In MY opinion the so called nation state of Israel, created by the Rothschilds and supported by the talmud has become both an IDOL and a stumbling block to much of the christian church.
Let's add the most important part that the video seemed to miss, then in a second comment clarify the synagogue of Satan a bit!
May the bones of the hands and the bones of the fingers decay and decompose, of him who turns the pages of the book
of Daniel, to find out the time of Daniel 9:24-27, and may his memory rot from off the face of the earth forever
talmudic law, pg 978, section 2, line 28
Pretty intense curse to wish on someone for reading the Bible. Who are the enemies here? What was the talmud trying to hide? What did Daniel say in these verses?
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an
end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal
up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Daniel 9:24
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Daniel 9:25
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince
that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto
the end of the war desolations are determined.
Daniel 9:26
Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
Daniel 9:27
This is a seventy-week prophecy telling exactly when the Messiah comes, exactly what the Messiah will do, and exactly who the Messiah is. Wonder why they'd try to hide that huh? What comes to an end for those who read what this talmudic rabbinical curse was trying to cover in darkness? Is it Judaism?
I have appointed thee each day for a year.
Ezekiel 4:6
After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year,
Numbers 14:34
Artexerxes, king of Persia, issues the decree to restore and build Jerusalem (Ezra 7:12-13) in 457 BC. "Unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks" after brings us to AD 27, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar and the anointing of Jesus in baptism (Luke 3:1,21). For the last week of the Ministry of Jesus, the last seven years, Jesus was active for three and a half years (half of seven) until 31 AD; He took all of our sin upon Himself and ended ceremonial law, the sacrificial system, with His sacrifice (John 1:29). To end the last half of the seventieth week, to end the seventy week prophecy in 34 AD, the Gospel was given to the Gentiles (Acts 10) after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7). There is only one Biblical Messiah.
This is good stuff. Claims without sauce aren’t worth anything, but sauce is delicious.
What I’m aware of the Talmud, it’s not universally bad, but it also can’t be taken as authoritative, definitely has logic holes and fallacious positions when taken as a whole, and should be approached basically in the same way one would approach an atheist philosopher’s arguments, or frankly any pastor’s opinionative sermon as well. With anyone delivering a view on how the world works, discernment and skepticism are always advised.
EDIT:
It’s hilarious how much any comment that doesn’t universally “condemn the Jews” or “condemn the Talmud” triggers some peoples’ downdoots.
What I’m aware of the Talmud, it’s not universally bad, but it also can’t be taken as authoritative
This idea that the Talmud cannot be taken as authoritative is a jewish narrative. They say, "Yes, the Talmud says that, BUT it is not the entirety of judiasm."
So, the jews themselves have created a series of books that THEY say ARE authoritative as to what judiasm IS.
It is called the Jewish Encyclopedia.
This video is, I believe, the original of which the OP video was but a short clip. It gets into the Khazarians, as well (cited directly from the Jewish Encyclopedia).
It’s not that I want to disprove the Talmud, I don’t take it as proven, so there’s no need to disprove it.
My only issues are that universalization is rarely (if ever) correct, and that claims need sauce.
There is no need to try and earn salvation for ourselves against the Torah. It can not be done. At the same time, we are seeing that throwing the Torah out entirely also creates a mess. If our Faith is a ship, Torah is the rudder, and Grace is the sails. Both are necessary, for the heart is deceitful.
Jesus was the Torah made flesh. He walked the Torah out perfectly to fulfill it. We are all called to walk as he walked.
Rule #1: Jews are taught to lie and deceive non-jews, especially in discussions about their religion.
Ew. Another degree of separation? Hard pass.
Rule #2: The jews themselves say that the Jewish Encyclopedia is the final authority on what judaism is, both the written and unwritten teachings. So, there is no reason to dismiss it out-of-hand, and all the reason to read it and find out what it says.
You never bothered to watch the video, which is obvious.
It’s not that I want to disprove the Talmud, I don’t take it as proven, so there’s no need to disprove it.
What YOU think is irrelevant. I agree with you that it is not proven ... BUT THE JEWS TAKE IT AS RELEVANT.
THAT is the point.
You don't have to agree with Mormons, but if you want to understand what they think, then the only way to do that is to understand what they think.
Same goes for the jews, or anyone else.
There is no need to try and earn salvation for ourselves against the Torah.
Well, you went and opened yet ANOTHER can of worms, there. ;-)
The word "Torah" can mean different things to jews, depending on context. Again, due to their lies and deceipt, they use the word to mean different things.
When dealing with a Christian, they will say the Torah is the first 5 books of the Old Testament Bible -- God's Law via Moses.
