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.
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/