Sons, N.Y., 1913, pp. 357-405, 592-602. THDS. MLKP-MBU: Box 113, folder 19. Back to Top © The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr. http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/papers/vol1/491123-A_Study_of_Mithraism.htm
Whenever people ask me, 'hey, you know what you should do? I always say 'What? Buy a monkey?'
Noone, i believe i owe you an apology for calling you evil, not that i don't think we are all evil at times, including myself. I share some of your concerns and critical views of "churchianity." Many so-called Christians are afraid to think and re-read the Bible to determine what it really teaches and find truth/facts which differ from church dogma upsetting. These fearful ones can be harsh and condeming when people like you bring up so many questions. I have been the receipient of church folks' condemnation for my questioning who have driven me away from the church, but not from Christ Jesus. Jesus said His disciples would be known by their love in action. Fortunately for you there is Zipporah and Starwind who have taken the time to answer your questions. I think it would help you to clarify your own thinking if you separated your conserns as Bible-sourced and church-sourced as it is clear to most of us that the church through the ages has adulturated many of the Bible's teachings and it would not be fair to blame the Bible for the way some have misused it. Also, there is a process of maturity one goes though in willingness to submit to the authroity of God who speaks through Scripture via the Holy Spirit. In the end, whatever we believe is not going to be 100% correct as each of us is growing in our understanding. What saves us is God's grace and our choice in accepting it, not perfect knowledge and being 100% correct. It is good to question and good to have the freedom to question. I'm grateful to God that two here, Zip and Star, are loviing and patient enough and knowledgeable enough to answer your questions.
That was a very nice thing to say.. And although sometimes possibly some's beliefs may be shocking to us.. or make some uncomfortable.. I think we can reject what those beliefs are and still not reject the person.. Jesus at times could be quite harsh.. but it was to those such as the Pharisees who were held to a higher standard.. Luke 12:48, “For everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”..
To err is human ... to forgive is "divine" ! No Problem !
Surprising? Maybe for someone looking to butress conspiracy theories, but certainly not to most bible students. Further, "Adam" in Hebrew means 'red or ruddy' and is usually thought to refer to his complexion.... so what? white or red/ruddy are descriptions of visual complexion, much like calling someone 'redhead' or 'blonde' or 'brunette', and clearly not sufficiently distinct genetically so as to permit race or tribe identification or exclusion. And the descendants of Rachel & Leah (with Jacob) are the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulon, Joseph & Benjamin. Judah is in the lineage of Christ (genetically thru Mary) and not one of the lost tribes. So even if you're trying to draw some inferrence that Jesus Christ was descended of a ruddy/white complected tribe and because caucasians are ruddy/white complected thus Christ was not a Jew is patently illogical: All liars are terrorizing the world, not just Jewish liars. Quite the contrary: If you want to argue that Israel (the modern political nation) is not conducting itself in accord with the Torah, that they lie and manipulate and don't trust God, you're right. But then who is not lying and manipulating these days? Jews and Gentiles can be liars and liars can be Jewish or not. The existance of the political state (the nation) of Israel is not a fraud. It is the nation God prophecied He would restore. How many residents of Israel (which includes "Palestinians", Arabs, Gentiles, etc) trace their lineage from Abraham only God knows - certainly neither you nor I nor Willie Martin know. But, yes it is the focal point of WWIII - God said it would be. A great deal of your confusion stems from what you just did. You conflate biblical issues of fact or history with how individuals chose to behave (preaching, politics, lies, etc). You will never understand the bible if you don't separate what people choose to do from what God said they should do. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Actually, you do. The bible tells you Jesus did not have any descendants. Were Jesus to have any, there'd be a mention of marriage, a bride, a birth, etc. What is mentioned is Jesus' "Bride" is in fact the church and His marriage is the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19). But, if you're about to argue Jesus fathered illegitimate children in secret, out of wedlock, that would be a sin, would it not? Would you not then be arguing that not only was Jesus not a Jew, but he was not sinless either? Is that your position? Also, in your post #115, you replied to my post #77, but you lead off with an indented italicized phrase: It gave the appearance you were quoting me, and I never said such. I know it was unintentional. I'm asking that you take greater care in composing your replies to my posts so as to not give the appearance of misquoting me.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Amen. This is what the work of the Holy Spirit looks like. Repentance. Thank you as well for the kind words. How long the patience lasts remains to be seen. Even the Holy Spirit said He would not strive with man forever. I have far less time and perseverance.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Luke 17:21 No reading of the Old Testament god of the jews can reconcile with that declaration by the Logos, God Incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ. John 7:28,29 Jesus is saying that the God who sent Him is not only different from the God of the Jews, but that He is in fact unknown to them.
Awake thou that sleepest
The geneology that is plainly stated in Genesis 10:3 makes it perfectly clear that todays "so-called" Jews aren't semetic, aren't descendants of Abraham and are nothing less than trespassers against Palestine ... and that they are the primary force fucking up a peaceful world ! There's my worldview ... quit trying to protect the phoney Jews !
But then Gen 10:3 was never intended to establish the geneology of Israel (Jacob). But you already knew that. Nonetheless, you have (in a stunning display of illogic) cherry-picked the geneology of the ashkenazi, and with a wave of your hand assert that has some bearing on the modern political nation Israel as re-established by the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the Weizman-Faisal Agreement of 1919 as well as subsequent UN resolutions. You ignore (because it doesn't fit your world-view) 1Ch 1:1-34 and Gen 35:22-26 wherein the genology of Israel (not the Ashkenazi) is established. More of that restraint with which you wish to be treated?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Israel as re-established by the Balfour Declaration ... The actual "Israelites" (unless of course they happen to be Americans and Great Britains) aren't the driving force behind the State of Israel and the genocide of Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghanis ... Ashkenazi Jews are key ! I said it earlier and will repeat it for the "not so attentive" it's less important to me who are the lost tribes of Israel as it is to point out that the people trespassing in Israel today, and by so doing are creating the atmosphere for WW III, which will include American kids 18 years old and up, are Mongol converts with NO ETHNICAL CLAIM to Jerusalem/Palestine or any justification to oust the prior residents. "Israel as (re-) established by the Balfour Declaration" you're a dreamer, The Balfour Proclamation was nothing more than a letter from Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild agreeing to support the fraud that Rothschild was intent upon foisting on the world ... later actually mandated by the UN ... I don't know about you but I have a hard time with Rothschild and the UN ... I suppose you support them ! By the way "Brit" "ain" in Hebrew means Covenant Land ... "Brit" "Ish" means covenant man ... and Longshanks, King Edward the 1st was a direct descendant of JUDAH !
God "can't predict a fraud ... I beg to differ. It's hard to conclude that it is anything less than a fraud when the people claiming the land were NEVER promised anything, aren't related to Abraham or his covenant with God, yet claim it regardless of their political bent. Jews against Zionism act as if they are ethnically related to Abraham ... and if they are of the Ashkenazi lineage they are NIMRODS descendants, not Jacob / Israel's ... and the land was given as an heriditary gift to Abraham and HIS SEED forever ... however, the Word says they will dwell in the tents of Shem ... and they do ... most inconveniently for everyone in the tent I might add. Moses was never a Jew ... quit trying to imagine it in your fantasy world view ... hahahahaha !!! There was no Talmud nor Synagogue before the 2nd Captivity ... (I am dutifully restraining myself ... from laughing out loud !)
The Bible depicts Gog and Magog as paired figures representing Satan. It predicts that a ruler (Gog) of the land of people from the north (Magog) would be involved in the final conflict against God's people. It could be said that Ariel Sharon, the son of immigrant Russian parents, i.e., Khazar Jews, fits the Gog profile.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
Same here, what if your government turns evil? It also seems contradictory what Mark says and what Paul says.
