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: 2392
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
Comments (1-124) not displayed.
.
.
.
#125. To: noone222 (#115)
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 !!!
Comments (165 - 183) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest>> 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)
.
.
.