Most Christians don't realize Judaism is a newer religion than Christianity is and Christianity has never been based on Judaism. This is a inconvenient truth that is a taboo subject publicly. Believe it or not, Judaism was created to confront the spread of Christianity - using the Bible as a prop and also to conceal Judaism's ritualistic practice of blood-letting. The proof is of course in writing and can be found in Judaism's foundational Passover text.
Judaism's foundational Passover text is not from the Old Testament but rather the Haggadah, a thoroughly Talmudic work. (M. Hoffman III, "Judaism Discovered"). The Talmud was compiled as a result of the absolute destruction of Herod’s temple, in which every stone was carried away leaving no trace of it’s existence. In it we learn:
In 66 CE, when the Roman general Vespasian swept into Jerusalem, Judaism was a cultic, oral religion, with Herod's massive temple as its lodestar. Everything happened in the temple complex. Four years later, Vespasian's son Titus razed it to the ground. A quote from the Talmud:
"Where was God under the rubble?" wondered the Rabbis. "How to praise him now that the temple was gone?" The sages agreed: Jews would have to BECOME a people of the book, or they would disappear.
Hence, they were NOT a people of the book before this time.
Before Christ, there was no religion called "Christianity."
The followers of the Old Testament could be said to be following Hebrewism, a term no longer used today (probably because it would reveal too much of the truth).
The people who completely rejected the Old Testament were the ancestors of today's jews, and they followed the "Tradition of the Elders." The elders were the "jews" who thought they had better ideas than the God of the Old Testament.
When the people living in the Kingdom of Judah were conquered and captured and sent to Babylon, both groups of people were involved in the capture -- the Israelites (those who were descended from Jacob/Israel, via Judah and Benjamin, who followed the Hebrew religion), as well as the jews who lived there, and followed the Tradition of the Elders. The population was mixed, not homogeneous.
While in Babylon, the "jews" continued with their own distinct religion, and also adopted aspects of the Babylonian pagan religion, which included child sacrifice, Baal, etc.
Upon the release from Babylon and return to Judah (now, the Roman province of Judea), about 20% of those people were the "jews" and the rest were the original Israelites/Judahites.
It is at this time that Judaism was born, when the "jews" transitioned from the Tradition of the Elders to a more formalized religion, which they called Judaism.
Judaism was never based on Hebrewism (Old Testament). That was something co-opted later to make it appear to be the same or similar religion.
But when Christ came, He rebuked these "jews" and their false religion, and the result of that was the birth of the Christian religion, due to the New Testament being added to the Old Testament. Hebrewism went extinct.
"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an 'Israelite' or a 'Hebrew'", The 1980 Jewish Almanac, chapter 1, "Identity Crisis".
Also, the following is true
Judahite ≠ Jew
Above in the comment section, there is a more detailed research. However, I'll provide the pertinent portion below.
The word "Jew" never existed in Roman times. We are told it derives from the word 'Judea'. Now, 'Judea' is an English appellative for the Latin appellative 'Iudaea'. It is the Roman name for the region. Even the people of Germany don't refer to themselves as Germans. The people of Deutschland (Germany) call themselves "Deutsch" (the people; race). Why would the 'chosen ones' use their arch enemy's Roman name to call themselves by?
Much later the word 'Jew' comes into existence in England in circa 1600s, which coincides with a wave of Yiddish immigrants coming from France and Deutschland. These Yiddish settlers came from eastern Europe and originated from Khazaria, not the Middle East, but rather the steppes of Caspian and Black Seas, which had since fallen to the proxy Byzantine and Caliphate conquering armies. The French and Europeans viewed these immigrants negatively and treated them similarly to gypsies. They allowed them to quarter in only a designated area of the city. A French derogatory term for 'ghetto' and the Yiddish district of town was called – 'Jeuerie'; "ghetto", from Anglo-French 'Juerie', Old French 'Juierie’ or the later English version 'Jewry'. Originally the English term 'Jewry' referred to those immigrants coming from Eastern European people who spoke Yiddish (Ashkenazi). The word 'Jew' did not exist during the Roman times.
An important note on the ghetto. It was specifically a place for the Jews. It was NOT a "poor area of town." On the contrary, the "ghettos" were the nicest places in town. They were full of wealthy people. It wasn't until the late nineteenth century, and the exodus from Eastern Europe (an almost certain part of the Zionist plan) into New York City that the term became associated with poor parts of town. In Europe originally it was were all the banks, goldsmiths, high class merchants, etc. were. They had good sanitation (unlike the rest of the city), good roads, good buildings, good food, etc., and the "Jews" wanted to live there. They most certainly didn't want to live anywhere else.
I don't know for sure, but I suggest it is entirely possible that
They allowed them to quarter in only a designated area of the city
may not have been a design of
The French and Europeans
but were rather the designs of the Jews themselves, and
[they] viewed these immigrants negatively and treated them similarly to gypsies
is the story we are told, not the actual truth of the matter.
There are numerous stories of "Jewish persecution" such as this "segregation" narrative. Deeper dives into them always show that it was always advantageous to the super wealthy Jews (not always advantageous to all Jews, but always advantageous to the super wealthy ones). Now was that because it was planned by them, or did they simply take advantage of a bad situation? I don't know, maybe a little bit of both (or maybe not). But that was always the outcome. If we look at history purely as it is told to us, and not who actually gains advantage, I suggest we miss very important pieces of evidence.
In the doctrines of Jewish Cabalah messianism, the belief is that Israel as the Shekinah has been separated from God because of her sins [spiritual adultery]. Because of Israel’s sins it is believed by Cabalist that the light of Israel resident in the Shekinah has turned to darkness. Each righteous Jew was thought to possess a spark of the Shekinah. Collectively, these sparks were manifested as a flame of fire over the mercy seat in the holy of hollies.
They claim the divine sparks indwelling in the Shekinah departed from the Jews because they departed from righteousness. [My note: This is why Israeli non-practicing Jews are targeted. Allan Brownfeld reports that Shahak and Mezvinsky “cite case after case, from the Middle Ages until the 19th century.” These authors report, “It was usual in some Hasidic circles until the last quarter of the nineteenth century to attack and often to murder Jews who had reform religious tendencies…” In terms of the Shekinah, they are preventing their righteousness.]
Some believe this divine presence [of the Shekinah] came over into the New Testament Church as witnessed by the “Tongues of fire that sat upon each of them" (Acts 2: 3). In the Isaac Luria secret doctrines of Cabalism, each Gentile Christian who now has the holy Spirit and one of those alleged righteous sparks, is like a shell imprisoning a part of Israel’s future destiny. They believe these shells must be broken so the spark can escape. That is, the Gentile Christians must be made to become wicked and evil and depart from righteousness, so the divine sparks will forsake them as they did the first Jews, and then return to Israel again. It is believed by these Cabalists, that when Israel turns to righteousness [Talmudic Pharisee Judaism], and the Gentile Christians are fully led into the abyss of wickedness [liberalism], by the cult of the all seeing eye, Jacob Frank’s secret “Sabbatians,” (Rabbi Marvin S. Antelman, To Eliminate The Opiate, Vol. 1, p 130), then Rome [Talmudist label all Christians figuratively as Rome], will be destroyed (The coming great blood-bath by the whore). [My note: The posting here by u/MAG768720 provides a good example of this. However, it is far more pervasive and through Tikkun Olam, that is, "making a better world", is really establishing a Masonic-one world government.]
Talmudist believe their Messiah will come and do this before setting up the millennial communistic utopia. [My note: This must be prepared before the 'All-Seeing Eye' or the false messiah is seated on his throne].
Talmud, Abadian: “When Rome is destroyed Israel will be redeemed.”
Rome here is figurative of all Christian groups and people.
Also, Talmud, Zohar 1,219b: “Captivity of Jews ends when Christian Princes die.”
Christian Princes here are the Ministers of Jesus Messiah. The coming world-persecution (the great blood-bath) by anti-christ, will perform this task (a trial-run was carried out under Communism in Russian and China).
The Talmud teaches that Israel cannot be fully redeemed until Christianity as Jesus established it is destroyed. Is this not the Great Whore of Revelation 17 & 18 identified. And Jerusalem sits on seven mountains. The Beast and Antichrist, find their fulfillment here, where the “head” (mountain; Mount Moriah), had a wound by a sword (70AD), and yet did live (1948). Israel became a nation in 1948.