There were few or no prior residents in 1917, 1919, even 1948. The so called "palestinians" came to Israel well after 1948 when it became economically attractive for them to do so (they came for jobs in the economy the Jews were creating), and after it became clear their Arab brethen weren't about to give them a homeland in the transjordan, as previously agreed. There certainly were no "palestinians" when Abraham camped in the land on Mt Moriah. There have been Jews (Judahites) living in their "promised land" since Abraham. Not all of them were removed in the exile or the even the diaspora. Israel would be largely native Judahites and Samaritans today were it not for the Roman occupation. Your oft repeated and not once substantiated assertion that modern Israel consists ethnically of mostly Ashkenazi, even if true, has zero bearing on the legitimacy of the recognized political boundaries and national sovereignty of modern Israel, whatever the 'ethnic tribe(s)' it's returnees claim as origin. Now, if it was the intention of the British, Arabs, and "Jews" to establish a political nation solely for the descendants of the ethnic tribe of "Judah" you might have an argument. But the world (British, Arabs, Weitzman, Faisal, et. al.) never intended Israel to be soley occupied by an ethnically pure population of "Judahites". That is a straw man argument you keep tossing out. Would the legitimacy of the United States be called into question if it were determined (or alleged) that only 10 percent of the original 'pilgrims' where in fact English? How many French, Spanish, German, etc settlers would be needed to overturn the US Declaration of Independence? What if the native "indians" weren't native to the land but were Asian and came across the bearing strait? What is the basis on which you assert an ethnic prerequisite to a political nation's sovereignty, and then on what basis do you apply that only to Jews and Israel? Lastly, you show a marked mistrust and disbelief of God's ability to bring about His prophecy of a restored Israel. The political nation exists again. The population is returning from around the world. Who are you to declare the prophecy as fulfilled and now time to check God's work? Were someone actually able to genetically test the ethnicity of the growing Israeli population for whatever the 12 tribes are (genetically), I believe when the prophecy is fulfilled, it would be shown that God in fact regathered "Israel" and while Ashkenazi might reside in the population, that is no different than when Caananites and Egyptians and Greeks, etc resided amongst the Israelites as well. Is Israel the focal point for WWIII? Absolutely, as previously pointed out, it has been foretold. Did God screw up and mistake the Ashkenazi for His chosen people? Not likely. There are lots of reasons to mistrust our "Christian" and "Jewish" leaders, but the Ashkenazi successfully conspiring to usurp Jacob's blessing isn't one of them. Picking up now from your post #131: You have now for me fully demonstrated your lack of understanding of God, Christ, or the bible. You have yet to establish any basis that a false claim has been made, other than your deliberate cherry-picking out of context the geneology of Ashkenazi. Nowhere have you established that the Ashkenazi in fact comprise modern Israel, nor that there is any ethnic prerequisite for a modern political nation's sovereignty or legitimacy. That's the argument you'd like to have, but it isn't the one you've been given. In OT terms, Moses was an Israelite, a Hebrew, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Levi. He was the forerunner Levitical Priest. The synagogue was established after the destruction of the Herodian Temple, 'substitutes' for the absent Temple, and is the "hall of meeting" but without sacrifices and the ark present (obviously). The Rabbi likewise 'substitutes' for the levitcal priest. Again you conflate what modern Judaism does as opposed to what OT scripture recorded; as if what Jews do today changes in any respect who Moses was.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
This brings to mind our present day culture. Anything of a spritual nature is put down as 'kookery'.
One must take care to discern the spirits. We battle not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities. Not everything spiritual is kookery, agreed. But not everything spiritual is good or truthful either.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
The other day I was reading some very old letters written from Ireland to a family member who moved to America in the early 1800s. The letters were from various family members. Reading through those letters there was much mention of God, which made it very obvious that this particular family at least was very spiritual and it seemed very important to them that they stay on the good side of God. I thought to myself that if people were to read those letters today, they would have thought those people were fanatics! Our modern culture at least from what I see appears to have a distain for God and the bible. It's put down in movies and tv shows with implications that bible believers are somehow deranged or are just in it for the money. I think this is a disturbing trend, and I fear that if this country turns it's back on God, God will turn his back on this country as we are now a very sinful nation.
Mosas was a Hebrew. Do you know the relationship of Hebrews with Jews? Why do you constantly bring in the state of Israel to scorn (many of us here decry the politics in Israel as we do in the PLO)? What does the political entity known as the state of Israel have to do with the Israelites in the Bible? What does any of this have to do with your belief that Jesus is not a Jew? What are you really angry about? Is it that Jesus is a Jew and you hate what the Jews in present-day Israel are doing to the Palestinians? I have a hard time following your quarrel with the Bible, the Church, history of the Hebrews and the current events. I could be wrong, as i have many times before, but i will venture an observation about your line of questioning that i admit greatly irritates me---it wanders all over the globe and throughout all histroy and never lands on any point long enough to either reach agreement or demonstrate a rational reason for disagreement, IMO. It seems you have an axe to grind and are determined to grind it on whatever is whithin your grasp. This is not the kind of discussion i can take seriously, though i will contend for the faith and the essential tenets of the faith that are not a matter of opinion or fancy but fundatmental and worth dying to proclaim/defend. Jesus was a Jew or He could not have fulfilled the numerous biblical prophesies. This is not my opinion, but either Jesus was a Jew/Hebrew or the Bible is unrealiable and, yes, we all wrestle with the many and wonderful biblical paradoxes. The Bible doesn't suit any of us perfectly and there are many sections that we serious and honest seekers find troubling/disturbing/puzzling/confusing. But we honest ones admit our feelings/attitudes/hard questions and DO NOT REWRITE HISTORY to suit our mindset. I am wondering if you would answer a simple and fundamental question---Why do you want Jesus to not be a Jew? Why is that important to you? Thank you very much in advance for answering this question.
Christ said to the Jews, in the 23rd chapter of Matthew, verses 33-35: "You serpents, you generation (race) of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore behold I send you a prophet, wise men and scribes and some of them you shall kill and crucify and some of them you shall scourge in your synagogues and persecute them from city to city that upon you may come all the righteous blood that has ever been shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel" Neither of those statements is contexturally accurate. The first passage is a lecture, in verse 37, Jesus says "I know that you are Abraham's decendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you." Looking at it from the whole of the passages, you can easily see that Jesus is only referring to the devil as their father figuratively from the standpoint of their sin and blindness to righteousness. In the second, from the NKJV, the passage is "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? It is in a speech to Scribes and Pharisees, essentially the religious bureaucracy of the time. These people were being chastised because they utilized the trappings of being God's representatives to hold themselves above others and for their enrichment. There's nothing about race in there unless you are adding to the Bible after the fact, and you don't want to do that...
Metus improbos compescit, non clementia.
Abraham had Isaac (and other children) by Sarah, Isaac had Jacob and "ESAU" by Rebecca. ESAU built Edom ie., Edomites. Scripture tells us that God hated Esau in his mothers womb before he was born. The reference of Christ could possibly be to these descendants of Abraham. The Book of Obadiah further expresses God's hatred for the Edomites as it is the only place where God says: Vengeance is mine" ! Combined with other references ... I think he was being literal, however I also think there are cloudy areas related to geneologies that may go unexplained, many so-called "Jews" are messianic so they hear his words and his words do have a place in them. My primary concern is this abomination called the State of Israel and the blind support evangelicals give it when it has no substantive basis for existing and is central to the middle-east problems.
1st I have no axe to grind. I seek to know the truth, it's really that simple. Hebrews and Israelites are one and the same. Jews are something altogether different. The teachings of the Hebrews/Israelites are so far removed from Talmudic bile it seems obvious to me that they couldn't have been proferred by the same God. Secondly, Jesus admonishes the Pharisees repeatedly for teaching the Traditions of "men" (a reference to the Traditions of the Elders or Babylonian Talmud). Two different fruits don't grow on the same tree, nor do two different sets of laws and principles come from the same God. The God of the Israelites isn't a hypocrit. Jesus advised us to test the fruit of the tree whether it be good or bad ... Talmudic Judaism is filth, it is the most bigoted trash ever recorded, and makes everyone other than Jews equal to cattle. Jesus wasn't of this nature or character.
From left to right: William Kristol, Richard Perle, Ari Fleischer, Israeli Prime Minister and Mass-Murderer Ariel Sharon, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith Awake thou that sleepest
Hey, our true government.
If you love America, you'll hate Israel.
Christ said to the Jews, in the 23rd chapter of Matthew, verses 33-35: "You serpents, you generation (race) of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore behold I send you a prophet, wise men and scribes and some of them you shall kill and crucify and some of them you shall scourge in your synagogues and persecute them from city to city that upon you may come all the righteous blood that has ever been shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel" I don't believe that I posted the quotes above, even though they have validity when compared to other scripture. There is another scripture that refernces Cain as being "OF THAT WICKED ONE" ... and Genesis 5 doesn't mention Cain or Abel as descendants of Adam ... possibly because Abel was dead (murdered) and Cain wasn't his son.