That is true -- and false. They ALSO use the word Torah to mean ALL of the teachings of Judaism, whether written or unwritten, and that INCLUDES the books of Moses AND the Talmud, among others.
The Talmud's primary mission is to GET AROUND the laws taught by Moses. Jews do NOT want to follow God's Law as taught by Moses. They think their own elder rabbis are smarter than God, and so they have their own teachings in the Talmud and other places -- all of which are concisely described in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
Jesus was the Torah made flesh.
Jesus was God in the flesh.
“You must not think I have come to abolish the [Old Testament] Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete. -- Matthew 5:17-18
Here, he was talking only with his disciples (he spoke differently to different groups of people, and here he was direct and to the point).
Jews do NOT like the Old Testament Laws. That is what the Talmud is largely about -- how to EVADE those laws. Jesus was clearly saying those old laws are still relevant.
We are all called to walk as he walked.
Jesus came to save the Israelites -- ONLY -- and they were NOT the ancestors of modern day jews:
I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. -- Matthew 15:24
I don’t know how widespread that issue is within Judaism, but I’m aware of that issue in general, and that it, and some number of imposters, likely go back to Jesus’ time.
These 'jews' are just funded by the roman catholic church in order to overtake nations by having a planned 'fall guy'. Works everytime because people love to hate, rather than taking the time to follow the money to find out who funds these 'jews' throughout the centuries.
The roman catholic church has been the cabals home for 1700 years. Rome obviously 'converted' to christianity when they realised that they couldnt quash it. So they just declared that they were the only christian authority. Of course it goes back to pre roman times, but romo-homo has been the cabals home since the times of christ.
They are prepared to do anything, say anything and fund anyone in order to remain in power.
I know thy works and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them, which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan.
OP, while I agree with the general theme of your thread, I take issue with 2 things, as a matter of friendly debate on these topics:
(1) The Khazarians were the ancestors of many modern jews, NOT zionists. Zionists are made up largely of jews, but also non-jews. A zionist is merely anyone who wants a jewish government in the land of Palestine. So, "Khazarian Zionist" is not an accurate term -- unless you specifically mean zionist jews and not zionists in general.
(2) The Bible passage you quoted was not about jews. It was about Israelites. The Israelites of the Bible were NOT the ancestors of today's jews. That is a jewish lie that has been used to infiltrate and distort Christianity. Jews are the enemy of Christianity, not the Bible's heros. They are NOT "God's Chosen People."
Here are some translations demonstrating this:
New International Version: When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.”
New Living Translation: As they approached, Jesus said, “Now here is a genuine son of Israel—a man of complete integrity.”
English Standard Version
Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!”
If you are using a Bible that has "jew" in place of "Israelite," you should consider looking at other translations.
So many of our English translation Bibles have hundreds or thousands of mistranslations. It is to the point that most Christians today cannot really understand it. That is by design.
1,000-1,500 years ago, the Roman Catholic Church had their doctrine, and it did not matter if it was consistent with the original texts of the scriptures or not. You went along with the doctrine, or were guilty of heresy. Any translator who saw that the original Hebrew or Greek was NOT in agreement with church doctrine, was faced with a difficult choice when translating into latin: either translate it correctly and be charged with heresy, or find a way to translate it in accordance with church doctrine.
The penalty for heresy was being burned alive at the stake. Naturally, many translators would have translated it according to church doctrine, and not in a way that would be accurate to the original text.
Combine that with jewish infiltration, and today we have a mish-mash of falsified scripture. This is one good example.
What Jesus really thought of the people known as jews today is more like:
[Jesus speaking to the ancestors of modern jews] Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. -- John 8:44
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. -- Rev 2:9
Note: That passage from Rev 2:9 is one of those mistranslations. It is from the King James Version, which is full of mistranslations. The word "jew" here (and all throughout the modern Bible) is a mistranslation, because Jesus was referencing those who pretended to be Judahites (Israelites) when they were not. They were living in the Roman province of Judea, and thus were Judeans, but not of the tribe of Judah nor of Israel.
These passages are far more in line with what we know of jews today and how they behave and what they believe, as you showed via the Talmud.
I apologize for not giving a response in full, but I just wanted to touch on the NIV, NLT, and ESV bibles that were quoted, and compare with the KJV as example.
Every translation needs to be looked at and compared with one another, like the greatest and most rewarding fitting together of pieces that one could ever hope to complete.
There are many verses omitted from the NIV, NLT, and ESV that are in the KJV, for example, but let's take these three changed verses from Timothy as example:
KJV:
Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
1 Timothy 2:7
The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.