Well done. I'd argue that Christianity is not a religion at all. It is the way of a Father with His children. Religion is man doing works to gain from God what has freely been given by grace. Acts says the oeople were Called Christians because they claimed to have Christ in them, which tje Word of God does declare. We are Christ-ins.
The word "Jew" was never existed in Roman times. They tell us it derives from the word 'Judea'. Now, 'Judea' is an English appellative for the Latin appellative 'Iudaea'. It's the Roman name for the region. Even the people of Germany don't refer to themselves as Germans. The name Jew is analogous to the English appellative name "German" that refers to the people of Deutschland. The people of Deutschland (Germany) call themselves "Deutsch" (the people; race). Why would the 'chosen ones' use the name to call themselves of their arch enemy?
It turns out the word Jew derives from a 16th Century Old English mis-transliteration of Yiddish. It stuck. This information is derived from English etymology. Much later the word 'Jew' comes into existence in England in circa 1600s, which coincides with a wave of Yiddish immigrants coming from France and Deutschland. These Yiddish settlers came from eastern Europe and originated from Khazaria, not the Middle East, but rather the steppes of Caspian and Black Seas, which had since fallen to the proxy Byzantine and Caliphate conquering armies. The French and Europeans viewed these immigrants negatively and treated them similarly to gypsies. They allowed them to quarter in only a designated area of the city. A French derogatory term for 'ghetto' and the Yiddish district of town was called – 'Jeuerie'; "ghetto", from Anglo-French 'Juerie', Old French 'Juierie’ or the later English version 'Jewry'. Originally the English term 'Jewry' referred to those immigrants coming from Eastern European people who spoke Yiddish (Ashkenazi). The word 'Jew' did not exist during the Roman times.
In 2001, the third edition of the Bauer lexicon, one of the most highly respected dictionaries of Biblical Greek,[12] supported translation of the term as "Judean", writing. Here is what it concludes:
Incalculable harm has been caused by simply glossing Ioudaios with ‘Jew,’ for many readers or auditors of Bible translations do not practice the historical judgment necessary to distinguish between circumstances and events of an ancient time and contemporary ethnic-religious-social realities, with the result that anti-Judaism in the modern sense of the term is needlessly fostered through biblical texts.
It conveniently leaves out any words of 'intentional' word manipulation or 'name-stealing'. In this regard, we are also left to believe the papacy arising out of the Roman era didn't manipulate Roman pagan holidays, including their names, to coincide with important Christian events. Well, we know this is in fact true. Why then is it ignored in other instances?
Academic publications in the last ten to fifteen years increasingly use the term Judeans rather than Jews. [There is no distinction](See https://web.archive.org/web/20120720012434/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioudaios) between "Judahites," "Judeans" and "Jews" in modern standard Arabic. First appearance in Wikipedia, July 12, 2012. The word 'Jew' has been intermingled with the words 'Israelite', 'Judahite', 'Judean', 'pharisee', and 'Edomite' for over 400 years. It's use in the Bible is ambiguous and unfortunately needs to be deciphered for every verse that it is used. Some times it refers to the Roman province of Judea, other times it refers more accurately to Edomites. Other times it references 'Israelites’. Fortunately, some scholars are starting to take notice.
Hebrew derives from Eber. Old French: Ebreu and Latin Hebraeus, from Gr Hebraios, from Aramaic ʻebrai (Heb ʻibrī), literally, one from the other side (of the Euphrates)
I will repost a post I made the other day, which I think more people should consider:
Now, imagine that you were a monk living 1,000 years ago.
The Roman Catholic Church WAS Christianity at the time. It was not merely one of the denominations, and it was not something that only a few people followed.
It had MASSIVE control over the people of the day.
And the Roman Catholic Church had its own doctrines, whether they were in agreement or in conflict with the Bible.
If the doctrines were in conflict with the Bible, then too bad for the Bible, because the pope, cardinals, bishops, etc. had already declared that THEY were the authority of what the Bible is.
So ... you are a monk, and your task is to translate an early Hebrew text of one of the books of the Bible into Latin.
As you read through, you discover -- to your horror -- that the Hebrew you are reading is in direct opposition to the Roman Catholic Church doctrine!
IOW, the doctrine is WRONG.
But if you SAY that or WRITE that, then you are a heretic. The penalty for heresy was death. And not just any death. You would be burned alive at he stake for heresy.
So ... what do you do?
It should not be too difficult to accept that many of those early translations were falsified to appease the church doctrine.
This is the main reason why Christianity has gone off the rails with its false idol worship of jews, who were never the chosen ones.
Furthermore, this false idol worship is why people like Charlie say what they do, and why there is American money going to the jews in Palestine, which only causes more problems, ultimately.
This is what Martin Luther discovered in the 1500's, which lead to the protest, the Protestant Reformation, and a split away from the Catholics.
Yet today, the Catholic Church, in all its false doctrines, is still the largest denomination in the world -- due mostly to Latin America.
If the doctrines were in conflict with the Bible, then too bad for the Bible, because the pope, cardinals, bishops, etc. had already declared that THEY were the authority of what the Bible is.
Well, they WERE the organization who decided what it would and wouldn't be included in it. There was no Bible prior to them. Just writings of men believed to be holy scattered about and valued differently by all who had access to them. The Catholic Church got to decide which writings did and didn't make the cut in the first place, and I have no doubt altered what they kept to some degree for their own purposes. Not to mention, as is the case with all tyrannical governments looking to control the message, burned as many copies of as many of the other manuscripts that didn't fit their agenda.
But don't tell that to most Christians here. They've come up with their own story about the book basically popping into existence ex nihilo and that it's completely absurd to believe anyone ever could have altered anything for nefarious purposes. Where they got this idea is beyond me but they defend it tooth and nail for some reason nonetheless.
The ultimate authority has and will always be the Holy Spirit of God itself. Learn to communicate with God directly or even the Bible can and will lead you astray.
Good post. I'm not anti anything I'm pro truth. And I'm pro pointing out those who lie about who we are and the power we have. people have to decide if they want the doctrines and commandments of men falsely wrapped up and called biblical or the truth itself I adulterated. Organized religion, organized by who? Bible says the church is where ever 2 believers are together invisible name
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Titus 3:10 KJV
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition
Titus 3:10 NKJV
A man whose opinions are not those of the church, after a first and second protest, is to be kept out of your society
Titus 3:10 BBE
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.
Titus 3:10 NIV
Reject a factious man after a first and second warning
Titus 3:10 NASB
If people are causing divisions among you, give a first and second warning. After that, have nothing more to do with them.
Titus 3:10 NLT
As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him
Titus 3:10 RSV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him
Titus 3:10 ESV
Warn anyone who tried to get believes to take sides and separate into their own little groups.
Titus 3:10 NIRV
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Romans 16:17
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Acts 24:14
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 Peter 2:1
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how "modern" institutions use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Matthew 25:332
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
Luke 12:51
So there was a division among the people because of him.
John 7:43
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
John 9:16
There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
John 10:19
Biblically, historically, the actions of Jesus Christ caused and causes division. With the presentation of Truth comes the confrontation of choice:
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Revelation 18:4
So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Textus Receptus? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus, one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
One could spend their days in textual criticism and reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, of the tablets of Egyptian Sun Worship and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating and reading the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit, understanding the gift of prophecy, and receiving aid from the archeologist's spade. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who or what is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
Making a choice is given to the individual, but there are only two choices.
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing,
because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us,
ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth,
the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
It's stomach turning, to say the least. It makes perfect sense upon reading from it why Jesus called the followers of it "a den of vipers, children of their father the devil, and whited sepulchres filled with dead men's bones." Their stomachs were probably quite literally digesting dead men's bones as he said that to them. Of course according to the Talmud, only followers of it were considered human beings. Non-them were animals worthy of blood letting.
It really depends on which Jewish religion you are talking about. As it turns out, there are quite a few. There is a fair bit of evidence that suggests the Torah ("The Law") was written specifically by the Jewish Priest class (an Aristocracy) to control the masses, not to mention get a tenth of everyone's income (an income tax), get their first born sons as temple slaves or sacrifices (or, later, a "child tax" that the wealthier could pay to not send their children into slavery/death), not to mention their best cuts of meat (Filet Mignon (or the mutton equivalent) for the Priests every day!).
The REAL Jewish religion, the one the select (Elect) Jewish Aristocracy follows (in secret) is something a fair bit different.