(2). There have been Jews (Judahites) living in their "promised land" since Abraham. Not all of them were removed in the exile or the even the diaspora. Israel would be largely native Judahites and Samaritans today were it not for the Roman occupation. (3). Your oft repeated and not once substantiated assertion that modern Israel consists ethnically of mostly Ashkenazi, even if true, has zero bearing on the legitimacy of the recognized political boundaries and national sovereignty of modern Israel, whatever the 'ethnic tribe(s)' it's returnees claim as origin. Now, if it was the intention of the British, Arabs, and "Jews" to establish a political nation solely for the descendants of the ethnic tribe of "Judah" you might have an argument. (4). But the world (British, Arabs, Weitzman, Faisal, et. al.) never intended Israel to be soley occupied by an ethnically pure population of "Judahites". That is a straw man argument you keep tossing out. (5). Did God screw up and mistake the Ashkenazi for His chosen people? Not likely. (6). You have yet to establish any basis that a false claim has been made, other than your deliberate cherry-picking out of context the geneology of Ashkenazi. Nowhere have you established that the Ashkenazi in fact comprise modern Israel, nor that there is any ethnic prerequisite for a modern political nation's sovereignty or legitimacy. (7). Again you conflate what modern Judaism does as opposed to what OT scripture recorded; as if what Jews do today changes in any respect who Moses was. (1). So who did the UN Forces attack and kill in 1948 ... Ghosts ? (2). Agreed (Judahites not Ashkenazi Eastern European wannabe Jews) And I'll even agree that the Arabs and Judahites lived peaceably prior to the Ashkenazi Invasion. (3). The Ten Northern Tribes were taken in the 1st Captivity and NEVER RETURNED TO PALESTINE/JERUSALEM. [See 2nd Esdras (Ezra) and Josephus writes that the Romans only collected Tax from two Tribes ...Judah and Benjamin). (4). I have never made that argument. (5). Most definitely not ... He described them in Revelations 2:9 and 3:9 as the Synagogue of Satan, that say they are JEWS but are not, but DO LIE. (6). Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of modern Jewry knows that 90% of them are Ashkenazi Jews as can be found in the Encyclopedia Judaica. (7). You have a hard time understanding that todays Jews were religious converts to Judaism around 740-750 A.D. ... They were not ethnically Israelites or related to the people of Moses day that were led out of Egypt. The truth is that you need to do some historical study of the Ashkenazi Jews, who are predominant among the people calling themselves Jews today at a 90% to 10% factor. Most of the information related to modern Jewry is in the Jewish Encyclopedia, however there are many other sources. I have done the research and am certain of the facts related to the Ashkenazi Jews, and that they descended from another lineage, that of the brother Japeth, and not Shem or Ham. Lastly, to compare the conquest of America to the UN IMPOSED MANDATE of the State of Israel is ludicrous. I'm not saying what happened to the Indians was right, it wasn't. The word "restore" has nothing to do with the Ashkenazi Jew inhabitants of Israel today, NOTHING !
I'm extremely busy for the next couple of days and won't likely be able to respond until Wed or maybe Thur... but I will respond.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
(1). So who did the UN Forces attack and kill in 1948 ... Ghosts ? The UN never engaged militarily in the 1948 Israeli War of Independence. On May 15, 1948 (eaxctly one day after the British Palestinian Mandate ended) the surrounding 5 countries of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and TransJordan attacked Israel. The Israeli Defense Force defended against and defeated all five attacking armies. It was not Israel or the UN attacking the residents of the land. It was 5 neighbors attacking Israel. Further, prior to the attack, the 'arab' countries had been broadcasting radio messages into Israel telling the 'muslim/arabs' to leave so they would be out and thus allowing the attacking armies a clearer field of fire on their Israeli targets. The fleeing muslim/arabs were promised they could return afterwards and have whatever of the Jew's property hadn't been destoyed. But the attackers lost, and then the muslim/arab refugees claimed they were driven out by the Israelis and demanded to return. These so called refugees numbered about 400, 000. The Ottoman Turks denuded the land of 97% of its trees and vegetation in the18th centrury for construction materiel to build the trans-Arabian railroad. Mark Twain, visiting in 1867, described it in Innocents Abroad as 60;A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. ... We never saw a human being on the whole journey.61; The British Palestine Consul in 1857 described it as 60;The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population70;61; Ottoman Turk 1882 census figures of 1882 reported only 141,000 Muslims, both Arab and non-Arab for the entire land. That desolate land is what the Jews wanted back, and in 1919 Great Britain and Faisal agreed. (2). Agreed [that there have been Jews (Judahites) living in their "promised land" since Abraham. Not all of them were removed in the exile or the even the diaspora. Israel would be largely native Judahites and Samaritans today were it not for the Roman occupation.] (Judahites not Ashkenazi Eastern European wannabe Jews) And I'll even agree that the Arabs and Judahites lived peaceably prior to the Ashkenazi Invasion. You are on record now as agreeing that there have been Jews (Judahites) living in their "promised land" since Abraham. Not all of them were removed in the exile or the even the diaspora. And I'll even agree that the Arabs and Judahites lived peaceably prior to the Ashkenazi Invasion. But you'd be wrong. Until about 1939, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, lead and incited local Arabs in rebellion against the British and attacking the local Jews. There was the Jerusalem pogrom of 1920; Jaffa/ Hurani riots of 1921; riots in Hebron killed 67 Jews in 1929; and then a country wide uprising (like the intifada) from 1936-1939 targeting both Jews and British. (3). The Ten Northern Tribes were taken in the 1st Captivity and NEVER RETURNED TO PALESTINE/JERUSALEM. [See 2nd Esdras (Ezra) and Josephus writes that the Romans only collected Tax from two Tribes ...Judah and Benjamin). The points you and Willie Martin continually avoid is that: Further, Revelation 7 clearly states that God will seal 144,000 from the 12 tribes, so God has preserved at least a remnant and God through Ezekiel has said the 12 tribes would be restored to the land. God has re-established the country Israel, and is bringing back the people Israel. As previously noted, you are in no position to declare God's plan complete (or incomplete because some actual descendants of Ashkenaz might live in Israel). (4). I have never made that argument. [that the British, Arabs, Weitzman, Faisal, et. al. never intended Israel to be soley occupied by an ethnically pure population of "Judahites".] Then can we expect you to stop broad brushing all of Israel with your " ashkenaz" paint, and acknowledge that the country Israel is legitimate and that within it's population (along with some possible descendants of Ashkenaz) are rightful descendants of the 12 tribes? (5). Most definitely not ... He described them in Revelations 2:9 and 3:9 as the Synagogue of Satan, that say they are JEWS but are not, but DO LIE. Then by your definition anyone not a Judahite is not a Jew and thus is of the Synagogue of Satan, right? So, descendants of the other 11 tribes are, by your definition not a "Jew" and therefore of the Synagogue of Satan. And since Ruth was not a "Jew" by your definition but rather a Moabitess, thus Ruth too is of the Synagogue of Satan, which in turn means King David and Mary (mother of Jesus) descended from people of the Synagogue of Satan. That is where your ill-thought doctrine leads. (6). Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of modern Jewry knows that 90% of them are Ashkenazi Jews as can be found in the Encyclopedia Judaica. (7). You have a hard time understanding that todays Jews were religious converts to Judaism around 740-750 A.D. ... They were not ethnically Israelites or related to the people of Moses day that were led out of Egypt. The truth is that you need to do some historical study of the Ashkenazi Jews, who are predominant among the people calling themselves Jews today at a 90% to 10% factor. Most of the information related to modern Jewry is in the Jewish Encyclopedia, however there are many other sources. I have done the research and am certain of the facts related to the Ashkenazi Jews, and that they descended from another lineage, that of the brother Japeth, and not Shem or Ham. Some place Ashkenazi percentage closer to 80%, but regardless, the term "Ashkenaz" as used by everyone except you and Willie Martin refers to Jewish people living in Germany and Poland and would include ethnic descendants of the lost tribes as well possibly as descendants from Ashkenaz. You, however, keep equating the geocultural group "Ashkenazi" with exclusively meaning having descended from Ashkenaz of Gen 10:3. No one is arguing where the lost tribes settled. Even you admitted they "NEVER RETURNED TO PALESTINE/JERUSALEM" but you can't quite seem to grasp that these descendants lived also in Germany, Poland, Europe (in fact scattered worldwide by now - that's why they're called the "lost tribes") and are also called (by you and the world) as Ashekanzi because of where they settled, even though they did not descend from Ashkenaz. Not all so called "Ashkenazi" actually descended from Ashkenaz. I have done the research and am certain of the facts related to the Ashkenazi Jews, and that they descended from another lineage, that of the brother Japeth, and not Shem or Ham. This 'certainty' from the same guy who also has "researched" that Jesus was not a Jew, and also confuses white caucasians as descendants of Jacob/Israel (post #72), so seemingly you don't who Gentiles are either, and that God can't predict a fraud and Moses was never a Jew (post #131) - lol. I doubt you have done anything more than repost Willie Martin's screed (yes, your post #39 and the main article are the exact same). You certainly have not not posted any research. And you have not provided any proof that only descendants of Ashkenaz lived in Germany, Poland, Europe etc, and that while you acknowledge the lost tribes for the most part didn't return to Israel (many Samaritans clearly returned), you blindly assume for the convenience of your argument that none of them settled with the Ashkenazi in German, Poland, etc. Lastly, to compare the conquest of America to the UN IMPOSED MANDATE of the State of Israel is ludicrous. I'm not saying what happened to the Indians was right, it wasn't. The word "restore" has nothing to do with the Ashkenazi Jew inhabitants of Israel today, NOTHING ! You have again entirely missed the point. Your argument is that (post #113) Israel the country is "not biblical", a "fraud" and a "phoney" state because it's residents falsely claimed Abraham's promise (aren't legitimate Jews). Your argument has been that only legitimate Jews who descended from Judah have a right to re-establish and populate Israel and since you believe such "Jews" don't exist, therefore you believe Israel the country has no right to exist. Yet you inconsistently and illogically ignore your own: You further ignore that: Throughout all of that, Israel wanted back what was theirs 4000 years ago, but they accepted what Balfour offered, which Faisal then also accepted, but which the UN then further reduced, and Israel still defended itself from 5 attacking neighbors. And even though you agree "Jews" lived there since Abraham's time, descendants of the lost tribes may return, and the modern political state of Israel was not established soley for "Jews", because some of the returnees may be descended from Ashkenaz, therefore the entire state Israel is illegitimate and none are Jews. And so I drew the analogy, asking, would the US legitimacy be questioned if it turned out the original settlers weren't all from Great Britain? But as I've illustrated, you missed the point.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
You're toooooooooo stupid to talk to.