2 Timothy 4:22
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
ESV, NIV, NLT
For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
1 Timothy 2:7
The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
2 Timothy 4:22
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:
He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
This relates to the second half of your comment. What word do you notice that is missing or changed when comparing these three verses? What is the significance of this? Why are they trying to remove Jesus Christ from the Bible?
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his
power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
Hebrews 1:2-3
What a powerful verse; in one message, Jesus Christ is Creator, Jesus Christ is God, and Jesus Christ is Salvation.
Every translation needs to be looked at and compared with one another
Although that can be helpful, what if they are ALL wrong in meaningful ways because they ALL came from the SAME (or similar) mistranslations?
I think it is far more important to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek, where possible, and find out what those original scriptures actually said.
The translators of 1,000 or more years ago had a problem. If they did not follow Roman Catholic Church doctrine, they were dead men, with a very brutal and painful execution. So, they probably mistranslated on purpose, even if they did not want to, because Church doctrine was NOT about following the original texts. It was about what the men who ran the Church wanted it to be.
Food for thought: Why is the Book of Enoch left out of the modern Bible, when some of the apostles referenced it themselves? Because mortal men decided what "The Bible" is SUPPOSED to say, not what it actually says, necessarily.
Going back to the originals is valuable.
I do not have those skills (knowledge of ancient Hebrew, etc.) but there are people who have done that, and the end result is that most modern versions of the Bible, including KJV, are in many important areas wrong.
Add to that, 99% of modern pastors do not want to even mention -- much less understand and discuss -- certain "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, which talks about how Jesus hated the jews (for good reason).
Modern pastors want to push lollipops and rainbows, and make everyone leave Church on Sunday floating on a happy cloud. They are not much interested in a truthful discussion of original scripture text and accurate translations.
But that creates the problem of modern Christians not understanding their own religion, and leads to the abomination of mixing Judaism with Christianity and calling it "Judeo-Christian" which, in reality, is absurd.
Jews hate Christians, and also hate the Old Testament that they pretend to follow.
i have listened to an hrs long discourse by a religious history proff who delved into the history of the Israelites. for centuries they would fall into idol worship (spiritual adultery) get reprimanded/punished by Jah n yrs later do it all again.....repeating this cycle over n over. so what's in this vid doesn't surprise me.
The people Jesus was calling out was the Edomites. Herod the Great was an Edomite. Rome looked at them just like they were Jews since the descended from Esau, Jacob's brother. The hatred between them was from before they were born. After Babylon removed the Jews from the land, the Edomites moved in and took over. The KHAZARIAN may be the same people.
The Pharisees did not want to lose their power over the people. Jesus held the accountable for not knowing the day of His arrival but even at that, NOT all Jews are the Synagogue of Satan. The Edomites were the power in Judea at that time. They claimed to be Jews and no Priest could serve unless they bowed to them first and do their bidding. There are millions of Jews in Israel, some are in no doubt false Jews but of all the millions that came there since 1948 and do not worship satan!
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TERMS FOR "JEW"
"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew."
Herod the Great was an Edomite, and the Edomites are SOME of the ancestors to modern day Jews.
After Babylon removed the Jews from the land
The Babylonians removed the JUDAHITES (Israelites) from the Kingdom of Judah.
Later, when they returned, it was no longer that kingdom, and would eventually become the Roman province of Judea, and was indeed populated with Edomites, along with some original Judahites (Israelites -- not "jews"), and others.
Similar to how Texas today has illegal alien Mexicans, not only Texans and other Americans.
If you were a resident of the Roman province of Judea, you were a Judean in the same way that residents of Texas are Texans.
But that does not mean all Judeans were of the tribe of Israel.
Jews were the adversaries of the Israelites, not the Israelites themselves.
In Hebrew, "Satan" means adversary, not the little red guy with the horns and pitchfork.
I use the Bible to explain who the Jews and Israelites are. The tribe of Judah and Israel were call Israel during the time of Solomon and only split away from each other after his son started to rule. There were many of all the tribes that moved to Judah after the split. The ancient Israelites were referred to a Jews in several parts of the OT. I'll stick with what the Bible says over the Jewish Almanac.
I use the Bible to explain who the Jews and Israelites are.
But you seem to be saying that the Bible says the Jews and Israelites were the same people. Maybe you weren't saying that, but that is how it came across.
The "Jews" and the Israelites were two DIFFERENT, DISTINCT people.
The tribe of Judah and Israel were call Israel during the time of Solomon
True. Jacob/Israel had 12 sons, who were the patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel, who received the Covenant from God. This is why they were "God's Chosen People."