Both new and Old testament were still God breathed. holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit itbsays in Peter. Old testament was the practice of the levitical priesthood whose job along with all elders was to use the law as a foreshadowing of rhe coming of Christ. It was meant to help them recognize the savior when he arrived. Instead, they turned the doing of the law into false righteousness and the means by which to gain God's favor. By the works of the law shall no man be justified. In hebrews it tells us who the hall of famers were, GOD said they all died in BELIEVING having NOT received the promise while Still alive. Promise? What Promise, the one God gave in Genesis 3:15 regarding the coming messiah in answer to the fall of man. They were counted righteous for only one reason, they believed in the coming messiah. They will be raised in the resurrection of the just. Abraham and others.... good stuff
Thank you. I am well aware of the dogma. I spent thirty years studying it and arguing theology with other theologians. As it turns out, once you let go of:
both new and Old testament were still God breathed.
which is a self-referenced statement (not to mention internally contradicted), and start to look at all of the evidence from the ancient world, or even just look at the mistranslations and the books of canon left out of the bible, things start to look a fair bit different.
GOD said
Which God? The bible talks about numerous gods and, when you actually look at the original works (or as close as we can get), the bible clearly distinguishes between these gods as separate entities in several places. It claims El (a Canaanite deity) was the Creator, it claims YHWH is The Lord of Israel (specifically of Israel, not of anywhere else). It says explicitly that YHWH was the SON of El, etc.
These statements are taken directly from the Bible, but no one pays attention to these self-contradictions and probably a thousand others, because
both new and Old testament were still God breathed.
If they are "God breathed" (which God exactly?) then the discrepancies simply don't matter. We can ignore them. We can ignore all the other evidence (of which there is a metric fuckton) that the religion was created specifically to control the population (again, all you have to do is read the bible to see it plain as day). We can ignore the Jewish Priest Aristocracy's influence in the creation of The Church and later biblical translations. We can ignore everything, because no matter what the evidence suggests,
both new and Old testament were still God breathed,
and we're done. No more thinking required.
Instead of thinking, you should believe the people who told you what the truth is, AKA the people who wrote, translated, and assembled the bible. The last two tasks were accomplished specifically by the Council of Nicaea, and their later iterations, The council of Nicaea was originally organized by the Mithra worshiper, Emperor Constantine, who created the modern day version of "Christianity" (completely subverting it from the original) to unite the four different "Roman Empires" under one banner. This effort, started three full centuries after Jesus (imagine how different our world is from three hundred years ago to get an idea of how long this is) united Mithraism (some people call it "paganism," but it was specifically Mithraism), Judaism, and Christianity into One Religion. Why do we have so many "pagan" dates, celebrations, etc. in Christianity? This is why. Because that is the origin of today's "Christianity".
None of those statements is controversial, but people ignore them because:
both new and Old testament were still God breathed.
Most people (at least here) realize that it is a subset of modern day Jewish Aristocrats that run the world (not alone, but predominantly), and they have for a long time. These Jewish Aristocrats are the direct descendants of the exact same people who wrote the books of the OT. That's not really a controversial statement either, though many don't really think about it.
Why don't they think about it?
because:
both new and Old testament were still God breathed.
If you allow yourself, for just one second to think that maybe that's not the exact perfect Truth, and spend that one second looking at the rest of the evidence, the world, and indeed, the actual teachings of Jesus become very, very different.
We see fuckery everywhere, but so many think "There can't be any in the Bible itself," because:
both new and Old testament were still God breathed.
It was written by people. Think about who those people really were (the Jewish Aristocracy). So much opens up if you do that.
If you had written this post a few years ago, I would have agreed with you.
Today, I do not.
Of course back then, I never really researched the Bible, or even the historical and archeological records of that time. I only read people's opinions about it.
Which God? The bible talks about numerous gods
Elohim is the plural form of El. Although it does use the plural form, as well, the actions of God are always in the singular form. Never "they created this," but rather "they decided this" and "He created it." And that is in Genesis 1.
I don't know if it was a mistranslation or like the "royal we" or talking about His buddies, the angels, or whatever. I wasn't there, and have never found any clear-cut answers.
But if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.
We do not.
Jewish Priest Aristocracy's influence in the creation of The Church and later biblical translations
I agree that early jews played a role in purposely mistranslating the Bible in many areas.
The council of Nicaea was originally organized by the Mithra worshiper, Emperor Constantine, who created the modern day version of "Christianity" (completely subverting it from the original)
Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament. It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people, who came up with their own similar stories.
Also, Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.
This effort, started three full centuries after Jesus (imagine how different our world is from three hundred years ago to get an idea of how long this is) united Mithraism (some people call it "paganism," but it was specifically Mithraism), Judaism, and Christianity into One Religion.
The product of the Council was the early Roman Catholic Church, with all of its power in the lives of the people. We can agree that this was a primary motivation.
However, those are not the people who wrote the books. They decided which books would get the stamp of approval ("canon law") and which would not, but none of those books were originally written in Latin.
Why do we have so many "pagan" dates, celebrations, etc. in Christianity? This is why. Because that is the origin of today's "Christianity".
Agreed.
These Jewish Aristocrats are the direct descendants of the exact same people who wrote the books of the OT. That's not really a controversial statement either, though many don't really think about it.
You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.
The early "jews" HATED the Old Testament as much as the New Testament.
Today, the Talmud teaches that Jesus is living in Hell and burning in excrement.
It teaches that Christianity must be destroyed, and that any non-jew can be treated as not human.
The "jews" of 3,000 years ago hated the books of Moses as much as they do today.
If they actually wrote the originals, there would have been no need to infiltrate and subvert it over the centuries.
Look at all the "anti-semitism" bullshit warnings today. If the jews had not lied about the Holocaust in such a dumb way that people could figure out it was a lie, they would not have to run for cover by passing laws outlawing the questioning of it.
If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.
Why did Martin Luther protest the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500's? Why did he write such anti-jew literature once he had read the original texts of the Bible?
Because he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.
After all, through all those centuries, the non-jews never had the internet (or even, the printing press).
ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.
the actions of God are always in the singular form
ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.
The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. That religion later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping his throne, to become first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."
I think after Babylon their henotheistic system wasn't good enough. Influences from Zoroastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.
If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.
if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.
We do not
On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember mostly where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.
Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament.
Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).
It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people
It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.
who came up with their own similar stories.
Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).
Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.
It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.
However, those are not the people who wrote the books
There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.
You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.
My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region that were there before these "new" Judeans (or perhaps Israelites/Samaritans) arrived were originally from Israel (somewhere from the area we call "Israel" today), i.e. they were the “Magogians,” AKA the “lost tribe of Israel” who had set up shop in that region a thousand years (or so) before these "new" Jews came. I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)
I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.
If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.
The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.
he realized that the Jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.
Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.
There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.
As for the "god breathed" verse. It can obviously be read in a different way than how it's frequently cited by modern Christians. They see a verse that says "all scripture is God-breathed" and since they have a book they consider scripture, the circular logic kicks in and tells them that entire book fits the description. They never seem to stop and think that if something is NOT "God-breathed" (i.e., TRUE) that no matter what book it happens to be printed in it, by Peter's definition, that is NOT scripture. So you take something that's "god-breathed" and you alter it to change the meaning. Clearly it's no longer "god-breathed" but rather, is an interpolation of either ignorant or evil men.
"But if we can't trust every word the Bible says then how can we trust anything it says???"
They always retort. Simple. Truth RESONATES within you. To know what is and is not true is up to you. You must seek God in prayer, and learn to hear his voice, then all truth shall be made known unto you. Putting your faith in a book to never lead you astray is lazy and foolhardy. Does the book not speak of a living God who speaks with his children? Does it not say anyone who calls upon him in faith, doubting nothing, shall receive the truth directly from him? So why aren't you one of those? Why haven't you put to test the reality of the one thing that stands out as the most consistent theme throughout the entire book--that God speaks to man?
And as for the strawman argument they love to make that states, "So you don't think God had the power to keep His word pure throughout the ages???" give me a break. I think God has the power to do anything, but He gave his children agency and he clearly allows them to do with that what they please. What if, when someone told you about the existence of the Cabal someone replied to you "So you don't think God had the power to keep the world free of such an evil influence???"
Just because God is all-powerful and CAN do anything, doesn't automatically mean he WILL do something. Clearly the faith and obedience of his children plays a massive role in how God chooses to operate among them. But alas, too many eschew the responsibility of seeking direct revelation from God, and have made the Bible their God, and Jesus their idol, as the Children of Israel so frequently did with a variety of people and things throughout their history.