My previous post was tooooooo simplified. You attempt to read my mind, wrongly re-state my remarks and spend too much time trying to spew vitriolic idiocy. Refusing to pick up a copy of the Encyclopdedia Judaica to establish some factual basis for your lunacy must come from the same type of non-thinking that causes you to disbelieve Biblical pronouncements or spiritualize anything you refuse to understand. You buy the State of Israel, I don't. It's pretty simple, we disagree. You say "restore" ... I say "resist" ... at some point we may all see what is really the truth.
Interesting and thanks for taking the time to give a rebuttal on this YET again.. I will say I agree with you on much but on the interpretation of Revelation is where we would not be in agreement.. IMO the book.. is the story of the church.. and is not a prophesy of future events .. and the book is allegorical. What did Paul say about Israel and an earthly kingdom? Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened... Paul was speaking of those who were chosen.. and who are called chosen under the new covenant? Christians. The hope of Israel as spoken under both the old and new covenants was the resurrection not some earthly kingdom but a heavenly one.. which reigns in the heart of those who are of Him.. 'chosen' by Him.. those that the holy spirit resides in.. Paul addressed this ..for even then there were those who wanted to return to the law.. Gala. 2:13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? 2:19"For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. 2:20"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. and Galatians 5:3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, R205 that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. Jesus was the fulfillment of the law.. and on the cross He said..it is finished.. of what was he speaking? The fulfillment of all the prophesies..the fulfillment of God's great plan of salvation for all of mankind. So then a return to sacrifices would not a return to all that Christ had died to fulfill would that not be blasphemous? Would it not be saying that Christ's death and resurrection were not good enough?
Appreciate your research in rubutting noone222, who has behaved like a troll on this tread, writing nonsense and lies to get people worked up. He has resorted to name calling and has run away from your arguments which he has entirely mischaracterized. He obviously has a deep hatred for Jews and confuses the country of Israel with the Jews throughout the Bible. His unintelligent comments are extensions of his distored views and only like-minded trolls would take his ridiculous statement that "Jesus is not a Jew" seriously. I will not be checking back on this tread anymore as noone222 is obviously not a serious seeker of truth/facts but is a misguided and driven idealogue.
Of course not, he was a Hindu!
You continue to miss the point. You must be working at it. Refusing to pick up a copy of the Encyclopdedia Judaica to establish some factual basis for your lunacy must come from the same type of non-thinking that causes you to disbelieve Biblical pronouncements or spiritualize anything you refuse to understand. I have read the E.J. on the issue of the Ashkenazim. I agree with it as far as it goes, but it is old information as well as too narrow in its applicability to this discussion. Yes, the descendants of Japeth/Gomer/Ashkenaz settled in/around Germany (Gomer), Poland and Europe and the name " Ashkenazi" is derived from Gen10:3 and is associated with their geographic area and ethinc group. A number of other sources concur. But that only establishes what happened to the descendants of Askenaz. It has no bearing on who moved in later amongst them (because they had the same migratory choices, mostly northward out of Babylon) and who later still moved to Israel. The E.J. material is silent on Lost Tribe descendants living among the Ashkenazi (as it should be since at the time it was written there were no other facts and the E.J. is covering factual history, not biblical prophecy). That is the point you keep avoiding, studiously. The E.J. material you rely upon is accurate in so far as who the Ashkenazi are, but what you have relied upon is not relevant to whom the so called "Ashkenazi" are not. They are not the ethnically pure descendants of Ashkenaz. They have become a tribally (genetically) mixed group. The "Ashkenazi" (whom you incorrectly presume to be soley the descendants of Ashkenaz) also include descendants of the Lost Tribes or Judahites/Benjaminites who did not return after exile. Those descendants are scattered around the world ("lost"), and some of them live among the "Ashkenazi", hence you (and they) label them"Ashkenazi" as well, but mere re-labeling does not a descendant of Ashkenaz make. Lacking any research from you, here then is some of the research I draw upon: DNA Samples. We analyzed a total of 1,371 males from 29 populations. These populations were categorized into five major divisions based on a combination of geographic, religious, linguistic, and ethnohistorical criteria: Jews, Middle Eastern non-Jews, Europeans, North Africans, and sub-Saharan Africans (Table 1). The Genetic and Geographic Distances Among Populations. The "among populations" variance component (FST) for the Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Near Eastern, Kurdish, and Yemenite Jews (the lowest FST value of the five population groups analyzed in Table 2) indicated that these Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another. The Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Near Eastern, Kurdish, and Yemenite Jewish populations formed a fairly compact cluster between the North African and European groups. This Jewish cluster was interspersed with the Palestinian and Syrian populations, whereas the other Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations (Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Druze) closely surrounded it. Of the Jewish populations in this cluster, the Ashkenazim were closest to South European populations (specifically the Greeks) and also to the Turks. The Ethiopian Jews were placed close to the non-Jewish Ethiopians. The Lemba were located roughly halfway between the sub-Saharan African and Jewish clusters. When AMOVA was performed on populations grouped according to a strict geographic criterion (e.g., we categorized Ashkenazim and Roman Jews with Europeans, North African Jews with North Africans, and Near Eastern, Kurdish, and Yemenite Jews with Middle Eastern non-Jews), there was a considerable decrease in the The Med haplotype, the most frequent haplotype in Jewish communities , was also common in circum-Mediterranean populations. Its widespread distribution and relatively recent age suggest high rates of male gene flow around the Mediterranean and into Europe, possibly via the Neolithic demic diffusion of farmers (43) andyor more recent migrations of sea-going peoples such as the Phoenicians (44). Evidence for Common Jewish Origins. Several lines of evidence support the hypothesis that Diaspora Jews from Europe, Northwest Africa, and the Near East resemble each other more closely than they resemble their non-Jewish neighbors. Second, despite their high degree of geographic dispersion, Jewish populations from Europe, North Africa, and the Near East were less diverged genetically from each other than any other group of populations in this study (Table 2). The statistically significant correlation between genetic and geographic distances in our non-Jewish populations from Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa is suggestive of spatial differentiation, whereas the lack of such a correlation for Jewish populations is more compatible with a model of recent dispersal and subsequent isolation during and after the Diaspora. To address the degree to which paternal gene flow may have affected the Jewish gene pool,we estimated approximate admixture levels in our Jewish samples from Europe. This question remains unresolved in particular for the Ashkenazi community. Our results indicated a relatively minor contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim. If we assume 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, then the rate of admixture would be ,0.5% per generation (47). Interestingly, our total admixture estimate is very similar to Motulsky's (8) average estimate of 12.5% based on 18 classical genetic markers. At the most basic level, the genetic distances observed among Jewish and non-Jewish populations can be interpreted as reflecting common ancestry, genetic drift, and gene flow. The latter two processes will tend to increase genetic distances among Jewish populations, whereas admixture will also have the effect of decreasing genetic distances between Jewish and non-Jewish populations. Our results suggest that common ancestry is the major determinant of the genetic distances observed among Jewish communities, with admixture playing a secondary role. In summary, the combined results suggest that a major portion of NRY biallelic diversity present in most of the contemporary Jewish communities surveyed here traces to a common Middle Eastern source population several thousand years ago. Now you are faced with the conclusion that the so called " Ashkenazi" are in fact either: Clearly, some of the people who you label (or label themselves) " Ashkenazi" in fact descended from Abraham. The explanation consistent with scripture, science and history, is that descendants of the Lost Tribes live amongst (in Europe and world-wide) and are mislabeled "Ashkenazi", and some of these are rightfully claiming their promised land within the legitimate nation of Israel. You're toooooooooo stupid to talk to. ... and spend too much time trying to spew vitriolic idiocy. Of course since you seemingly have no facts, no research, and no argument, then personal attacks (in your otherwise content-free posts) are all you've got.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
