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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
95% of Judaism is Phariseic..... The less than 5% are highly discriminated against.