Well I've got about 40 years under my belt myself. The integrity of the Word is man's basic spiritual problem. Did God really say that? I'll argue there is teachable/learnable method to rightly divide the word, when I ran into those contradictions you speak of i would apply those methods to understand why the apparent contradiction. It was usually in my own understanding, when I came to understand administrations, to whom it was written, verse. Context and used before the Bible fits like a hand in a glove. I hope yku haven't given up on it. When. I gave up on religion(man made crap) i finally found Christianity. The way of Fathern with His children. God Bless.
When. I gave up on religion(man made crap) i finally found Christianity.
I have no problem with "Christianity," if by Christianity you mean the teachings of Jesus. What I have a problem with is believing that the Source of All Things is speaking through a book written by people who were murderers, liars, cheaters, stealers, rapists, eugenicists, slavers, child abusers, child rapists, child murderers, child eaters, genocidal maniacs, master illusionists, and overall world dominating psychopaths who believe they are the most important race/culture/society/gene line to ever exist, and the only one that really matters. THAT is who wrote the bible. They wrote it specifically to control society. The evidence is obvious, both internally and in the larger scope of the archeological and genetic evidence.
I don't have any problem with the teachings of Jesus. On the contrary, I find them to be quite insightful and enlightening. I have a problem with believing the bible, and more importantly (and relevantly), the bible we have today is some sort of guide to that teaching, rather than a purposeful obfuscation of it.
Getting people to see how the bible (as we understand the term) performs that task of obfuscation is near impossible. The entire world has been brainwashed to believe the opposite. "Everything in this book comes directly from God and is thus the Ultimate Truth. Oh ya, and it's also complete. All the other books, Jesus' quotes, and any writings you may find in a cave somewhere that were previously canon are decidedly not God's word." Take just that one line, add millennia of brainwashing to get people to believe it, throw in the occasional "this is how you're supposed to interpret this," and "this is the proper context to understand why it is totally reasonable for "God" to demand that his "chosen people" murdered/raped/enslaved/wiped out innocent people," etc., and you can do anything to an entire society. The cognitive dissonance and confusion that comes with an honest reading of the bible, when you add in "this is God's True Words" helps enforce the brainwashing when the brain tries to rectify it. In fact, this technique of first creating cognitive dissonance and then guiding the brain's "making sense of it" is an essential part of brainwashing, and it is replete in the bible as presented.
This creation of a perfect brainwashing tool to control society is exactly what happened. With regards to the NT, they took out the most important bits, and obfuscated the truth contained in what remained. The deeper truth of the teachings of Jesus supports an appreciation of our connection to Source, a true self empowerment, and an appreciation for what anarchy really means (AKA no ruler). Of COURSE his message had to be purposefully confused. The stuff they left in is only that which helps the ruling power to control society, congruent with the original work of fuckery we call the "Old Testament."
I suggest the Source of All Things had as little to do with the construction of that book, or any of it's original source material as It did in say, the writing of Hamlet. Like the bible, that story has some very interesting lessons and some solid historical underpinnings. Yet no one says that one is "the voice of God." Maybe Shakespeare should have included that line as well. Who knows where we would be if he had. Of course he would have needed to construct the authoritative infrastructure to ensure it took, and I suppose that might have been problematic, since that role was already fulfilled and entrenched by the Holy Roman Empire.
Looking at who did write/construct our modern day version of the bible (where it really came from) and its encompassing infrastructure is, I suggest, the best place to begin to unpack the social manipulation.
Having said that, I have yet to have much success with that no matter how I present the evidence. I can't even get anyone to look at it who isn't already on that path to discovery.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WSEtuckDbpk
“Jews against Zionism”🧐 🙏✌️💚🐢🇺🇸
Another jew against zionism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUppu2OHVTY&t=92s
Religous Jews have never been the problem. Its the secular or quasi religious zionists that are the global elite.
Most Christians don't realize Judaism is a newer religion than Christianity is and Christianity has never been based on Judaism. This is a inconvenient truth that is a taboo subject publicly. Believe it or not, Judaism was created to confront the spread of Christianity - using the Bible as a prop and also to conceal Judaism's ritualistic practice of blood-letting. The proof is of course in writing and can be found in Judaism's foundational Passover text.
Judaism's foundational Passover text is not from the Old Testament but rather the Haggadah, a thoroughly Talmudic work. (M. Hoffman III, "Judaism Discovered"). The Talmud was compiled as a result of the absolute destruction of Herod’s temple, in which every stone was carried away leaving no trace of it’s existence. In it we learn:
In 66 CE, when the Roman general Vespasian swept into Jerusalem, Judaism was a cultic, oral religion, with Herod's massive temple as its lodestar. Everything happened in the temple complex. Four years later, Vespasian's son Titus razed it to the ground. A quote from the Talmud:
"Where was God under the rubble?" wondered the Rabbis. "How to praise him now that the temple was gone?" The sages agreed: Jews would have to BECOME a people of the book, or they would disappear.
Hence, they were NOT a people of the book before this time.
I would put it slightly differently.
Before Christ, there was no religion called "Christianity."
The followers of the Old Testament could be said to be following Hebrewism, a term no longer used today (probably because it would reveal too much of the truth).
The people who completely rejected the Old Testament were the ancestors of today's jews, and they followed the "Tradition of the Elders." The elders were the "jews" who thought they had better ideas than the God of the Old Testament.
When the people living in the Kingdom of Judah were conquered and captured and sent to Babylon, both groups of people were involved in the capture -- the Israelites (those who were descended from Jacob/Israel, via Judah and Benjamin, who followed the Hebrew religion), as well as the jews who lived there, and followed the Tradition of the Elders. The population was mixed, not homogeneous.
While in Babylon, the "jews" continued with their own distinct religion, and also adopted aspects of the Babylonian pagan religion, which included child sacrifice, Baal, etc.
Upon the release from Babylon and return to Judah (now, the Roman province of Judea), about 20% of those people were the "jews" and the rest were the original Israelites/Judahites.
It is at this time that Judaism was born, when the "jews" transitioned from the Tradition of the Elders to a more formalized religion, which they called Judaism.
Judaism was never based on Hebrewism (Old Testament). That was something co-opted later to make it appear to be the same or similar religion.
But when Christ came, He rebuked these "jews" and their false religion, and the result of that was the birth of the Christian religion, due to the New Testament being added to the Old Testament. Hebrewism went extinct.
True. Judaism ≠ Hebraism
"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an 'Israelite' or a 'Hebrew'", The 1980 Jewish Almanac, chapter 1, "Identity Crisis".
Also, the following is true
Judahite ≠ Jew
Above in the comment section, there is a more detailed research. However, I'll provide the pertinent portion below.
The word "Jew" never existed in Roman times. We are told it derives from the word 'Judea'. Now, 'Judea' is an English appellative for the Latin appellative 'Iudaea'. It is the Roman name for the region. Even the people of Germany don't refer to themselves as Germans. The people of Deutschland (Germany) call themselves "Deutsch" (the people; race). Why would the 'chosen ones' use their arch enemy's Roman name to call themselves by?
Much later the word 'Jew' comes into existence in England in circa 1600s, which coincides with a wave of Yiddish immigrants coming from France and Deutschland. These Yiddish settlers came from eastern Europe and originated from Khazaria, not the Middle East, but rather the steppes of Caspian and Black Seas, which had since fallen to the proxy Byzantine and Caliphate conquering armies. The French and Europeans viewed these immigrants negatively and treated them similarly to gypsies. They allowed them to quarter in only a designated area of the city. A French derogatory term for 'ghetto' and the Yiddish district of town was called – 'Jeuerie'; "ghetto", from Anglo-French 'Juerie', Old French 'Juierie’ or the later English version 'Jewry'. Originally the English term 'Jewry' referred to those immigrants coming from Eastern European people who spoke Yiddish (Ashkenazi). The word 'Jew' did not exist during the Roman times.
An important note on the ghetto. It was specifically a place for the Jews. It was NOT a "poor area of town." On the contrary, the "ghettos" were the nicest places in town. They were full of wealthy people. It wasn't until the late nineteenth century, and the exodus from Eastern Europe (an almost certain part of the Zionist plan) into New York City that the term became associated with poor parts of town. In Europe originally it was were all the banks, goldsmiths, high class merchants, etc. were. They had good sanitation (unlike the rest of the city), good roads, good buildings, good food, etc., and the "Jews" wanted to live there. They most certainly didn't want to live anywhere else.
I don't know for sure, but I suggest it is entirely possible that
may not have been a design of
but were rather the designs of the Jews themselves, and
is the story we are told, not the actual truth of the matter.