genetic descedants of Abraham (like the descendants of Ishmael - the Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Druze); or; a mislabled mixture of descendants of both Ashkenaz and of the Lost Tribes I believe both are possibilities. The first conclusion could, and the Bible expresses support for the Abrahamic descent through Isaac's son "ESAU" which is admitted in the Jewish Encyclopedia. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that modern Jewry are primarily descended from Edom (Edomites). So there isn't any argument between the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Bible on that note. The second conclusion is possible but I don't think it can be proven yet. The Ten Northern Tribes had split from Judah/Benjamin prior to their captivity, and never returned to Palestine/Jerusalem ... and there must have been an historical/religious animosity that would have prevented them from a societal compact for an extended period. A very interesting and odd comment in Matthew regarding the sons (2) of Judah, Pharez and Zara, gets more interesting when you begin to analyze their descendants. The sons of Zara are mentioned in Scripture as being as wise as Solomon and they even wrote some of the Psalms. The sons of Zara were the founders of such cities as Athens, Nineveh and Troy. And though Zara was of the Judahite lineage, he and his descendants being the sceptre and lawmaking lineage under the promise to Judah went with the Northern Tribes at the time of the split, while the Pharez line stayed with the Southern Tribes. It is known that some of the Northern Tribes fought as mercenaries for the Medes against Judahites, as it is also known that Darius, king of the Medes, captured the people that he called Galations or Gauls, but they called themselves Keltoi (Celts) in 500 B.C. There is plenty of room for mistaken identities. There were 12 Tribes (actually 13 if you count Ephraim and Mannasseh who were adopted by Jacob and blessed together) yet we have people alleging to be Judahites (Jews) that can only (possibly) claim heritage in one Tribe claiming all of Jerusalem that was originally divided 12 ways. There has never been grounds for the establishment of the State of Israel either Biblically or secularly.
The truth of the matter is this.. none of this matters one whit.. for the scripture tells us in Gal. 3:28 There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. and in Col 3:11 - Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all. God is interested in our spiritual condition..
What do you suppose God thinks of the wholesale slaughter of innocent people in Palestine and other areas of the middle-east that are paid for by Americans, carried out by Americans, for the benefit of the Israelis ... ho hum, just another spiritual lesson for the goyim ! Maybe it's spiritual as long as it's someone elses kid that gets his brains blown out ...
Someone committing a sin such as murder is a spiritual issue..
OK, so some thug is about to murder your kid ... you gonna pray for the son of a bitch before you shoot him or for his soul ??? Get Real Zip ! Americans aren't just spiritually dead when they willingly support the murderous Israelis, they are mentally ill pussies without the guts to tell the government to go fuck itself !
Yes, I presumed we would disagree on our respective interpretations of Daniel's 70th week, Ezekiel's prophecies for Israel & Temple, and the 1000-year reign. I anticipate a series of threads to explore these differences and viewpoints, but not this thread, as the above topics warrant their own threads. This question I did want to mention briefly so as to preempt confusion. I agree Christ's death and resurrection were entirely adequate, once and for all, and not to be repeated. More over, (assuming an Ezekiel Temple & practices and Israel restored during the 1000 year reign) if one compares the Levitical sacrifices with the Ezekiel sacrifices, a major notable difference is that there are no "guilt" sacrifices under the Ezekiel system. It is the spiritual guilt for which Christ was the substitute Lamb of God. The other sacrifices are essentially tithes & offerings, worship and confession, and equivalents continue today in Christian churches and I would expect these other sacrifices to continue in the Ezekiel Temple. Further assuming (as I would argue in a future thread) that Christ reigns during the 1000 years and Israel is restored to land (fulfilling the OT promises), Christ is the Prince of Ezekiel 45 & 46, etc as well as Lord and Savior of all, and that as both Prince and Lamb of God, rather than offer Himself as the guilt sacrifice yet again annually for a 1000 years (which would indeed be blasphemous) instead He will reveal and reiterate that as Savior He already provided that Guilt sacrifice, some 2000 years earlier but now was Israels' 'season' to look upon the one whom they pierced and learn and accept Jesus as Savior and substitutionary sacrifice. So, even in my Millennial view of a literal Ezekiel Temple and Israel restored for 1000 years, Christ's sacrifice was sufficent and once and for all, and the differences in the Ezekiel sacrifices vs the Levitical sacrifices reveal just that.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I anticipate a series of threads to explore these differences and viewpoints, but not this thread, as the above topics warrant their own threads. If Jesus was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets then why would He in fact need to? This was completed on the cross and with the resurrection.. And I agree.. re this thread.. as this is a complex subject and too much confusion w/the original topic..
IMO your biases are clouding your ability to look beyond those biases..
Whenever pointing the fickle finger of faulty forecasting in one direction, one must be aware that there a thrice as many pointing back at oneself !
Yes, but Israel doesn't know (or accept) that yet. They will come to see that Jesus was indeed the fulfillment of the law and the prophets for Israel as well, and they will come to see this during the Millennial reign when God fulfills all His promises to Israel, in and under Jesus.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
PMS ... the real problem with Religion !!!
Neither does anyone else who is lost.. until they HS has 'chosen' them..
Now this IS rather humorous.. John 9:41
Agreed. But we now seem to be discussing the timing of the HS 'choosing' and my literal millennial interpretation is that much this HS 'choosing' God timed and predestined for Israel the nation (as opposed to individual believers like the NT Jews) for the 1000 year reign.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
This is basically the crux of our differences in scriptural interpretation..
hmm .. a misogynist perhaps?
Yes. Much pivots on the hermeneutic one chooses and consistently applies. I hope to offer some facts to persuade you to question your allegorical interpretations and reconsider a more literal view. :) By the way, regarding your views of election and freewill, do you consider yourself a Calvinist (and if so on all 5 points?), Arminian, both/neither/other, what? I'd 'label' myself a Berean and find I disagree somewhat with nearly all Calvinist and Arminian doctrines, believing the truth is in between them. Dr. Norman Geisler (a Calvinist) wrote "Chosen but Free" and comes closest to what I think the bible actually says.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Certainly someone filled with a great deal of bitterness and hatred...varying only by whoever seems to be in the line of fire.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Hmm if I would chose between the two, I would say Arminian.. but I would say I as well would be more aptly described as Berean in my view.. for scripture does interpret itself.. as I've said before.. the old is the new concealed the new is the old revealed.
so I've come to see..
Today's jews are not blood descendants of Jacob. They are Khazars. After the 2nd destruction of the temple, the jews were almost annihilated. In the eighth century, there were mass conversions to judaism in the kingdom of Khazar (pre- Russia) . Before then the khazars were pagan tribes, practicing shaamanism and witchcraft among other rituals. Khazars, who make up 95% of the jewish population today mistakenly think they are actual israelites. They are not. They are Khazar converts. Key word descendants of CONVERTS. Not racially connected to Jacob.
Good for you, rachel. You have been studying. I have not seen you here before. Welcome to 4. ;0)
"But what is Hope? Nothing but the paint on the face of Existence; the least touch of truth rubs it off, and then we see what a hollow-cheeked harlot we have got hold of." Lord Byron
(rant) That child would be a new American citizen, free to use our health care system as needed. The same social benefit would apply to Mama and whoever the father might be. As the child grows, housing, food, medical care and an education will be provided. Should job training be needed, that too will be offered in his/her native tongue, courtesy of the American taxpayer. This is a real big problem, unless one is an adherent to the open border/North American Union philosophy which some here are. As the argument over who are the true agents of God bounces back and forth, our nation is being invaded by illegal aliens, Bush has killed over 650,000 innocent Iraqis and our local police departments have become federalized. Some people we know are in prison for merely filing papers in a court. Exactly what or who is the real Whore of Babylon will mean nothing when you appear before a judge who ignores the constitution thereby making all legal arguments put forward moot. I hold NO hope of our side ever unifying as long as religion has us spinning around like tops. Marx sure was prophetic on that matter. (/rant)
and this is the plan of the PTB..to keep us arguing amongst ourselves *issues* as they move forward with break neck speed the destruction of our country's sovereignty.
