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: 2357
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 (1-19) not displayed.
.
.
.
#20. To: Barak (#18)
"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.
Comments (60 - 183) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNo, 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)
.
.
.