There are numerous stories of "Jewish persecution" such as this "segregation" narrative. Deeper dives into them always show that it was always advantageous to the super wealthy Jews (not always advantageous to all Jews, but always advantageous to the super wealthy ones). Now was that because it was planned by them, or did they simply take advantage of a bad situation? I don't know, maybe a little bit of both (or maybe not). But that was always the outcome. If we look at history purely as it is told to us, and not who actually gains advantage, I suggest we miss very important pieces of evidence.
In their own writings, consider the following.
Destroying Christians Through Sin
In the doctrines of Jewish Cabalah messianism, the belief is that Israel as the Shekinah has been separated from God because of her sins [spiritual adultery]. Because of Israel’s sins it is believed by Cabalist that the light of Israel resident in the Shekinah has turned to darkness. Each righteous Jew was thought to possess a spark of the Shekinah. Collectively, these sparks were manifested as a flame of fire over the mercy seat in the holy of hollies.
They claim the divine sparks indwelling in the Shekinah departed from the Jews because they departed from righteousness. [My note: This is why Israeli non-practicing Jews are targeted. Allan Brownfeld reports that Shahak and Mezvinsky “cite case after case, from the Middle Ages until the 19th century.” These authors report, “It was usual in some Hasidic circles until the last quarter of the nineteenth century to attack and often to murder Jews who had reform religious tendencies…” In terms of the Shekinah, they are preventing their righteousness.]
Some believe this divine presence [of the Shekinah] came over into the New Testament Church as witnessed by the “Tongues of fire that sat upon each of them" (Acts 2: 3). In the Isaac Luria secret doctrines of Cabalism, each Gentile Christian who now has the holy Spirit and one of those alleged righteous sparks, is like a shell imprisoning a part of Israel’s future destiny. They believe these shells must be broken so the spark can escape. That is, the Gentile Christians must be made to become wicked and evil and depart from righteousness, so the divine sparks will forsake them as they did the first Jews, and then return to Israel again. It is believed by these Cabalists, that when Israel turns to righteousness [Talmudic Pharisee Judaism], and the Gentile Christians are fully led into the abyss of wickedness [liberalism], by the cult of the all seeing eye, Jacob Frank’s secret “Sabbatians,” (Rabbi Marvin S. Antelman, To Eliminate The Opiate, Vol. 1, p 130), then Rome [Talmudist label all Christians figuratively as Rome], will be destroyed (The coming great blood-bath by the whore). [My note: The posting here by u/MAG768720 provides a good example of this. However, it is far more pervasive and through Tikkun Olam, that is, "making a better world", is really establishing a Masonic-one world government.]
Talmudist believe their Messiah will come and do this before setting up the millennial communistic utopia. [My note: This must be prepared before the 'All-Seeing Eye' or the false messiah is seated on his throne].
Talmud, Abadian: “When Rome is destroyed Israel will be redeemed.”
Rome here is figurative of all Christian groups and people.
Also, Talmud, Zohar 1,219b: “Captivity of Jews ends when Christian Princes die.” Christian Princes here are the Ministers of Jesus Messiah. The coming world-persecution (the great blood-bath) by anti-christ, will perform this task (a trial-run was carried out under Communism in Russian and China).
The Talmud teaches that Israel cannot be fully redeemed until Christianity as Jesus established it is destroyed. Is this not the Great Whore of Revelation 17 & 18 identified. And Jerusalem sits on seven mountains. The Beast and Antichrist, find their fulfillment here, where the “head” (mountain; Mount Moriah), had a wound by a sword (70AD), and yet did live (1948). Israel became a nation in 1948.
Agreed.
Benjamin Freedman (a "former jew") gave a history of the word "jew" in his 1961 speech. This passage is just a few mintutes, at 1:03:22:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RDop7h3Th6Ad/
I don't think he is 100% correct on everything, but gives an interesting history of this particular word.
He was one of the first people listened to for understanding Masonic-Zionism.
Well done. I'd argue that Christianity is not a religion at all. It is the way of a Father with His children. Religion is man doing works to gain from God what has freely been given by grace. Acts says the oeople were Called Christians because they claimed to have Christ in them, which tje Word of God does declare. We are Christ-ins.
Like Paul said, he was a Hebrew. And told us to be Jews inwardly if we want to be correct
The word "Jew" was never existed in Roman times. They tell us it derives from the word 'Judea'. Now, 'Judea' is an English appellative for the Latin appellative 'Iudaea'. It's the Roman name for the region. Even the people of Germany don't refer to themselves as Germans. The name Jew is analogous to the English appellative name "German" that refers to the people of Deutschland. The people of Deutschland (Germany) call themselves "Deutsch" (the people; race). Why would the 'chosen ones' use the name to call themselves of their arch enemy?
It turns out the word Jew derives from a 16th Century Old English mis-transliteration of Yiddish. It stuck. This information is derived from English etymology. Much later the word 'Jew' comes into existence in England in circa 1600s, which coincides with a wave of Yiddish immigrants coming from France and Deutschland. These Yiddish settlers came from eastern Europe and originated from Khazaria, not the Middle East, but rather the steppes of Caspian and Black Seas, which had since fallen to the proxy Byzantine and Caliphate conquering armies. The French and Europeans viewed these immigrants negatively and treated them similarly to gypsies. They allowed them to quarter in only a designated area of the city. A French derogatory term for 'ghetto' and the Yiddish district of town was called – 'Jeuerie'; "ghetto", from Anglo-French 'Juerie', Old French 'Juierie’ or the later English version 'Jewry'. Originally the English term 'Jewry' referred to those immigrants coming from Eastern European people who spoke Yiddish (Ashkenazi). The word 'Jew' did not exist during the Roman times.
In 2001, the third edition of the Bauer lexicon, one of the most highly respected dictionaries of Biblical Greek,[12] supported translation of the term as "Judean", writing. Here is what it concludes:
Incalculable harm has been caused by simply glossing Ioudaios with ‘Jew,’ for many readers or auditors of Bible translations do not practice the historical judgment necessary to distinguish between circumstances and events of an ancient time and contemporary ethnic-religious-social realities, with the result that anti-Judaism in the modern sense of the term is needlessly fostered through biblical texts.
It conveniently leaves out any words of 'intentional' word manipulation or 'name-stealing'. In this regard, we are also left to believe the papacy arising out of the Roman era didn't manipulate Roman pagan holidays, including their names, to coincide with important Christian events. Well, we know this is in fact true. Why then is it ignored in other instances?
Academic publications in the last ten to fifteen years increasingly use the term Judeans rather than Jews. [There is no distinction](See https://web.archive.org/web/20120720012434/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioudaios) between "Judahites," "Judeans" and "Jews" in modern standard Arabic. First appearance in Wikipedia, July 12, 2012. The word 'Jew' has been intermingled with the words 'Israelite', 'Judahite', 'Judean', 'pharisee', and 'Edomite' for over 400 years. It's use in the Bible is ambiguous and unfortunately needs to be deciphered for every verse that it is used. Some times it refers to the Roman province of Judea, other times it refers more accurately to Edomites. Other times it references 'Israelites’. Fortunately, some scholars are starting to take notice.
Correct, jew is modern. Hebrew means crossed over. As in over into captivity in Babylon.
Hebrew derives from Eber. Old French: Ebreu and Latin Hebraeus, from Gr Hebraios, from Aramaic ʻebrai (Heb ʻibrī), literally, one from the other side (of the Euphrates)
Yup, crossed over the river
I will repost a post I made the other day, which I think more people should consider:
Now, imagine that you were a monk living 1,000 years ago.
The Roman Catholic Church WAS Christianity at the time. It was not merely one of the denominations, and it was not something that only a few people followed.
It had MASSIVE control over the people of the day.
And the Roman Catholic Church had its own doctrines, whether they were in agreement or in conflict with the Bible.
If the doctrines were in conflict with the Bible, then too bad for the Bible, because the pope, cardinals, bishops, etc. had already declared that THEY were the authority of what the Bible is.
So ... you are a monk, and your task is to translate an early Hebrew text of one of the books of the Bible into Latin.
As you read through, you discover -- to your horror -- that the Hebrew you are reading is in direct opposition to the Roman Catholic Church doctrine!
IOW, the doctrine is WRONG.
But if you SAY that or WRITE that, then you are a heretic. The penalty for heresy was death. And not just any death. You would be burned alive at he stake for heresy.
So ... what do you do?