Divide, conquer, rule. It's working as planned.
So much rationalization and psyops bullshit, in my opinion. His parents were being taxed as Jews when they went to Bethelehem, Jesus taught in the Temple, the "Last Supper" was a Passover celebration; etc. This is on par with arguing that Auschwitz was a myth.
I don't "get" this one either. Just like total denial of any genocide during WWII, these sorts of fringe ideas do more to help the fringe that wants us all in prison for asking questions.
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." Just a lot of distraction of energy, I guess. I don't know that many "Christians" wo are in tune with the Jewish lineage of Jesus - they prefer not to think about it. I tease a lot of Christians about the need to first be Jewish, before being "Christian." They usually look at me as insane, then break the conversation.
And I believe 100% that a plane hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11th... So there! /chuckle
This common crowd, is much too loud.
St. Matthew's Gospel certainly seems to have been written to make the point that Jesus was the fulfillment of Judaism.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
#2. To: fatidic, Itisa1mosttoolate (#1)
#3. To: NOLAJBS (#2)
#4. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)
"The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body."
#5. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)
#6. To: NOLAJBS, Ittalmosttoolate (#2)
#7. To: fatidic (#6)
It comes down to either choosing to believe those who make claims that Jesus wasn't a Jew or believing the Bible.
#8. To: fatidic (#6)
I think the reason the two genologies differ is that one is for Mary and the other is for Joseph.
#9. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, noone222, fatidic, Zipporah (#7)
I think the reason the two genologies differ is that one is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. ... for one reveals his Davidic genealogy through Mary.. and the other through Joseph, for as Joseph was his adoptive father and according to the Law Jesus would also receive inheritance through Joseph.
Further, Jesus' Jewish heritage was recognized by both Pilate and the Pharissee's as recorded by Josephus, an extra-biblical contemporary historian:
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Book 18: 3.3: [63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Pilate was the Roman procurator of Judea and accordingly was the only authority who could command/enforce a death sentance for a crime. But Pilate recognized the religious authority of the Pharisees over a fellow Jew (Jesus) whom the Pharisee's had petitioned Pilate for execution - under Jewish law. Pilate further offered the crowd (of Jews) to exchange the prisoner Barabas (also a Jew) for Jesus - a Jew for a Jew as demanded by Jews.
#10. To: Starwind (#9)
#11. To: Zipporah (#10)
What I do not understand is why it is SO important to those who take the stand that Jesus was not jewish?
#12. To: Starwind (#11)
Where Jesus is concerned, some will take any opportunity to cast doubt or obscure truth, while for other 'believers' it seems to be part of a needless and misguided interpretation that seeks to substitute the Church for Israel, and accordingly separate Jesus from Israel, so the substitution consequently 'aligns' Jesus with the Church and not Israel (again a needless and misguided interpretation).
#13. To: Zipporah (#12)
Well this is where we do disagree..
I believe that Jesus was jewish.. but I am a partial preterist..and I do not try to separate Jesus from his jewishness..
#14. To: Zipporah (#12)
#15. To: Barak, Zipporah (#14)
Somebody who calls himself a Christian and says that Jesus isn't Jewish is to be patted gently on the head and pitied.
#16. To: Starwind (#13)
I see the OT prophecies of two comings, first as the suffering/servant Messiah, second as the conquering Lord.
#17. To: Starwind, Barak (#15)
#18. To: Starwind, Zipporah (#15)
#19. To: Barak (#18)
No, I wasn't disagreeing with Zipporah; I was reinforcing her point. Or at least I intended to be.
#20. To: Barak (#18)
No, I wasn't disagreeing with Zipporah; I was reinforcing her point.
#21. To: fatidic (#6)
NOLAJBS, did you mean to call me a Nazi too?
#22. To: Barak (#14)
Somebody who calls himself a Christian and says that Jesus isn't Jewish is to be patted gently on the head and pitied.
#23. To: noone222 (#22)
Jesus was descended from the Davidic line, Jesus was of the House of Israel as well as the Tribe of Judah, and could still be non-Jewish.
While many people appear to be awakening to the thousands of years of deception and deportation of so-called Jews, they also appear to cling to false teachings and Jewish "fables" related to the heritage of modern Jewry.
The fact is, the comment quoted above is a condescending barb intended to shut the mouths of those wishing to submit a differing opinion.
#24. To: Barak (#23)
#25. To: Zipporah, Starwind, noone222 (#16)
I see them as one coming.. the suffering/servant Messiah AND the conquering Lord.. being that He conquered sin.. once and for all.. the wrath of God re sin taken out upon Himself.. and an 'escape' for those who will accept Him..
#26. To: Zipporah, Barak (#19)
No, I wasn't disagreeing with Zipporah; I was reinforcing her point. Or at least I intended to be.
#27. To: Diana (#25)
"let's have this guy take all the blame so we can go around
commiting bad acts".
#28. To: Zipporah (#27)
#29. To: Diana (#28)
Another thing, people talk about Jesus dying for our sins, as if no one else has ever died to save others, but there have been lots of people throughout history who have died so that others could live, such as countless soldiers and assorted brave souls. That's another point that has always bothered me. Okey I'll shut up now!
#30. To: Diana (#28)
#31. To: Barak (#30)
My rabbi explained it this way, without using any intimidating jargon. (Note: this is completely extra-biblical; if it doesn't help you, forget it.)
#32. To: Diana (#31)
What I don't get is how some Christians appear to think that all they have to do is believe Jesus is the son of God and then they can do whatever they want to.
#33. To: Diana (#31)
What I don't get is how some Christians appear to think that all they have to do is believe Jesus is the son of God and then they can do whatever they want to. It seems to me that if someone is sincere about being a Christian they would conduct themselves in a manner according to how the bible says we should behave. That's been a big stumbling block for me, it seems to me if a person loves God they should want to be good and do good.
#34. To: Barak (#32)
I don't think that good works will get you into Heaven, but your works spring from what you believe. As James said, "Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by what I do."
#35. To: Barak (#30)
Second, God does not decide who gets into Heaven and who doesn't. Individual people decide whether they want to have clean souls or not.
#36. To: noone222 (#7)
#37. To: Zipporah (#35)
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.. People decide themselves? What if a murderer said he had no remorse and thought his soul was clean?
#38. To: fatidic (#36)
(A). Nothing you said was relevant concerning Jesus being a Jew! Believe what ever in the hell you want but to say that Jesus wasn't a Jew because you know of know place in the Bible where it states, "Jesus was a Jew" makes you look willfully ignorant.
#39. To: fatidic (#36)
#40. To: Diana (#26)
And I'm just trying to figure it all out!
#41. To: Barak (#37)
There's a difference between thinking and being, wouldn't you say?
#42. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, All (#0)
#43. To: Don (#42)
#44. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#43)
A pregnat Mexican woman comes over the border and has a baby. What is the baby called?
#45. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#43)
A pregnat Mexican woman comes over the border and has a baby. What is the baby called?
#46. To: Don (#42)
but it is a "fact" that Jesus Christ was born a Jew.
#47. To: noone222 (#46)
#48. To: Don (#47)
So, you are saying the Bible has it wrong?
#49. To: Don (#45)
#50. To: noone222 (#48)
#51. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#49)
#52. To: Don (#51)
#53. To: Zipporah (#8)
Agreed.. for one reveals his Davidic tenealogy through Mary.. and the other through Joseph, for as Joseph was his adoptive father and according to the Law Jesus would also receive inheritance through Joseph..
#54. To: CAPPSMADNESS (#53)
Jesus WAS a Jew. And I am not at all sure why this is such a big deal.
#55. To: Zipporah (#54)
Not sure .. other than admitting that Jesus was a Jew takes issue with their world view..
#56. To: noone222 (#55)
avoids his divinity, and the whole notion of the unblemished sacrifice
#57. To: Zipporah (#56)
I absolutely disagree..