At first, they formed the Kingdom of Israel, then 2 of the 12 tribes split off.
and only split away from each other after his son started to rule. There were many of all the tribes that moved to Judah after the split.
No, when the Kingdom of Judah split from the Kingdom of Israel, there were only two tribes -- Judah and Benjamin -- who became the Kingdom of Judah. These were all Israelites, because they were genetic descents of Jacob/Israel. They just happened to be a sub-set of that family tree.
Starting in Genesis 4:25 and going through Genesis 5, we can trace a direct genetic family tree from Adam through Seth to Noah.
Noah was chosen by God to build the ark due to Noah being "perfect in his ancestry."
It is ALL ABOUT the family tree -- ONE particular branch of it.
Then, starting in Genesis 9:26 and going through Genesis 11, we can further trace this family tree from Noah, through Shem, directly to Abram/Abraham.
Abraham gets the Covenant, passing it to his son and grandson, Issac and Jacob/Israel.
Later, in Matthew 1, we can trace from Jacob/Israel, through Judah, directly to Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ, Himself.
So, God creates Adam, and one particular branch of his family tree is traced all through the Bible down through and back to God Himself, in the form of Jesus Christ.
The entire thing is a family tree -- direct genetic descendents.
This is why it is crucial to understand the distinction between the Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Judah, the tribe of Judah, the Israelite people, and those people who later would live in the Roman province of Judea, called Judeans, but were not necessarily directly related to Judah, and therefore NOT Israelites.
The ancient Israelites were referred to a Jews in several parts of the OT. I'll stick with what the Bible says over the Jewish Almanac.
The Jewish Almanac is useful to show that the jews themselves admit they are NOT Israelites.
The Old Testament was the story of the Israelites (NOT "jews"), as well as other people (some of whom were "jews").
2Ch 11:16 And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the LORD God of their fathers.
Those that stayed faithful to God moved south to Judah. The Levites and others according to God.
2Ch 11:3 Speak unto Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin, saying,
Act 3:12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
Peter knew all Israel was represented there. Just because a nation is destroyed does not mean the people disappeared!
2Ch 11:3 Speak unto Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin ...
The Judahites and Benjaminites, who formed the Kingdom of Judah, were ALSO Israelites. They were ALL Israelites because they were ALL direct genetic descendents of Jacob/Israel.
But they were fighting each other, too.
Those that stayed faithful to God moved south to Judah. The Levites and others according to God.
The House of Judah and the House of Benjamin (all related by blood, as they were all Israelites) broke from their cousins to form the Kingdom of Judah.
LATER, some Levites (also related by blood) went to Judah because they were kicked out of the Kingdom of Israel.
1Ch 11:14:
For the Levites left their suburbs and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem: for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest's office unto the Lord
The Levites were most of the priests, and they were kicked out of Israel, so they went to Judah. These people were all related by blood (all "Israelites") but had disputes amongst themselves.
Peter knew all Israel was represented there.
Peter was a Benjaminite. Which means his ancestors were of the Tribe of Benjamin, and originally formed the Kingdom of Judah (along with the Judahites) after the split. But, so what?
Just because a nation is destroyed does not mean the people disappeared!
I never said they disappeared.
I showed how the Bible explains the direct, genetic family tree of all these people, but you chose to ignore that.
It is one of the most important things to understand in the entire Bible. Without that understanding, there is no way to understand the Bible.
It all depends on what time period/era we are talking about.
The original split was the Tribe of Judah with the Tribe of Benjamin breaking away from their Israelite cousins.
Later, as you pointed out, some Levites and others also left the Kingdom of Israel and moved to the Kingdom of Judah. All of these people were Israelites, as they were direct genetic descendents of Jacob/Israel and his 12 sons.
But once the Babylonians captured them and took them off to Babylon, it all changed.
When they came back, the people living in the former Kingdom of Judah were a variety of people. Some were original Judahites and other Israelites.
But other people were Edomites (jews), Canaanites (jews), Hittites and others.
By the time of Jesus, the area was under the control of the Roman Empire, and that area was now a province of Rome called Judea.
The Bible, especially the New Testament, cannot really be understood without understanding this history.
That's because the word "jew" was never in the original text in Hebrew or Greek.
It was an English word that was created more than 1,000 years later to describe certain people who (a) were resident in the Roman province of Judea (and thus, "Judeans"), (b) were not genetic descendents of Jacob/Israel (thus were not "Israelites" nor "Judahites"), but (c) pretended that they were.
Also, they practiced Judaism, not Hebrewism (pre-Christianity).