It should not be too difficult to accept that many of those early translations were falsified to appease the church doctrine.
This is the main reason why Christianity has gone off the rails with its false idol worship of jews, who were never the chosen ones.
Furthermore, this false idol worship is why people like Charlie say what they do, and why there is American money going to the jews in Palestine, which only causes more problems, ultimately.
This is what Martin Luther discovered in the 1500's, which lead to the protest, the Protestant Reformation, and a split away from the Catholics.
Yet today, the Catholic Church, in all its false doctrines, is still the largest denomination in the world -- due mostly to Latin America.
Well, they WERE the organization who decided what it would and wouldn't be included in it. There was no Bible prior to them. Just writings of men believed to be holy scattered about and valued differently by all who had access to them. The Catholic Church got to decide which writings did and didn't make the cut in the first place, and I have no doubt altered what they kept to some degree for their own purposes. Not to mention, as is the case with all tyrannical governments looking to control the message, burned as many copies of as many of the other manuscripts that didn't fit their agenda.
But don't tell that to most Christians here. They've come up with their own story about the book basically popping into existence ex nihilo and that it's completely absurd to believe anyone ever could have altered anything for nefarious purposes. Where they got this idea is beyond me but they defend it tooth and nail for some reason nonetheless.
The ultimate authority has and will always be the Holy Spirit of God itself. Learn to communicate with God directly or even the Bible can and will lead you astray.
Good post. I'm not anti anything I'm pro truth. And I'm pro pointing out those who lie about who we are and the power we have. people have to decide if they want the doctrines and commandments of men falsely wrapped up and called biblical or the truth itself I adulterated. Organized religion, organized by who? Bible says the church is where ever 2 believers are together invisible name
Don't forget Scofield..........
Wonderful! On the topic of translations, let's dive into the Scripture behind the word "heresy".
So a heretic is someone to avoid, but what is it? In the Bible, heretick is a hapax legomenon, a word appearing only once, that itself is transliterated from the Greek.
Do other translations use this same word? Who are the ones who finance and push such translations? Who were Westcott and Hort? Is this not learning against learning? When does that term come from, where does it come from, and who employs it in full today? How is it employed and for what reasons?
Ahh, very interesting! There seems to be a common theme in each of these texts par the KJV. Now, remember, Tyndale used the Textus Receptus. This is not a KJV vs. other version comparison, but a comparison between the Received Text versus other manuscripts.
Now, all of these "other version" manuscripts use the word divisive. One would wonder why they're all in agreement here? One would need to compare their intention to the intent of the Textus Receptus.
This is parallel text to Titus 3:10; avoid them that teach something contrary to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Aah, now there's some progress! Keep digging!
Heresy! So Paul believed all things in the Bible, all doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the government at the time deemed this heresy.
There's that heresy word again! This time defined as false teachings against doctrine, particularly denying the Atonement, the ransom that God found, He as Jesus Christ.
So now there's established Biblical meaning. What about these new versions and their seeming "agreement" to use the word divisive? What about how "modern" institutions use this word heresy? Is this not diametrically opposed to the Textus Receptus? What is the intent behind all of this?
Biblically, historically, the actions of Jesus Christ caused and causes division. With the presentation of Truth comes the confrontation of choice:
So what do modern translations hope to achieve by changing this word "heretick" to "divisive man"? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from the Textus Receptus? What does Titus 3:10 warn of if reading from any other "modern" source? Why does this matter? What is the intention? Is this intention pervasive throughout the entirety of "modern" translations? Who is central to the entire Gospel?
On the Textus Receptus, one would read the history of Josiah's reign, Hilkiah's discovery in 2 Kings 22 and 23, and the book of Ezrah, to understand the parallel between Hilkiah and Desiderius Erasmus, between the revival and the Reformation.
One could spend their days in textual criticism and reading of Byzantine and Alexandria, of Codex Sinaiticus, of the fragments of papyri, of the tablets of Egyptian Sun Worship and the ilk. Another one could spend their days vindicating and reading the Bible while being led by the Holy Spirit, understanding the gift of prophecy, and receiving aid from the archeologist's spade. The two have been working in tandem for all of earth's history, as a battle that has been raging for millennia: when there is reformation, there is counter-reformation, when there is discovery, there is counter-discovery, but who or what is the real cause of this division? Who or what is the heretic? What does the study of Titus 3:10 and its translations show? Is intent in the heart of the matter?
Making a choice is given to the individual, but there are only two choices.
Jews and Hebrews = two DIFFERENT groups of people.
You might find this video interesting, which is a debunking of the narrative of the "high IQ jew."
https://www.bitchute.com/video/o8rV7r6TWl9B/
The Torah vs the Talmud
Not really, the Orthodox jews still follow the Talmud. Its the karaites that reject the talmud for the torah. But they're few.
Talmud is ashanazi fabrication.
Its devil worship
It's stomach turning, to say the least. It makes perfect sense upon reading from it why Jesus called the followers of it "a den of vipers, children of their father the devil, and whited sepulchres filled with dead men's bones." Their stomachs were probably quite literally digesting dead men's bones as he said that to them. Of course according to the Talmud, only followers of it were considered human beings. Non-them were animals worthy of blood letting.
The Sephardic jews follow it too so do the mizrachi. Only the karaites do not.
It really depends on which Jewish religion you are talking about. As it turns out, there are quite a few. There is a fair bit of evidence that suggests the Torah ("The Law") was written specifically by the Jewish Priest class (an Aristocracy) to control the masses, not to mention get a tenth of everyone's income (an income tax), get their first born sons as temple slaves or sacrifices (or, later, a "child tax" that the wealthier could pay to not send their children into slavery/death), not to mention their best cuts of meat (Filet Mignon (or the mutton equivalent) for the Priests every day!).
The REAL Jewish religion, the one the select (Elect) Jewish Aristocracy follows (in secret) is something a fair bit different.
Both new and Old testament were still God breathed. holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit itbsays in Peter. Old testament was the practice of the levitical priesthood whose job along with all elders was to use the law as a foreshadowing of rhe coming of Christ. It was meant to help them recognize the savior when he arrived. Instead, they turned the doing of the law into false righteousness and the means by which to gain God's favor. By the works of the law shall no man be justified. In hebrews it tells us who the hall of famers were, GOD said they all died in BELIEVING having NOT received the promise while Still alive. Promise? What Promise, the one God gave in Genesis 3:15 regarding the coming messiah in answer to the fall of man. They were counted righteous for only one reason, they believed in the coming messiah. They will be raised in the resurrection of the just. Abraham and others.... good stuff
Thank you. I am well aware of the dogma. I spent thirty years studying it and arguing theology with other theologians. As it turns out, once you let go of:
which is a self-referenced statement (not to mention internally contradicted), and start to look at all of the evidence from the ancient world, or even just look at the mistranslations and the books of canon left out of the bible, things start to look a fair bit different.
Which God? The bible talks about numerous gods and, when you actually look at the original works (or as close as we can get), the bible clearly distinguishes between these gods as separate entities in several places. It claims El (a Canaanite deity) was the Creator, it claims YHWH is The Lord of Israel (specifically of Israel, not of anywhere else). It says explicitly that YHWH was the SON of El, etc.
These statements are taken directly from the Bible, but no one pays attention to these self-contradictions and probably a thousand others, because
If they are "God breathed" (which God exactly?) then the discrepancies simply don't matter. We can ignore them. We can ignore all the other evidence (of which there is a metric fuckton) that the religion was created specifically to control the population (again, all you have to do is read the bible to see it plain as day). We can ignore the Jewish Priest Aristocracy's influence in the creation of The Church and later biblical translations. We can ignore everything, because no matter what the evidence suggests,
and we're done. No more thinking required.
Instead of thinking, you should believe the people who told you what the truth is, AKA the people who wrote, translated, and assembled the bible. The last two tasks were accomplished specifically by the Council of Nicaea, and their later iterations, The council of Nicaea was originally organized by the Mithra worshiper, Emperor Constantine, who created the modern day version of "Christianity" (completely subverting it from the original) to unite the four different "Roman Empires" under one banner. This effort, started three full centuries after Jesus (imagine how different our world is from three hundred years ago to get an idea of how long this is) united Mithraism (some people call it "paganism," but it was specifically Mithraism), Judaism, and Christianity into One Religion. Why do we have so many "pagan" dates, celebrations, etc. in Christianity? This is why. Because that is the origin of today's "Christianity".