#58. To: All (#57)
#59. To: noone222 (#22)
#60. To: Zoroaster (#59)
#61. To: Zoroaster (#59)
#62. To: noone222, Itisa1mosttoolate, Zipporah, Diana, fatidic, Don, Tauzero, Barak, CAPPSMADNESS (#55)
Regarding noone222's "world view" (which he doesn't want screwed with) noone222 and Itisa1mosttoolate are posting "Christian Identity" material authored by Wille Martin, a leader of the Christian Identity cult. [Starwind: Note that CFAB is Christs Full Armor Brigade whose intent is:
Our intention here at CHRIST'S "Full Armor" Brigade, is to draw a simple comparison, and present a lineup of people (True Israel = White Christians) vs. (False Israel= Edomite/Khazar jews) for identification as the True Israel of GOD; based upon the FACTS of the case.
and note further on that page is another link to Willie Martin's CFAB page which is a duplicate of Willie Martin's The Christian Israel (Identity) Truth]
#63. To: noone222 (#38)
#64. To: fatidic (#63)
I have no more pearls for you to trample and i will not answer a fool lest he think he is wise (only in his own eyes, of course).
#65. To: Starwind (#62)
#66. To: Starwind, Zipporah (#62)
My purpose in this post was only to expose the underlying agenda in Willie Martin's writing, and provide lurkers with some links where they can review Martin's writing's for themselves. This may help to place the arguments being offered in a recognizable context.
#67. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)
One of a number of expressions Christ habitually used when disputing with the Pharisees, was "It is written in your law . . ." This in itself is just odd enough to attract the notice of someone who has been paying attention. If he had been, as everywhere alleged, a "Jew," would he not have said "It is written in THE law" - or even better yet, "It is written in OUR (mutual, common) law" ?
#68. To: Starwind (#62)
My purpose in this post was only to expose the underlying agenda in Willie Martin's writing, and provide lurkers with some links where they can review Martin's writing's for themselves.
#69. To: fatidic (#66)
There are many points of belief and conviction where honest, truth-seeking individuals can disagree based on differing understandings of biblical texts, and we can come together here to share reasons, but this vile so called "Christian" identity movement is not one of them as their fruits reveal. I would not want this forum to be identified with such movements as we are then all tainted by their hatreds and distructive agenda.
#70. To: 1776 (#67)
One of a number of expressions Christ habitually used when disputing with the Pharisees, was "It is written in your law . . ." This in itself is just odd enough to attract the notice of someone who has been paying attention. If he had been, as everywhere alleged, a "Jew," would he not have said "It is written in THE law" - or even better yet, "It is written in OUR (mutual, common) law" ?
#71. To: fatidic, Zipporah, Christine (#66)
Zipporah: One cannot follow Christ Jesus and reject His own words..for then you are following 'another' Christ..
Fatidic: best not to get sucked into a point-by-point rebuttal of their lies as you then enter their distored reality of weird presuppostions. Where will it end for as soon as you rebutt one lie, they pop up with more.
I would not want this forum to be identified with such movements as we are then all tainted by their hatreds and distructive agenda.
#72. To: Starwind (#62)
#73. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)
Christ Was Not A Jew
#74. To: Starwind (#71)
Zipporah: One cannot follow Christ Jesus and reject His own words..for then you are following 'another' Christ..
#75. To: Zipporah (#61)
Well to say this is preposterous is an understatement..
#76. To: noone222 (#74)
#77. To: noone222 (#72)
Oh yeah, Willie Martin and others believe that the caucasion people are the sole ethnic descendants of Jacob/Israel. I'm not so sure.
much evidence supports the notion that whites are his descendants.
#78. To: Zoroaster (#75)
#79. To: noone222 (#74)
So what about when He said to the Pharisees (Talmudic Rabbis) Ye are of your FATHER the DEVIL and the lusts thereof ye do
#80. To: Starwind, fatidic, noone222, Zipporah, ALL (#71)
#81. To: Zipporah (#78)
#82. To: Starwind (#79)
#83. To: christine, Zipporah (#80)
As long as each person is attempting to support their point of view with research and with the absense of personal attacks,
#84. To: Zoroaster (#81)
I don't reject Christ, just the biblical myth and dogma
#85. To: Starwind (#83)
It is the lack of civility which tears forums apart, not the diversity of views.
#86. To: Zipporah (#84)
I don't reject Christ, just the biblical myth and dogma So you say you do not reject Him but you reject His words .. this to me makes no sense..
#87. To: Zipporah, Barak (#34)
I don't think that good works will get you into Heaven, but your works spring from what you believe. As James said, "Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by what I do."
#88. To: Zipporah, Barak (#35)
To: Barak
#89. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#43)
A pregnat Mexican woman comes over the border and has a baby. What is the baby called?
#90. To: Diana (#87)
That makes sense. I think the heart has to be in the right place.
#91. To: Zoroaster (#86)
Thomas Jefferson had problems with the Bible so he wrote his own version. Perhaps, through a feeling of inadquacy, I haven't attempted such a venture
#92. To: Zipporah (#91)
Hm Jefferson had some issues of which I was not aware..
#93. To: Zipporah, Starwind, Christine (#69)
Cults come in many forms.. and I see them all as having the same problem.. whether they be Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way, the United Pentatcostal Church and even Christian Identity.. they preach another Christ another Jesus..another gospel.
#94. To: Zoroaster (#92)
42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
#95. To: 1776 (#94)
#96. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)
Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
#97. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#95)
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
#98. To: 1776 (#97)
#99. To: fatidic (#93)
Well said, and spot on, Zip. It's always about redefining Jesus and His ministry that separates Christians from cults. It is pure evil to redefine Jesus and seek to ensnare others in a system of bondage and spiritual darkness. False prophets/teachers have evil fruits always characterized by hate, bondage and fear. The so-called Christian Identity movement are hate mongers and race baiters and liars, like their father the devil.
#100. To: 1776 (#94)
#101. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#52)
#1 for all practicle purposes there is immigration laws
#102. To: Zipporah (#100)
#103. To: christine (#80)
#104. To: Starwind (#79)
But you already knew that.
#105. To: noone222 (#104)
He was speaking to the children of satan ... otherwise he was a politician ... not God. (I don't think God needs to use rhetoric to make His point.)
#106. To: Diana, Zipporah, Barak, fatidic, Christine, noone222 (#25)
#107. To: Starwind (#106)
#108. To: Zipporah (#107)
#109. To: Starwind (#106)
Life on earth is a kind of boot camp for Heaven.
#110. To: Diana, Zipporah (#28)
Another thing, people talk about Jesus dying for our sins, as if no one else has ever died to save others, but there have been lots of people throughout history who have died so that others could live, such as countless soldiers and assorted brave souls. That's another point that has always bothered me.
True there have been people who've died for others but.. those people couldnt pay the price for sin.. only a perfect person.. one without sin would be able to do so.. and only Jesus Christ who is God Himself in human form was born without sin and died without sin.. So .. God Himself paid the debt for us all..
I would add to that that Christ's sacrifice was a redemption, like that of buying a slave on an auction block.
#111. To: Diana (#109)
but when we die our souls come out of it, I realized that some time ago, time and space only exist in the physical life.
#112. To: Zipporah (#105)
Not so.. Jesus was speaking of their spiritual condition.. for what did He say? My kingdom is NOT of this world..
#113. To: Starwind (#77)
Oh yeah, Willie Martin and others believe that the caucasion people are the sole ethnic descendants of Jacob/Israel. "I'm not so sure".
#114. To: Zipporah (#76)
It is very wrong headed to take one scripture and build an entire doctrine from that
#115. To: Starwind (#77)
much evidence supports the notion that whites are his descendants.
#116. To: noone222 (#112)
#117. To: Zipporah (#116)
He called them 'blind guides':
#118. To: Zipporah (#116)
#119. To: noone222 (#118)
#120. To: noone222, zipporah (#118)
#121. To: noone222, Zipporah, Starwind (#118)
#122. To: fatidic (#121)
#123. To: fatidic (#121)
#124. To: noone222 (#113)
I further stated that I wasn't convinced that all were white or caucasions, because of the four mothers that bore Jacob's children, 2 were possibly non- white. Leah and Rachel were white, as was Rebecca the aunt of Leah and Rachel. [Here is a little surprise that can be found in "Strong's Concordance or Zondervan's dictionary of the Bible: Laban, brother of Rebecca and the father of Rachel and Leah ... Laban in the Hebrew means "white"]
Let me reiterate here that it is NOT as IMPORTANT to me who are the so-called chosen people of promise as it is to clearly point out that the people claiming to be are liars and their lie is terrorizing the entire world.
The State of Israel is not Biblical, it is a fraud because the people operating it are not descended from Abraham, and it is the focal point of WW III.
Zec 12:2-10 (NASB) "Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. (3) "It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. [...snip...] (8) "In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD before them. (9) "And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. (10) "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.