This is why Jesus talks to them and refers to them the way He does in John 8 and Rev 2 & 3.
In MY opinion the so called nation state of Israel, created by the Rothschilds and supported by the talmud has become both an IDOL and a stumbling block to much of the christian church.
Let's add the most important part that the video seemed to miss, then in a second comment clarify the synagogue of Satan a bit!
Pretty intense curse to wish on someone for reading the Bible. Who are the enemies here? What was the talmud trying to hide? What did Daniel say in these verses?
This is a seventy-week prophecy telling exactly when the Messiah comes, exactly what the Messiah will do, and exactly who the Messiah is. Wonder why they'd try to hide that huh? What comes to an end for those who read what this talmudic rabbinical curse was trying to cover in darkness? Is it Judaism?
Artexerxes, king of Persia, issues the decree to restore and build Jerusalem (Ezra 7:12-13) in 457 BC. "Unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks" after brings us to AD 27, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar and the anointing of Jesus in baptism (Luke 3:1,21). For the last week of the Ministry of Jesus, the last seven years, Jesus was active for three and a half years (half of seven) until 31 AD; He took all of our sin upon Himself and ended ceremonial law, the sacrificial system, with His sacrifice (John 1:29). To end the last half of the seventieth week, to end the seventy week prophecy in 34 AD, the Gospel was given to the Gentiles (Acts 10) after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7). There is only one Biblical Messiah.
This is good stuff. Claims without sauce aren’t worth anything, but sauce is delicious.
What I’m aware of the Talmud, it’s not universally bad, but it also can’t be taken as authoritative, definitely has logic holes and fallacious positions when taken as a whole, and should be approached basically in the same way one would approach an atheist philosopher’s arguments, or frankly any pastor’s opinionative sermon as well. With anyone delivering a view on how the world works, discernment and skepticism are always advised.
EDIT: It’s hilarious how much any comment that doesn’t universally “condemn the Jews” or “condemn the Talmud” triggers some peoples’ downdoots.
This idea that the Talmud cannot be taken as authoritative is a jewish narrative. They say, "Yes, the Talmud says that, BUT it is not the entirety of judiasm."
So, the jews themselves have created a series of books that THEY say ARE authoritative as to what judiasm IS.
It is called the Jewish Encyclopedia.
This video is, I believe, the original of which the OP video was but a short clip. It gets into the Khazarians, as well (cited directly from the Jewish Encyclopedia).
Watch this video, and decide for yourself:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JQrnKhKDwNpg/
Ew. Another degree of separation? Hard pass.
It’s not that I want to disprove the Talmud, I don’t take it as proven, so there’s no need to disprove it.
My only issues are that universalization is rarely (if ever) correct, and that claims need sauce.
There is no need to try and earn salvation for ourselves against the Torah. It can not be done. At the same time, we are seeing that throwing the Torah out entirely also creates a mess. If our Faith is a ship, Torah is the rudder, and Grace is the sails. Both are necessary, for the heart is deceitful.
Jesus was the Torah made flesh. He walked the Torah out perfectly to fulfill it. We are all called to walk as he walked.
Rule #1: Jews are taught to lie and deceive non-jews, especially in discussions about their religion.
Rule #2: The jews themselves say that the Jewish Encyclopedia is the final authority on what judaism is, both the written and unwritten teachings. So, there is no reason to dismiss it out-of-hand, and all the reason to read it and find out what it says.
You never bothered to watch the video, which is obvious.
What YOU think is irrelevant. I agree with you that it is not proven ... BUT THE JEWS TAKE IT AS RELEVANT.
THAT is the point.
You don't have to agree with Mormons, but if you want to understand what they think, then the only way to do that is to understand what they think.
Same goes for the jews, or anyone else.
Well, you went and opened yet ANOTHER can of worms, there. ;-)
The word "Torah" can mean different things to jews, depending on context. Again, due to their lies and deceipt, they use the word to mean different things.
When dealing with a Christian, they will say the Torah is the first 5 books of the Old Testament Bible -- God's Law via Moses.
That is true -- and false. They ALSO use the word Torah to mean ALL of the teachings of Judaism, whether written or unwritten, and that INCLUDES the books of Moses AND the Talmud, among others.
The Talmud's primary mission is to GET AROUND the laws taught by Moses. Jews do NOT want to follow God's Law as taught by Moses. They think their own elder rabbis are smarter than God, and so they have their own teachings in the Talmud and other places -- all of which are concisely described in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
Jesus was God in the flesh.
Here, he was talking only with his disciples (he spoke differently to different groups of people, and here he was direct and to the point).
Jews do NOT like the Old Testament Laws. That is what the Talmud is largely about -- how to EVADE those laws. Jesus was clearly saying those old laws are still relevant.
Jesus came to save the Israelites -- ONLY -- and they were NOT the ancestors of modern day jews:
It is!
:-)
That’s the exact problem with Dispensationalism as well.
What’s your objective with those last two comments, exactly?
I agree.
About how the Talmud is about getting around God's Law?
Merely to point out that the jews do not follow God's Law, are not "God's Chosen People," and are not the Israelites of the Bible.
They have THEIR OWN religion, which is largely unknown to Christians and others.
And the reason it is unknown to non-jews is deceit by jews.
Missed this reply getting made.
I don’t know how widespread that issue is within Judaism, but I’m aware of that issue in general, and that it, and some number of imposters, likely go back to Jesus’ time.
This whole thing is a very tricky issue.
Can't argue with that.
Thank you for the whole video.
Good stuff
These 'jews' are just funded by the roman catholic church in order to overtake nations by having a planned 'fall guy'. Works everytime because people love to hate, rather than taking the time to follow the money to find out who funds these 'jews' throughout the centuries.
I think the cabal who is the long time enemy of mankind is much older than the Catholic church.
The roman catholic church has been the cabals home for 1700 years. Rome obviously 'converted' to christianity when they realised that they couldnt quash it. So they just declared that they were the only christian authority. Of course it goes back to pre roman times, but romo-homo has been the cabals home since the times of christ.
They are prepared to do anything, say anything and fund anyone in order to remain in power.
Did you see the look on the Pope's face when he met Trump?
The look of a man realising he has been chosen as the pope to 'go down with the ship'. Can't blame the guy for being a little salty.
Kek, at least the whole cabal ship is going down this time.
Now go read the lyrics to Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire” again.
Interesting that Jesus would say such a thing of only that man out of tens of thousands ....
Anyone have title of longer video this was pulled from? Want to watch more on this topic once I’m home.
What is this video called, and can it be found on ewetoob or Rumble? Asking for a fren who likes to collect such things.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JQrnKhKDwNpg/
Many thanks fren!
I know thy works and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them, which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan.
OP, while I agree with the general theme of your thread, I take issue with 2 things, as a matter of friendly debate on these topics:
(1) The Khazarians were the ancestors of many modern jews, NOT zionists. Zionists are made up largely of jews, but also non-jews. A zionist is merely anyone who wants a jewish government in the land of Palestine. So, "Khazarian Zionist" is not an accurate term -- unless you specifically mean zionist jews and not zionists in general.
(2) The Bible passage you quoted was not about jews. It was about Israelites. The Israelites of the Bible were NOT the ancestors of today's jews. That is a jewish lie that has been used to infiltrate and distort Christianity. Jews are the enemy of Christianity, not the Bible's heros. They are NOT "God's Chosen People."
Here are some translations demonstrating this:
https://biblehub.com/john/1-47.htm
If you are using a Bible that has "jew" in place of "Israelite," you should consider looking at other translations.
So many of our English translation Bibles have hundreds or thousands of mistranslations. It is to the point that most Christians today cannot really understand it. That is by design.
1,000-1,500 years ago, the Roman Catholic Church had their doctrine, and it did not matter if it was consistent with the original texts of the scriptures or not. You went along with the doctrine, or were guilty of heresy. Any translator who saw that the original Hebrew or Greek was NOT in agreement with church doctrine, was faced with a difficult choice when translating into latin: either translate it correctly and be charged with heresy, or find a way to translate it in accordance with church doctrine.
The penalty for heresy was being burned alive at the stake. Naturally, many translators would have translated it according to church doctrine, and not in a way that would be accurate to the original text.
Combine that with jewish infiltration, and today we have a mish-mash of falsified scripture. This is one good example.
What Jesus really thought of the people known as jews today is more like:
Note: That passage from Rev 2:9 is one of those mistranslations. It is from the King James Version, which is full of mistranslations. The word "jew" here (and all throughout the modern Bible) is a mistranslation, because Jesus was referencing those who pretended to be Judahites (Israelites) when they were not. They were living in the Roman province of Judea, and thus were Judeans, but not of the tribe of Judah nor of Israel.
These passages are far more in line with what we know of jews today and how they behave and what they believe, as you showed via the Talmud.
I apologize for not giving a response in full, but I just wanted to touch on the NIV, NLT, and ESV bibles that were quoted, and compare with the KJV as example.
Every translation needs to be looked at and compared with one another, like the greatest and most rewarding fitting together of pieces that one could ever hope to complete.
There are many verses omitted from the NIV, NLT, and ESV that are in the KJV, for example, but let's take these three changed verses from Timothy as example:
KJV:
ESV, NIV, NLT
This relates to the second half of your comment. What word do you notice that is missing or changed when comparing these three verses? What is the significance of this? Why are they trying to remove Jesus Christ from the Bible?
What a powerful verse; in one message, Jesus Christ is Creator, Jesus Christ is God, and Jesus Christ is Salvation.
Although that can be helpful, what if they are ALL wrong in meaningful ways because they ALL came from the SAME (or similar) mistranslations?
I think it is far more important to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek, where possible, and find out what those original scriptures actually said.
The translators of 1,000 or more years ago had a problem. If they did not follow Roman Catholic Church doctrine, they were dead men, with a very brutal and painful execution. So, they probably mistranslated on purpose, even if they did not want to, because Church doctrine was NOT about following the original texts. It was about what the men who ran the Church wanted it to be.
Food for thought: Why is the Book of Enoch left out of the modern Bible, when some of the apostles referenced it themselves? Because mortal men decided what "The Bible" is SUPPOSED to say, not what it actually says, necessarily.
Going back to the originals is valuable.
I do not have those skills (knowledge of ancient Hebrew, etc.) but there are people who have done that, and the end result is that most modern versions of the Bible, including KJV, are in many important areas wrong.
Add to that, 99% of modern pastors do not want to even mention -- much less understand and discuss -- certain "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, which talks about how Jesus hated the jews (for good reason).
Modern pastors want to push lollipops and rainbows, and make everyone leave Church on Sunday floating on a happy cloud. They are not much interested in a truthful discussion of original scripture text and accurate translations.
But that creates the problem of modern Christians not understanding their own religion, and leads to the abomination of mixing Judaism with Christianity and calling it "Judeo-Christian" which, in reality, is absurd.
Jews hate Christians, and also hate the Old Testament that they pretend to follow.
i have listened to an hrs long discourse by a religious history proff who delved into the history of the Israelites. for centuries they would fall into idol worship (spiritual adultery) get reprimanded/punished by Jah n yrs later do it all again.....repeating this cycle over n over. so what's in this vid doesn't surprise me.
The people Jesus was calling out was the Edomites. Herod the Great was an Edomite. Rome looked at them just like they were Jews since the descended from Esau, Jacob's brother. The hatred between them was from before they were born. After Babylon removed the Jews from the land, the Edomites moved in and took over. The KHAZARIAN may be the same people.
In Matt. 23, Jesus was calling out the Pharisees for hypocrisy. They were Jews
The Pharisees did not want to lose their power over the people. Jesus held the accountable for not knowing the day of His arrival but even at that, NOT all Jews are the Synagogue of Satan. The Edomites were the power in Judea at that time. They claimed to be Jews and no Priest could serve unless they bowed to them first and do their bidding. There are millions of Jews in Israel, some are in no doubt false Jews but of all the millions that came there since 1948 and do not worship satan!
The Pharasees were a unique sub-group of what we would today call jews.
They were, indeed Judeans, in that they were resident of the Roman province of Judea.
But they were NOT of the tribe of Israel, and the decendants of Judah (Judahites).
They were claiming to be Judahites/Israelites, but were not.
In John 8, Jesus agreed that they were decended from Abraham, but NOT from Jacob. They were from Esau/Edom.
From the Jewish Almanac, 1980:
https://time.graphics/event/6334005
Herod the Great was an Edomite, and the Edomites are SOME of the ancestors to modern day Jews.
The Babylonians removed the JUDAHITES (Israelites) from the Kingdom of Judah.
Later, when they returned, it was no longer that kingdom, and would eventually become the Roman province of Judea, and was indeed populated with Edomites, along with some original Judahites (Israelites -- not "jews"), and others.
Similar to how Texas today has illegal alien Mexicans, not only Texans and other Americans.
If you were a resident of the Roman province of Judea, you were a Judean in the same way that residents of Texas are Texans.
But that does not mean all Judeans were of the tribe of Israel.
Jews were the adversaries of the Israelites, not the Israelites themselves.
In Hebrew, "Satan" means adversary, not the little red guy with the horns and pitchfork.
I use the Bible to explain who the Jews and Israelites are. The tribe of Judah and Israel were call Israel during the time of Solomon and only split away from each other after his son started to rule. There were many of all the tribes that moved to Judah after the split. The ancient Israelites were referred to a Jews in several parts of the OT. I'll stick with what the Bible says over the Jewish Almanac.
But you seem to be saying that the Bible says the Jews and Israelites were the same people. Maybe you weren't saying that, but that is how it came across.
The "Jews" and the Israelites were two DIFFERENT, DISTINCT people.
True. Jacob/Israel had 12 sons, who were the patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel, who received the Covenant from God. This is why they were "God's Chosen People."
At first, they formed the Kingdom of Israel, then 2 of the 12 tribes split off.
No, when the Kingdom of Judah split from the Kingdom of Israel, there were only two tribes -- Judah and Benjamin -- who became the Kingdom of Judah. These were all Israelites, because they were genetic descents of Jacob/Israel. They just happened to be a sub-set of that family tree.
Starting in Genesis 4:25 and going through Genesis 5, we can trace a direct genetic family tree from Adam through Seth to Noah.
Noah was chosen by God to build the ark due to Noah being "perfect in his ancestry."
It is ALL ABOUT the family tree -- ONE particular branch of it.
Then, starting in Genesis 9:26 and going through Genesis 11, we can further trace this family tree from Noah, through Shem, directly to Abram/Abraham.
Abraham gets the Covenant, passing it to his son and grandson, Issac and Jacob/Israel.
Later, in Matthew 1, we can trace from Jacob/Israel, through Judah, directly to Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ, Himself.
So, God creates Adam, and one particular branch of his family tree is traced all through the Bible down through and back to God Himself, in the form of Jesus Christ.
The entire thing is a family tree -- direct genetic descendents.
This is why it is crucial to understand the distinction between the Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Judah, the tribe of Judah, the Israelite people, and those people who later would live in the Roman province of Judea, called Judeans, but were not necessarily directly related to Judah, and therefore NOT Israelites.
The Jewish Almanac is useful to show that the jews themselves admit they are NOT Israelites.
The Old Testament was the story of the Israelites (NOT "jews"), as well as other people (some of whom were "jews").
2Ch 11:16 And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the LORD God of their fathers.
Those that stayed faithful to God moved south to Judah. The Levites and others according to God.
2Ch 11:3 Speak unto Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin, saying,
Act 3:12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
Peter knew all Israel was represented there. Just because a nation is destroyed does not mean the people disappeared!
Anyway, enough arguing over this.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
The Judahites and Benjaminites, who formed the Kingdom of Judah, were ALSO Israelites. They were ALL Israelites because they were ALL direct genetic descendents of Jacob/Israel.
But they were fighting each other, too.
The House of Judah and the House of Benjamin (all related by blood, as they were all Israelites) broke from their cousins to form the Kingdom of Judah.
LATER, some Levites (also related by blood) went to Judah because they were kicked out of the Kingdom of Israel.
1Ch 11:14:
The Levites were most of the priests, and they were kicked out of Israel, so they went to Judah. These people were all related by blood (all "Israelites") but had disputes amongst themselves.
Peter was a Benjaminite. Which means his ancestors were of the Tribe of Benjamin, and originally formed the Kingdom of Judah (along with the Judahites) after the split. But, so what?
I never said they disappeared.
I showed how the Bible explains the direct, genetic family tree of all these people, but you chose to ignore that.
It is one of the most important things to understand in the entire Bible. Without that understanding, there is no way to understand the Bible.
I am saying the Southern Kingdom of Judah was comprised of more than Benjamin and Judah. There were people of all the tribes in the south.
It all depends on what time period/era we are talking about.
The original split was the Tribe of Judah with the Tribe of Benjamin breaking away from their Israelite cousins.
Later, as you pointed out, some Levites and others also left the Kingdom of Israel and moved to the Kingdom of Judah. All of these people were Israelites, as they were direct genetic descendents of Jacob/Israel and his 12 sons.
But once the Babylonians captured them and took them off to Babylon, it all changed.
When they came back, the people living in the former Kingdom of Judah were a variety of people. Some were original Judahites and other Israelites.
But other people were Edomites (jews), Canaanites (jews), Hittites and others.
By the time of Jesus, the area was under the control of the Roman Empire, and that area was now a province of Rome called Judea.
The Bible, especially the New Testament, cannot really be understood without understanding this history.
That's because the word "jew" was never in the original text in Hebrew or Greek.
It was an English word that was created more than 1,000 years later to describe certain people who (a) were resident in the Roman province of Judea (and thus, "Judeans"), (b) were not genetic descendents of Jacob/Israel (thus were not "Israelites" nor "Judahites"), but (c) pretended that they were.
Also, they practiced Judaism, not Hebrewism (pre-Christianity).
This is why Jesus talks to them and refers to them the way He does in John 8 and Rev 2 & 3.
There you go. No such thing as judeo Christian values. Just Christian values.