None of those statements is controversial, but people ignore them because:
Most people (at least here) realize that it is a subset of modern day Jewish Aristocrats that run the world (not alone, but predominantly), and they have for a long time. These Jewish Aristocrats are the direct descendants of the exact same people who wrote the books of the OT. That's not really a controversial statement either, though many don't really think about it.
Why don't they think about it?
because:
If you allow yourself, for just one second to think that maybe that's not the exact perfect Truth, and spend that one second looking at the rest of the evidence, the world, and indeed, the actual teachings of Jesus become very, very different.
We see fuckery everywhere, but so many think "There can't be any in the Bible itself," because:
It was written by people. Think about who those people really were (the Jewish Aristocracy). So much opens up if you do that.
So much...
Hey, Slyver.
If you had written this post a few years ago, I would have agreed with you.
Today, I do not.
Of course back then, I never really researched the Bible, or even the historical and archeological records of that time. I only read people's opinions about it.
Elohim is the plural form of El. Although it does use the plural form, as well, the actions of God are always in the singular form. Never "they created this," but rather "they decided this" and "He created it." And that is in Genesis 1.
I don't know if it was a mistranslation or like the "royal we" or talking about His buddies, the angels, or whatever. I wasn't there, and have never found any clear-cut answers.
But if it were a variety of gods, we would get a story about a variety of gods.
We do not.
I agree that early jews played a role in purposely mistranslating the Bible in many areas.
Mthra, however, came long after the books of the Old Testament. It should not be suprising that simiar stories would be floating around the region, passed on to other people, who came up with their own similar stories.
Also, Rome was originally anti-Christian/Hebrew, so it is unlikely they would have done a 180 and turned on a dime to Christianity. It was more likely to be something that was partially accepted at first, but in a different name or ideology, and only later accepted as more and more people believed it.
The product of the Council was the early Roman Catholic Church, with all of its power in the lives of the people. We can agree that this was a primary motivation.
However, those are not the people who wrote the books. They decided which books would get the stamp of approval ("canon law") and which would not, but none of those books were originally written in Latin.
Agreed.
You can make that claim, but you don't have any direct evidence of it.
The early "jews" HATED the Old Testament as much as the New Testament.
Today, the Talmud teaches that Jesus is living in Hell and burning in excrement.
It teaches that Christianity must be destroyed, and that any non-jew can be treated as not human.
The "jews" of 3,000 years ago hated the books of Moses as much as they do today.
If they actually wrote the originals, there would have been no need to infiltrate and subvert it over the centuries.
Look at all the "anti-semitism" bullshit warnings today. If the jews had not lied about the Holocaust in such a dumb way that people could figure out it was a lie, they would not have to run for cover by passing laws outlawing the questioning of it.
If they had written the original books of the Bible, they never would have made it so anti-jew.
Why did Martin Luther protest the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500's? Why did he write such anti-jew literature once he had read the original texts of the Bible?
Because he realized that the jews had been lying, with the RCC as their co-conspirator, all those centuries about what the original books of the Bible REALLY said.
After all, through all those centuries, the non-jews never had the internet (or even, the printing press).
ish... It's also used quite commonly in other contexts (archeologically speaking) as the plural form of "gods." In Canaanite artifacts for example (the origin of the god "El"), the "Elohim" is El, Asherah, and their children.
ish... In the modern day translation it works out this way. Not always in the earlier works. Importantly, there is a fair bit of evidence that suggests that there was an effort by the Priest Class to rewrite the earlier religion of the region, which was henotheistic (one god higher than others, but all "gods") into a monotheistic one (only one god, period). This seemed to have occurred post "Babylonian exile" which is really a misnomer, since it wasn't "The Jews" that were "exiles," rather it was select children (attractive, and/or otherwise exemplary children) of the Aristocrats (from the Priest class) that went to Babylon after they were conquered. These children then, it would appear, came back and rewrote their religion, writing most of what we call the "old testament" today, including revisions of the earlier works (the Torah) to make the religion more monotheistic. That is why there are so many discrepancies and self-conflicts within the Torah, such as the difficulties with the "plural form" of El, two different, conflicting creation stories, etc.
The order of events is, I think, the "Israelite religion" was just the Sumerian/Canaanite religion with some renaming and possibly the inclusion of YHWH, which may have been a renaming of the God of Storms from those other religions, or may have come from somewhere else. That religion later became an effort to promote YHWH into El, usurping his throne, to become first among the many gods. This was done I think sometime during or after the Bronze Age collapse (maybe 800-1000 BC). This put "the people of Israel" first among their peers within their own canon, justifying all of their actions of conquest and slaughter, and set up the income tax system for the Aristocracy. They put their God first (though shalt have no other gods before me) by usurping the status of El. YHWH, "one of the sons of El" became YHWH, "I've always been El" became (after Babylon) "There is no other god but YHWH who is also sometimes called El."
I think after Babylon their henotheistic system wasn't good enough. Influences from Zoroastrianism and Babylon, and the commonality of their religion with the religion of the rest of the Canaanites I think demanded a push for a different, more distinct monotheistic religion. I mean, who knows what the motivation was, but this change from Henotheism to monotheism appears to have occured sometime in the fourth or fifth century BC.
If you look at the rest of the religious works for the other people in the region, especially the Canaanites (Ugaritic) and the Sumerian religions, and then look at all the different names for "god" in older Hebrew works, noting the surrounding context and phraseology, you can see obvious influences among these religions. They obviously started as the same Polytheistic religion, with El/Anu as the Creator (a different entity than the Source of All Things, but the Creator of our World), and all of the other gods, or "Elohim," as deities (Divine Rulers) of specific regions.
On the contrary, we most certainly do. You have to dig deeper into the original stuff (or "earlier" AKA earliest Hebrew versions, we don't actually have "original"). Look at "alternate" translations. See why certain translations came into the "Bible we got," and what the controversy is. The discrepancies between different statements becomes very obvious once you do that. Dig especially into scholarship that tries to determine the authorship of the Torah. I haven't been saving my sources on this research because I don't plan on ever writing it up, instead this has been a personal research (even though it has probably taken up most of my research time for the past couple years). I can't point you in specific directions, but I remember mostly where certain ideas are associated. One interesting place to begin is with Two Old Dudes Production. They have a lot of short videos that give a lot of interesting statements of fact. Of course I'm not suggesting that they are "giving the truth," but it is a good place to begin. Digging deeper into their claims from other sources, especially gives all sorts of interesting other facts. I prefer to dig into the archeology itself. That's where the really good stuff is. From there, keeping in mind what the bible itself says (modern day version), and who wrote it, and what they have done since, gives an interesting perspective to start piecing together our lost history.
Not true at all. On the contrary, the oldest scriptures that contain Mithra date to around a thousand years before most of the OT was written. Almost certainly hundreds of years before even the Torah was written (original henotheistic version, not the revised “monotheistic” version).
It is not surprising at all. Indeed, it is exactly because of this that we can attempt to piece together the likely origins of the Torah.
Indeed, it is exactly the “specialness” of the “Israelites” that strongly suggests that they did exactly that. Used what came before in their region, and set themselves up as “chosen,” usurping El, and replacing him with the entity (YHWH) that was originally El's son (as stated in the Bible).
It was “accepted” because the beliefs were written into law. The people had no choice but to adopt the specific beliefs put forth by the Council of Nicaea.
There is substantial evidence of Jewish Aristocracy influence in the Roman Empire at the time (through the money system of course). I suggest it is highly likely they had influence in the creation of the religion itself, considering that it was an extremely important event, I think they had been trying to do exactly that for a long time (to control the Gentiles), and it fits perfectly with their modus operandi.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “direct.” I don’t have “direct” evidence of anything from the past (what we call “history”). “Direct” evidence in history is kinda like a unicorn, you can talk about it, or dream about it, or relate it to virgins, but you can’t actually produce it and prove that it is what it says it is.
My “direct” evidence is in the archaeological and genetic evidence that suggests that the “Jews” that "came from Khazaria" went to Khazaria (or more specifically, the Kazar Khanate) from Israel hundreds of years before. (Sometime after, maybe a few hundred years after, the “Roman diaspora”). They didn’t “become Jews” by chance, on the contrary, they were already there. They went there and took over that Tribe (by breeding with their Aristocracy) long before the story that talks about their "choosing Judaism". But more, there is evidence that suggests the people of that region that were there before these "new" Judeans (or perhaps Israelites/Samaritans) arrived were originally from Israel (somewhere from the area we call "Israel" today), i.e. they were the “Magogians,” AKA the “lost tribe of Israel” who had set up shop in that region a thousand years (or so) before these "new" Jews came. I have pages upon pages of stuff written up about this. I will publish it at some point. This is part of my Scythian research, which is just my research on “Tartary.” (The “Tartarians” were just the Scythians.)
I suggest you can’t understand the “Ashkenazi Jews” until you understand the Tartarians AKA the Scythians. I think that may be why the Tartarians were erased from history, because they are directly related to the Ashkenazi, or rather, the Khazarians were a subsect of the Scythians, later known as the Tartarians (renamed by Ghengis Khan, a Scythian). I think hiding the Tartarians was done to hide the Scythians, or rather, to hide the extent, in time and space (land area), controlled by the Scythian Aristocracy, and who that Aristocracy was and is today (the group we call the "Aryan Race" was, I'm fairly certain, the Scythian Aristocracy, or "Royal Scythians"). You can’t understand anything in history with the removal of the real history of the Scythian Empire. The Scythian Empire dwarfed the Roman Empire by multiple times land area and thousands of years of continuous culture and single Aristocratic Rule. Indeed, the people who run the world today are, according to my research, the exact same Aristocracy.
The idea that what we see on the surface of any organization today (e.g. the Talmud) represents in any way "what's really going on" is, I think, naïve. I think the "Talmudic religion" was a specifically crafted idea, a form of controlled opposition. The real religion is not a part of anything you can research directly. The Talmud (or Rabbinic religion) is, I suggest, a smokescreen. It isn’t the real religion of the actual Powers That Be. You can’t find their beliefs by studying that system. You can find clues by doing so, but you have to dig deeper into other related entities to get a broader scope.
Maybe. Maybe he was himself controlled opposition. I suggest no one gets to prominence except at the behest of the PTB. Digging into his past, and indeed, the stories of all the “movers and shakers” gives direct ties to the PTB that can’t be seen in the context of today. For example, Luther was a member of the Aristocracy. That’s important context that is not appreciated and a good starting point for digging deeper. There is more, but this isn’t about Luther.
There are too many things effectively erased from history. Anything that remains that you can find post 1900AD is there because the PTB want it to be there, a part of The Narrative. I trust nothing, but I trust anything written post Rockefeller Education (around 1880) even less. It is all so full of shit that it must be looked at as purposeful fuckery. That doesn’t mean it is, but that lens provides a path to avenues of further investigation that give great insight into how the fuckery, the Grand Illusion was constructed.
As for the "god breathed" verse. It can obviously be read in a different way than how it's frequently cited by modern Christians. They see a verse that says "all scripture is God-breathed" and since they have a book they consider scripture, the circular logic kicks in and tells them that entire book fits the description. They never seem to stop and think that if something is NOT "God-breathed" (i.e., TRUE) that no matter what book it happens to be printed in it, by Peter's definition, that is NOT scripture. So you take something that's "god-breathed" and you alter it to change the meaning. Clearly it's no longer "god-breathed" but rather, is an interpolation of either ignorant or evil men.
"But if we can't trust every word the Bible says then how can we trust anything it says???"
They always retort. Simple. Truth RESONATES within you. To know what is and is not true is up to you. You must seek God in prayer, and learn to hear his voice, then all truth shall be made known unto you. Putting your faith in a book to never lead you astray is lazy and foolhardy. Does the book not speak of a living God who speaks with his children? Does it not say anyone who calls upon him in faith, doubting nothing, shall receive the truth directly from him? So why aren't you one of those? Why haven't you put to test the reality of the one thing that stands out as the most consistent theme throughout the entire book--that God speaks to man?
And as for the strawman argument they love to make that states, "So you don't think God had the power to keep His word pure throughout the ages???" give me a break. I think God has the power to do anything, but He gave his children agency and he clearly allows them to do with that what they please. What if, when someone told you about the existence of the Cabal someone replied to you "So you don't think God had the power to keep the world free of such an evil influence???"
Just because God is all-powerful and CAN do anything, doesn't automatically mean he WILL do something. Clearly the faith and obedience of his children plays a massive role in how God chooses to operate among them. But alas, too many eschew the responsibility of seeking direct revelation from God, and have made the Bible their God, and Jesus their idol, as the Children of Israel so frequently did with a variety of people and things throughout their history.
But again, don't tell them that.
I suggest attempting to show that is an essential step towards any actual Great Awakening.
The GA isn't just for the people we call "sheep," but for "the flock" as well.
As this is a message board, "tell" will have to suffice for now.
I mean "show" by taking the time to break it down and provide specific evidence rather than "tell" (as I did above).
Well I've got about 40 years under my belt myself. The integrity of the Word is man's basic spiritual problem. Did God really say that? I'll argue there is teachable/learnable method to rightly divide the word, when I ran into those contradictions you speak of i would apply those methods to understand why the apparent contradiction. It was usually in my own understanding, when I came to understand administrations, to whom it was written, verse. Context and used before the Bible fits like a hand in a glove. I hope yku haven't given up on it. When. I gave up on religion(man made crap) i finally found Christianity. The way of Fathern with His children. God Bless.
I have no problem with "Christianity," if by Christianity you mean the teachings of Jesus. What I have a problem with is believing that the Source of All Things is speaking through a book written by people who were murderers, liars, cheaters, stealers, rapists, eugenicists, slavers, child abusers, child rapists, child murderers, child eaters, genocidal maniacs, master illusionists, and overall world dominating psychopaths who believe they are the most important race/culture/society/gene line to ever exist, and the only one that really matters. THAT is who wrote the bible. They wrote it specifically to control society. The evidence is obvious, both internally and in the larger scope of the archeological and genetic evidence.
I don't have any problem with the teachings of Jesus. On the contrary, I find them to be quite insightful and enlightening. I have a problem with believing the bible, and more importantly (and relevantly), the bible we have today is some sort of guide to that teaching, rather than a purposeful obfuscation of it.
Getting people to see how the bible (as we understand the term) performs that task of obfuscation is near impossible. The entire world has been brainwashed to believe the opposite. "Everything in this book comes directly from God and is thus the Ultimate Truth. Oh ya, and it's also complete. All the other books, Jesus' quotes, and any writings you may find in a cave somewhere that were previously canon are decidedly not God's word." Take just that one line, add millennia of brainwashing to get people to believe it, throw in the occasional "this is how you're supposed to interpret this," and "this is the proper context to understand why it is totally reasonable for "God" to demand that his "chosen people" murdered/raped/enslaved/wiped out innocent people," etc., and you can do anything to an entire society. The cognitive dissonance and confusion that comes with an honest reading of the bible, when you add in "this is God's True Words" helps enforce the brainwashing when the brain tries to rectify it. In fact, this technique of first creating cognitive dissonance and then guiding the brain's "making sense of it" is an essential part of brainwashing, and it is replete in the bible as presented.
This creation of a perfect brainwashing tool to control society is exactly what happened. With regards to the NT, they took out the most important bits, and obfuscated the truth contained in what remained. The deeper truth of the teachings of Jesus supports an appreciation of our connection to Source, a true self empowerment, and an appreciation for what anarchy really means (AKA no ruler). Of COURSE his message had to be purposefully confused. The stuff they left in is only that which helps the ruling power to control society, congruent with the original work of fuckery we call the "Old Testament."
I suggest the Source of All Things had as little to do with the construction of that book, or any of it's original source material as It did in say, the writing of Hamlet. Like the bible, that story has some very interesting lessons and some solid historical underpinnings. Yet no one says that one is "the voice of God." Maybe Shakespeare should have included that line as well. Who knows where we would be if he had. Of course he would have needed to construct the authoritative infrastructure to ensure it took, and I suppose that might have been problematic, since that role was already fulfilled and entrenched by the Holy Roman Empire.
Looking at who did write/construct our modern day version of the bible (where it really came from) and its encompassing infrastructure is, I suggest, the best place to begin to unpack the social manipulation.
Having said that, I have yet to have much success with that no matter how I present the evidence. I can't even get anyone to look at it who isn't already on that path to discovery.
I'll keep trying.
95% of Judaism is Phariseic..... The less than 5% are highly discriminated against.
It's like the synogogue of satan Talmudic jews murdered the Torah jews in ww2
https://truthsocial.com/@DanScavino/111281699197294761 ☝️🎶🎵🌈10/22/23🍁🤗🎵🎶 🙏✌️💚🐢🇺🇸
I'm so lost on this issue. I seem to recall Steve Bannon in a speech saying he supported Zionism. Who's who in all of that?