God thru Zechariah (and elsewhere) prophecies that the nations will gather against Jerusalem and God will defend Jerusalem and defeat all the nations, and Jews will look upon Jesus whom they pierced and recognize He is their Messiah. When one considers the simplicity of just taking a look at the geneology at Genesis 10/11/12 where it confirms what I am stating, and the stubborn refusal of Christians to do so in order to comply with the high priests of Baal running their church, is "willful ignorance" ...
Starwind, I would appreciate a little restraint on your part when making remarks about "MY" worldview ... until at least you have a little better knowledge of it ... PLEASE
I will show as much restraint in my answers as you show in your allegations. This may not be of consequence to this conversation but people (I don't remember exactly whom) have remarked about Moses being a "JEW" as if he were a student or adherent to Judaism. The first Synagogue in Jerusalem didn't exist until AFTER the captivity of Judah/Benjamin, and was brought back from Babylon.
Reconsider the lack of restraint you just demonstrated in arguing Moses was not "a Jew" because Jewish synogogues didn't exist in his day. Consider the ignorance demonstrated in ignoring what the 'wilderness tabernacle' was, and the stubbornness demonstrated in refusing to carefully consider the context in which the word "Jew" is used, whether an OT reference to the tribe of Judah, an NT reference to the nation Israel (largely post-exhillic Judahites), or a modern reference to an Israeli Hebrew or Jew.
#125. To: noone222 (#115)
>> This reference was to Jacob/Israel's descendants (The twelve tribes) not Jesus', as I have no way of determining whether Jesus had any descendants.
much evidence supports the notion that whites are his descendants.
#126. To: fatidic, noone222, Zipporah (#121)
Noone, i believe i owe you an apology for calling you evil, not that i don't think we are all evil at times, including myself.
I'm grateful to God that two here, Zip and Star, are loviing and patient enough and knowledgeable enough to answer your questions.
#127. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you
Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.
#128. To: Starwind (#124)
#129. To: noone222 (#128)
The geneology that is plainly stated in Genesis 10:3 makes it perfectly clear that todays "so-called" Jews aren't semetic, aren't descendants of Abraham and are nothing less than trespassers against Palestine
... and that they are the primary force fucking up a peaceful world !
#130. To: Starwind (#129)
wherein the genology of Israel (not the Ashkenazi) is established.
#131. To: Starwind (#124)
The existance of the political state (the nation) of Israel is not a fraud. It is the nation God prophecied He would restore.
#132. To: noone222 (#131)
#133. To: noone222 (#112)
While John is writng about the destruction of those accepting the Mark of the Beast being imposed upon people by some "govt" authority in Revelations, Paul is writing that we should submit to all government authority in Romans 13. This is a problem area for me.
#134. To: noone222 (#130)
[Ashkenazi Jews are] Mongol converts with NO ETHNICAL CLAIM to Jerusalem/ Palestine or any justification to oust the prior residents.
God "can't predict a fraud ...
It's hard to conclude that it is anything less than a fraud when the people claiming the land were NEVER promised anything, aren't related to Abraham or his covenant with God, yet claim it regardless of their political bent.
Moses was never a Jew ... quit trying to imagine it in your fantasy world view ... hahahahaha !!! There was no Talmud nor Synagogue before the 2nd Captivity ... (I am dutifully restraining myself ... from laughing out loud !)
#135. To: Zipporah, noone222, Starwind (#116)
They also believed in an earthly King a ruler.. because they focused so heavily on the physical they were unable to 'see' the divine, the spiritual and that Jesus had come as that King.. not an earthly King but as a spiritual King.. "my kingdom is not of this world" and yes they wanted Him dead. Because He dared to challenge them and their power was as risk for many of the people were following Him. Jesus challenged them for mainly their spiritual blindness. He called them 'blind guides':
#136. To: Diana (#135)
Anything of a spritual nature is put down as 'kookery'.
#137. To: Starwind (#136)
But not everything spiritual is good or truthful either.
#138. To: noone222, Starwind, Zipporah, Itsalmosttoolate (#131)
Moses was never a Jew ... quit trying to imagine it in your fantasy world view ... hahahahaha !!!
#139. To: noone222 (#39)
The Bible itself identifies the Jews as the seed of Cain thereby identfying Satan as their father. (John 8:44)
#140. To: Axenolith (#139)
"I know that you are Abraham's decendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you."
#141. To: fatidic (#138)
I am wondering if you would answer a simple and fundamental question---Why do you want Jesus to not be a Jew? Why is that important to you?
#142. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, wbales, Eoghan (#0)
Why they remind you of Jesus, don't they?
#143. To: 1776 (#142)
#144. To: Axenolith (#139)
The Bible itself identifies the Jews as the seed of Cain thereby identfying Satan as their father. (John 8:44)
#145. To: Starwind (#134)
(1). There were few or no prior residents in 1917, 1919, even 1948. The so called "palestinians" came to Israel well after 1948 when it became economically attractive for them to do so (they came for jobs in the economy the Jews were creating), and after it became clear their Arab brethen weren't about to give them a homeland in the transjordan, as previously agreed. There certainly were no "palestinians" when Abraham camped in the land on Mt Moriah.
#146. To: noone222 (#145)
#147. To: noone222, Zipporah, Diana, fatidic (#145)
#148. To: Starwind (#147)
Then by your definition anyone not a Judahite is not a Jew and thus is of the Synagogue of Satan, right? So, descendants of the other 11 tribes are, by your definition not a "Jew" and therefore of the Synagogue of Satan.
#149. To: Starwind (#147)
#150. To: Starwind (#147)
#151. To: Starwind (#147)
#152. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)
#153. To: noone222, Zipporah, Christine, Diana, Fatidic (#149)
Jewish samples included 115 Ashkenazim (Ash),
amount of variation partitioned among groups (Table 3, part C). 
#154. To: Starwind (#153)
Now you are faced with the conclusion that the so called " Ashkenazi" are in fact either:
#155. To: noone222 (#154)
#156. To: Zipporah (#155)
The truth of the matter is this.. none of this matters one whit..
#157. To: noone222 (#156)
#158. To: Zipporah (#157)
Someone committing a sin such as murder is a spiritual issue..
#159. To: Zipporah, Diana, fatidic (#150)
I will say I agree with you on much but on the interpretation of Revelation is where we would not be in agreement.. IMO the book.. is the story of the church.. and is not a prophesy of future events .. and the book is allegorical.
So then a return to sacrifices would not a return to all that Christ had died to fulfill would that not be blasphemous? Would it not be saying that Christ's death and resurrection were not good enough?
#160. To: Starwind (#159)
instead He will reveal and reiterate that as Savior He already provided that Guilt sacrifice, some 2000 years earlier but now was Israels' 'season' to look upon the one whom they pierced and learn and accept Jesus as Savior and substitutionary sacrifice.
#161. To: noone222 (#158)
#162. To: Zipporah (#161)
IMO your biases are clouding your ability to look beyond those biases..
#163. To: Zipporah (#160)
If Jesus was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets then why would He in fact need to? This was completed on the cross and with the resurrection..
#164. To: Starwind, Zipporah (#163)
#165. To: Starwind (#163)
Yes, but Israel doesn't know (or accept) that yet. They will come to see that Jesus was indeed the fulfillment of the law and the prophets for Israel as well, and they will come to see this during the Millennial reign when God fulfills all His promises to Israel, in and under Jesus.
#166. To: noone222 (#162)
#167. To: Zipporah (#165)
Neither does anyone else who is lost.. until they HS has 'chosen' them..
#168. To: Starwind (#167)
Agreed. But we now seem to be discussing the timing of the HS 'choosing' and my literal millennial interpretation is that much this HS 'choosing' God timed and predestined for Israel the nation (as opposed to individual believers like the NT Jews) for the 1000 year reign.
#169. To: noone222 (#164)
PMS ... the real problem with Religion !!!
#170. To: Zipporah (#168)
This is basically the crux of our differences in scriptural interpretation..
#171. To: Zipporah (#169)
hmm .. a misogynist perhaps?
#172. To: Starwind (#170)
#173. To: Starwind (#171)
Certainly someone filled with a great deal of bitterness and hatred...varying only by whoever seems to be in the line of fire.
#174. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#0)
Jewish heritage
#175. To: rachel (#174)
Today's jews are not blood descendants of Jacob.
#176. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#43)
A pregnat Mexican woman comes over the border and has a baby. What is the baby called?
#177. To: Jethro Tull (#176)
#178. To: christine (#177)
#179. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#0)
#180. To: SKYDRIFTER (#179)
---Henry Kissinger, New York Times, October 28, 1973
#181. To: robin (#180)
#182. To: SKYDRIFTER (#179)
Tell the rabble to be quiet, we anticipate a riot.
#183. To: SKYDRIFTER (#179)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest