Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 21st, 2006 #61
PatrickMc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 103
Default

.....Why is my post no showing up?
 
Old March 21st, 2006 #62
Túpac Amaru
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The original Jews were black or Arabic, as was Jesus, but they got scattered across European continent due to the Roman destruction of Judea and the ensuing Diaspora. With that we have converts, as with any religion, and the original ethnic Jews. So, to say the Jews now are imposters is only half right. Some are converts from years back and others are actually of Jewish descent. If what I just posted makes any sense at all.
 
Old March 21st, 2006 #63
Abzug Hoffman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,483
Default

I read the long post Patrick posted and I though it was interesting, but I don't trust the scholarship after a certain point.

Hebrew speaking Christians are the same thing as kabbalah studying pagans in my book - fools who have sold their true heritage for a mess of pottage and are Zionizing themselves voluntarily.

Personally I think the "Jews" of today were probably the Phoenicians of the ancient world - a people with the exact same profile and language as the Hebrews but who mysteriously disappeared.
 
Old March 22nd, 2006 #64
PatrickMc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 103
Default

”The original Jews were black or Arabic, as was Jesus, but they got scattered across European continent due to the Roman destruction of Judea and the ensuing Diaspora.”

Nonsense...

The first source of evidence comes from The Archko Volume (or the Archaeological Writings of the Sanheidrim & Talmuds of the Judeans). These are the Official Documents made in These Courts in the days of Jesus Christ; translated by Drs. McIntosh and Twyman in 1887 of the Antiquarian Lodge, Genoa, Italy, From Manuscripts in Constantinople and the Records of the Senatorial Docket taken from the Vatican in Rome; Published by Keats Publishing (1975).
Chapter V - Gamaliel - Interview With Joseph And Mary And Others Concerning Jesus; The hagiographa or holy writings, found in the St. Sophia Mosque at Constantinople, made by Gamaliel, in the Talmuds of the Jews, 27 B.C. It seems Gamaliel was sent by the Sanhedrim to interrogate Joseph and Mary in regard to this child Jesus. Gamaliel is recorded as reporting:
I found Joseph and Mary in the land of Mecca. ...Joseph is a wood-workman. He is very tall. His hair looks as though it might have been dark auburn when young. His eyes are grey, Jesus, He is the picture of his mother, only He has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else. He is tall. His visage is thin and of a swarthy complexion, though this is from exposure. His eyes are large and soft blue, the lashes are long and his eyebrows are large.
The Archo Volume, further records a description of Jesus Christ in Chapter VIII - Valleus‘s Notes. — Acta Pilati, or Pilate ‘A Report to Caesar of the Arrest, Trial, and Crucifixion of Jesus’.
Among the various rumors that came to my ears there was one in particular that attracted my attention. A young man, it was said, had appeared in Galilee preaching with a noble function a new law in the name of the God that had sent him. At first I was apprehensive that his design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Judeans. One day in passing by the place of Siloe, where there was a great concourse of people, I observed in the midst of the group a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could have easily suspected, so great was the difference between him and those listening to him. His golden-colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about thirty years of age. Never had I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance.
One final historically recorded description of Christ which shall be mentioned is to be found in a letter written to the monarch of Rome by Publius Lentrelus who was a resident of Judea in the days of Tiberius Caesar. This letter first appeared in the writings of Saint Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century A.D.
There lives at this time in Judea a man of singular virtue whose name is Jesus Christ... his followers love and adore him as the offspring of the Immortal God. He calls back the dead from the graves and heals all sorts of diseases with a word, or a touch. He is a tall man, well-shaped, and of an amiable and reverend aspect; his hair of a color that can barely be matched, falling into graceful curls, waving about and very agreeable.... His forehead high, large and imposing, his cheeks without spot or wrinkle, beautiful with a lovely red; his nose and mouth formed with exquisite symmetry; his beard and of a color suitable to his hair...his eyes bright and blue, clear and serene. Look innocent, dignified, manly, and mature; his arms and hands delectable to behold. (Taken from page 75, Appendix B of The Resurrection Tomb, by E. Raymond Capt.)
 
Old March 22nd, 2006 #65
PatrickMc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 103
Default

”Hebrew speaking Christians are the same thing as kabbalah studying pagans in my book - fools who have sold their true heritage for a mess of pottage and are Zionizing themselves voluntarily.”

For the record...

.....I don’t speak Hebrew, but I study Scripture in the original languages by way of the tools available to decipher that which was in the original manuscripts; Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible has a number for each usage of each word which then refers you to the Hebrew lexicon for the OT and the Greek lexicon of the NT... the supposed “hebrew” spoken by modern “jewry” is yiddish gutter language which is an amalgam of many different languages, albeit, adopted to the filthy sound they make when they try to talk...

.....I am the furthest thing from a zionist, and the “jews” have no valid Scriptural claim to the sandbox in the ME; they are murderers and liars from the beginning...

”Personally I think the “Jews” of today were probably the Phoenicians of the ancient world - a people with the exact same profile and language as the Hebrews but who mysteriously disappeared.”

.....You can “think” as you wish, but the Phoenicians *were* the Hebrews, and they were caucasian, not canaanite “jews”; the “jews” were the sons of cain and the sons of esau, which they admit to within their scholarly works, which most of the caucasians have never seen...
 
Old March 22nd, 2006 #66
Quietus
Berserker for Wotan
 
Quietus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Midgard
Posts: 830
Default

Who cares where today's jews came from? Jesus was not ONE OF US.
__________________
"At every door-way,
ere one enters,
one should spy round,
one should pry round
for uncertain is the witting
that there be no foeman sitting,
within, before one on the floor." -Odin, from the Hávamál (Olive Bray's translation)
 
Old March 22nd, 2006 #67
Sunwheel
Junior Member
 
Sunwheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 244
Default

Quote:
Durban]How about sticking to the subject of this thread?

Jesus was not and is not related to the Eastern European Jews.
Quote:
Jesus was a JUDEAN not a JEW.
There is no difference between a `Judean` and a `Jew`.
If you disagree then prove it but be prepared to give independant evidence.
Fruitcake tracts from CI will not cut the mustard.

Quote:
Jews are not the people from the Bible, they are identity theives from south eastern Europe.
This is not a debate about the racial origins of east European Jewry but about the racial identity of Jesus who in my opinion never existed but if he did he most certainly was a kike not an Aryan.
__________________
Black twelve-armed holy sun.
Rise! Rise! holy black sun.
 
Old March 22nd, 2006 #68
Sunwheel
Junior Member
 
Sunwheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Who cares where today's jews came from? Jesus was not ONE OF US.
Unfortunately some of us have not relinquished our childhood supersticions and indoctrinations.To do so would require an act of courage and a `leap of faith` if you excuse the pun.
__________________
Black twelve-armed holy sun.
Rise! Rise! holy black sun.
 
Old March 22nd, 2006 #69
Sunwheel
Junior Member
 
Sunwheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abzug Hoffman
I read the long post Patrick posted and I though it was interesting, but I don't trust the scholarship after a certain point.

Hebrew speaking Christians are the same thing as kabbalah studying pagans in my book - fools who have sold their true heritage for a mess of pottage and are Zionizing themselves voluntarily.

Personally I think the "Jews" of today were probably the Phoenicians of the ancient world - a people with the exact same profile and language as the Hebrews but who mysteriously disappeared.
It is only the 10 northern tribes who `mysteriously disappeared` not the Jews per se.
__________________
Black twelve-armed holy sun.
Rise! Rise! holy black sun.
 
Old March 22nd, 2006 #70
PatrickMc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 103
Default

"There is no difference between a `Judean` and a `Jew`.
If you disagree then prove it but be prepared to give independant evidence."


Proof, (the definitive answer):


.....It should be understood, (verify this for yourself), that in the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, the terms “jew” and “jews” are defined in the sense of geography, (i.e. a Judean, just as a person living in Texas is known as a Texan); The term “jew” is used twenty-two times in the KJV, A.V, New Testament and the term “jews” was inserted an hundred seventy-two times, an hundred seventy of which are derived from Strong’s #2453... there are six occurrances of the plural possessive “ jews’ “, five of which are dervied from Strong’s #2454; look these up now, and see... out of these two hundred usages, an hundred ninety-seven speak directly to geography of those mentioned therein; that is to say, they refer to a “Judean”, as in the sense of “from a place”, as in “a country”... If you’re not yet clear on this, ask; it would do well to remember that the term “jew”, in all of its various forms, was not added to Scripture until the eighteenth century...

.....The confusion reigns over the term “jew” due to the extensive “holocaust” propaganda, wherein we have been drilled repeatedly by the stories of German atrocities in exterminating “jews” during the second world war; most remain unaware that the same story had been run up the flagpole immediately following WWI, yet failed to garner a “salute”... there is much information concerning this issue, and I don’t wish to get bogged down with it here, but for those that still believe six million “jews” perished in that timeframe, research would be in order; there were not even six million “jews” in the whole of Europe at the time, according to the “jewish” census figures...

.....So, without going too deeply, (those of you that are already familiar with this, please bare with me for a moment), who are the “jews”? The International standard Bible Encyclopedia defines the term in accordance with the aforementioned Strong’s #2453, as follows: "'Jew' denotes originally an inhabitant of Judah, (2 Kings, 16:6 applies to the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom), but later the meaning was extended to embrace all descendants of Abraham." (James Orr, Volume III, page #1675); wherein derives such authority to have this meaning “extended to embrace all descendants of Abraham”? James Orr goes further; he states: “"'Jews' (always pl.) is the familiar term for Israelites in the Gospel, (esp. in John), Acts, Ephesians, etc."; this only further confuses an already highly confusing rendering into the English of any of the sacred texts, and I submit that is the very purpose for its usage... If “jew” actually refers to “Israelites”, why were they not also referred to as “Judeans”, or “Israelites” of the Hebrew faith?

.....There is no arguing the fact that the term “jew” did not exist prior to the year 1775, and that is inclusive of all languages on the planet; the term was first introduced to the English language in the eighteenth century when used by Sheridan in his play, The Rivals, (chapter 2, pp. 1), saying, “she shall have a skin like a mummy and the beard of a Jew.”... prior to this, there was no such word...

.....Despite what most folks believe concerning Shakespeare’s works, he had never seen, much less used, the term “jew” in his Merchant of Venice, (V, III, I, 61), nor any other; in this work, he wrote, “what is the reason? I am an iewe; hath not an iewe eyes?”... How can this be confirmed? There was not even in usage a letter “J”, (or “j”), at the time of this writing; check any resource you wish, and you will discover that this alphabetical letter did not exist until mid-eighteenth century; no one would have recognized such a letter at the time...

.....In Jerome’s fourth century Latin Vulgate edition of our New Testament, Our Christ is referred to as “Iudaeorum” in the Gospel of Saint John, which is the genitive plural of “Iudaeus”, in reference to the inscription of the “cross”, (stauros, in the Greek, meaning “death stake”, as opposed to the two-timbered symbol, today extant to a quite-deceived Christendom); Jerome’s Latin translation was done in the fourth century, translating to Latin, the original languages in which Scripture was written...

.....Jerome’s translation remains in use to this day by the Roman Catholic “church” authories as the Vulgate edition; Our Christ is first referred to as a supposed “jew” in the eighteenth century editions of the New Testament, that derived from the fourteenth century translations of the New Testament into the English language... the History of the origins of the term “jew” into the English, illustrate that this is a bastardized, contracted, and yes, corrupted form of the Latin “Iudaeus” which is found in Jerome’s Vulgate, and this stands as irrefutable...

.....The orignial MSS from the fouth to the eighteenth century translations trace accurately the origin, and successive usages of, as well as the complete History/etymology of the term “jew” in the English language; within these manuscripts are found each and every occurance of all of the equivalents used, as well as the order thereof, for the whole of those fourteen centuries in between...

.....From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" these English forms included, successively: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "I've," "Iew," and then finally the 18th century, "jew." The many earlier English equivalents for "jews" through the 14 centuries are "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then also finally in the 18th century, "jews"...

.....In England, in the eighteenth century, for the first time in History, the improved printing processes facilitated the printing of as many copies of our New Testament, as the market would bear; these were the revised, eighteenth centry version of the fourteenth century works, and families that had never boefore possessed a copy of the NT in any language, now obtained access; it was in these eighteenth century revised translation that the first occurrance of the term “jew” appeared in any English translation... by this usage, the term “jew” received the imprimature of the “authorities” of the day, thus establishing, and thereby stabilizing the usage of the term, which, in practice, continues down to our own day...

.....The most familiar of the eighteenth century editions of our new Testament in the English language are the Rheims, (Douai), edition of 1582, and the KJV, A.V. of 1611; in neither of these translations, (nor the Geneva Bible of 1530, did the term “jew” appear... this is inarugable, despite the fact that there are those that would, indeed, argue with it, and, failing that, attempt to proclaim it as completely insignificant; the term, “jew”, however, did, in fact, appear in the eighteenth century works...

.....Following the release of these revised editions of the Rheims, and the King James versions, distribution included the clergy and the laity throughout the English-speaking world; these people had no idea of the History/etymology of the English word “jew”, nor did they seem to care; in their ignorance of what had occurred, there had been no outcry over such a turn of events, be it from the people, or, particuarly, the clergy... general acceptance of the term “jew” as the English translation of the Latin “Iudaeus”, (as well as the Greek “Ioudaios”), was the order of the day; in fairness, there is no way that most could have known of the “new” English term, thus, there was no resistance to it...

.....In studies of the Latin, students are taught that the letter “I”, or “i”, when used as the initial letter of a given word, is to be pronounced as the letter “Y” in English, jus as the first letter is pronounced in words such as “year”, “youth”, or “yes”; the “I” in “Iudaeus” is so pronouced as the same usage in these words, “year”, “youth, and “yes” in the English... In every instance, with the translations from the fourth to the eighteenth century editions, the various forms of the word later translated to “jew”, the same was true with the letter “I” in its pronunciation, being spoken as the words “year”, “youth” and “yes”; likewise, the “Gi”, or the “Gy” when used in the place of the letter “I”...

.....The currently accepted pronunciation of the term “jew”, and the letter ”J”, is a fairly recent development; in today’s English language, the “J” in the term “jew” is pronounced like the “J” in the terms “juice”, “justify”, or “judge”; this has only been the case since the eighteenth century forward... prior to that time, the soon to be evolved “J” was pronounced exactly as the “Y” in the English terms from above, year”, “youth”, or “yes”; up to and until the eighteenth century, the term “jew”, in the English, was pronounced like the English term “you”, or “hew”, with the term “jews” like “youse” or “hews”... the presently accepted pronunciation of the term “jew” has only been acquired since the eighteenth century...

.....Webster’s Dictionary, 1828, has this to say about the letter “J”:

.....”A modern addition to the English alphabet."

.....The German language, however, yet retains the original Latin pronunciation; just as the Germna “jude” is the German equivalent of “jew”, the “J” is pronounced as the English “Y”... The German “J” is the equivalent of the English “I” and the pronunciation is exactly the same as the English “Y”; the German term “jude”, then, is essentially, the first syllable of the Latin “Iudaeus” and is pronounced exactly the same... the German “jude” is, similarly, the contraction and corruption of the Latin “Iudaeus”, and the German “J” is always pronounced just as the English “Y” in the words “year”, “youth” and “yes” when it is the first letter of the word; the pronunciation of the German “J” is not merely an exception of the pronunciation of the German “J”, but the rule...

.....The earliest translation of our New Testament in English from the Latin is the Wiclif, or, better known as the Wickliff edition, first published in 1380; in this edition, Our Christ is referred to as “one of the iewes”... that was the fourteenth century English version of the Latin “Iudaeus”, the pronunciation of which was “hew-weeze” in the plural and the singular “iewe” was pronounced “hew-wee”... in this edition from 1380, in the English, John, rendered today as:

.....John, 19:19: ...And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews.

.....was, instead, rendered:

....."Ihesus of Nazareth kyng of the iewes." Prior to the fourteenth centry, the English language had adopted the Anglo-Saxon “kyng” together with many other Anglo-Saxon words in place of the Latin “rex”, as well as the Greek “basileus”; the Anglo-Saxon also referred to a “tribal leader”...

.....Further, in the Tyndale edition of our New testament in the English language, first published in 1525, Our Christ was likewise referred to as one of the “Iewes”; in the Coverdale edition, first published in 1535, Our Christ was, again, described as “one of the Iewes”... Also in the Coverdale, the Gospel of John, chapter nineteen and verse nineteen, it was rendered “Iesus of Nazareth, kynge of the Iewes."; in the Cranner edition, first published in 1539, Our Christ was, yet again, referred to as “One of the Iewes”... In the Geneva Edition published in 1540-1557 Jesus was also described as “One of the Iewes." In the Rheims Edition published in 1582 Jesus was described as “One of the Iewes." Do you not see? The antiChrists are held in derision in this “trick of the scribes” by My Father; they couldn’t pull off replacing “Judean” with “Jew”, without providing testimony against themselves in the “murder of the age”, despite efforts at further concealment that continue to this day... since the pharisaical element were edomites, and fully in control of the area we know as Judea, despite the military presence of Rome, they were referred to as “Judeans”, just as all others living there at the time, including Our Christ; the Scriptural illustrations drawn by Christ Himself when addressing these edomites show clearly they were “not of His flock”, “hear not My Words”, “seek to kill me”, “not of YHVH”, “of your father, the devil” “cursed figs”... you fail to “rightly divide The Word”, and as a result, this doesn’t make sense to you; perhaps some prayer for understanding would be in order?

.....Also, in the KJV, A.V. published in 1604-1611, Our Christ was again referred to as “One of the Iewes”; the various forms of the Latin ”Iudaeus” were used, which were contemporary of the time these translations were rendered... the translation into the English, from the Greek, of the Gospel of John, 19:19, as it was originally written reads: "Do not inscribe 'the monarch of the Judeans' but that He Himself said 'I am monarch.'"

.....If you look at the original Greek MSS, “basileus” was rendered “monarch”, and “Ioudaios” was rendered into “Judeans” in the English; “Ioudaia” from Greek is “Judean” in the English, and “Ioudaios” from the Greek is “Judeans”... this solves the confusion of the varying accounts of the inscriptions placed upon the “cross”...

.....Were there a common understanding of the terms “Judean”, and “jew” in the English, by today’s standards, and they were understood to be identical in all meanings, as they both should be, the way they were so rendered, there would be no difference which term was used where, particularly when they were in reference to Our Christ in our New Testament, (or anywhere else, for that matter); however, the implications that are inferred by one reading these two terms today are vastly different... they can in no wise be considered synonymous...

.....Upon the introduction of the term “jew” in the eighteenth century, it had one, and one implication only, in the mind of the reader of Scripture, that being “Judean”; during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a group that Benjamin Freedman described as a “well-organized and well-financed international pressure group” had sought to instill a secondary meaning to the term “jew” in the minds of the masses... this secondary meaning had several purposes behind it; primarily to deceive Christians into believing these antiChrist “jews” were YHVH’s chosen Israelites, thereby usurping the heritage that rightfully belongs to the caucasian Israelites of Scripture... Mr. Freedman put it this way: “It is a misrepresentation presented to the world deliberately by this well-organized and well-financed pressure group to deceive Christians.”, (Facts Are Facts, by Benjamin H. Freedman, pp. 15-20)

.....The Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia gives the reference to the letter "J", as: THE LETTER J. “The history of the letter J is linked with the history of l. The Romans and their European successors used l both for the vocalic "i" and for the consonantal "y" (as in the English word "yet"). The English letter J did not come into existence until the end of medieval times, when scribes began to use a tailed form of "i," with or without the dot, next to the short form of "i" (1). When printing was invented, the tailed form of "i" (2) was often used for an initial "i," which is usually consonantal. Not until the 17th century, however, was the distinction between “J” or “j” as a consonant and “l” or “i” as a vowel fully established. (Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia)

.....In its plural form, the term "jew" appears a mere eighty-two times in the Old Testament, 45 of those times again are in the Book of Esther, (an inserted, non-canonical book, imho); the first use of the word "jew" in its plural form is 2 Kings, 16:6 which is about 742 B.C., and refers to the enemies of Israel; and this was about one thousand years after Abraham died. Therefore, it is beyond absurd, and intellectually dishonest, to call the Old Testament a “jewish” book. It is the book of the generations of Adamkind, (Genesis, 5:1), and Jacob/Israel in particular. From Genesis, 12:1 forward to the end of the New Testament, the Bible is written, to, for, and about Israel and not the other races or peoples on earth, save when Israel would bring it to them...

.....Now, as I said, the bulk of that part was for the benefit of those that had yet to understand these terms; with these thoughts in mind, let us move forward in lighting up the New Testament. Truth is what lights up the Word ofYHVH... YHVHshua declared in John, 8:32 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Knowing and understanding that the Old and New Testaments are written to, for, and about Israel is the first point of beginning in lighting up the New Testament.

....."They, (the “jews”), answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.”; Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye, (“jews”), seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye, (“jews”), do the deeds of your father...

.....Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, IF GOD WERE YOUR FATHER, YE WOULD LOVE ME: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. YE, (“jews”), ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND THE LUSTS OF YOUR FATHER YE WILL DO. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND ABODE NOT IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it...HE THAT IS OF GOD HEARETH GOD'S WORDS: YE, (‘jews”) THEREFORE HEAR THEM NOT, BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF GOD.", (John, 8:39-47)...

.....We are told in Matthew 13:38:

....."The field is the world: the good seed are the children of the Kingdom, (Israelites), but THE TARES, (the “jews”) ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE." This entire parable hearkens straight back to Genesis, 3:15, wherein YHVH Spoke to the physical seeds, (zera, in the Hebrew), of both the woman, Eva, and the serpent, the devil; it is also referenced in the parable of the husbandman, wherein the evil tenders slay The Son... This cannot be more clear, if only one has eyes to see and ears that hear His Words, as opposed to being one mentioned just bove that cannot hear...

.....Again, in Acts, 13:10:

...."O full of all subtility and all mischief, thou, (“jew”), child of the devil, thou, (“jew”), enemy of all unrighteousness, wilt thou, (“jew”), not cease to pervert the right Ways of YHVH”?

.....Once again, in 1 John, 3:10 we are told:

....."In this the children of God are manifest, and THE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL, (the ‘’jews’’): WHOSOEVER DOETH NOT RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOT OF GOD, NEITHER HE THAT LOVETH NOT HIS BROTHER."
 
Old March 22nd, 2006 #71
Matthaus Hetzenauer
Wutta maroon!
 
Matthaus Hetzenauer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In my comfy rabbit hole. Wut's it to ya, doitbag?
Posts: 5,687
Default Just a couple quick comments...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SUNOFSPARTA
I think most Christians worship the Jew on a stick, believing he was the first Christian.

Further, I think most Christians like to think of themselves as Jews; sorta by proxy=like 2nd class Jews-this appears to be the reason that today most Christians take such delight in kissing as many kosher asses as possible.

The basic Christian theory seems to be, that -if the Jews are Gods chosen people;then to be associated with them, will put all Christians second in line on judgment day.Sorta like knowing Trumps son when you go looking for a loan.

Lastly,I think that JC was a fictional character developed from other fictional characters from ancient legends and old folk tales.

The whole concept reeks of Santa Clause,The easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

Better to seek the wisdom of Creativity,than to foolishly waste a lifetime on Christian Mysticism.
Other than the boo-boo I highlighted, SOS, I'm in agreement with you: I also believe Christ was a composite of various fictional characters. I seriously doubt there ever was a historical Jesus. And btw -- not too many years back, a "Jesus Commission" of sorts consisting of renowned biblical scholars from the four corners of the globe was put together to try to determine just how much of Christ's teachings in the NT could be directly attributed to him. Their conclusion? A mere eighteen per cent. Not too good a showing, to say the least.

All mainstream denominations believe in this "Jews are God's Chosen People" bullshit. That in itself is enough to turn me off from Christianity completely. Leave it to jews, and jews alone, to lay claim to the title of "The Chosen Ones." They are the most egotistical, self-centered creatures ever to tread the planet. I'd be surprised if they didn't make such an incredibly arrogant boast.

Nothing deep here; just my simple pov.
__________________
Wit' jews ya lose; wit' rope deah's hope.
- Bugs
 
Old March 22nd, 2006 #72
Durban
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunwheel
There is no difference between a `Judean` and a `Jew`.
If you disagree then prove it but be prepared to give independant evidence.
Fruitcake tracts from CI will not cut the mustard.
You think I am making this up from a tract in the christian bible?

There is plenty of evidence that JEWS are not semitic at all, yes even DNA evidence in addition to the historical writings. I dont have the time nor the patience to find it for you for free. You have google, use it, that is if you want to educate yourself.

Christians have been fooled, tricked, into believing that the JEWS are the same as the judeans. The eastern european jews found the achilles heel of western europeans and have been exploiting it for some time now. What better way to gain favor over a people, than to get them to believe that you are from the same tribe as the son of their god? Its been working great for the JEWS for the past 1200 years in Europe.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunwheel
This is not a debate about the racial origins of east European Jewry but about the racial identity of Jesus who in my opinion never existed but if he did he most certainly was a kike not an Aryan.
Listen, a KIKE is a term coined by GERMAN JEWS to slur EASTERN EUROPEAN JEWS who hadnt been westernized like themselves. Jesus was most certainly not a KIKE.

Im not even going to get into the use of the term ARYAN.
 
Old March 22nd, 2006 #73
Abzug Hoffman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,483
Default

I see Koestler's Khazar book was put out by Random House, the same clowns/intelligence agency that put out Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The DaVinci Code.
 
Old March 22nd, 2006 #74
Durban
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abzug Hoffman
I see Koestler's Khazar book was put out by Random House, the same clowns/intelligence agency that put out Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The DaVinci Code.

That author wasnt the first person to publish the facts about the jews.

Infact it was common knowlege in the elite circles centuries past.

The extremely popular book "The Wizard of OZ" (1899) was written about it, albeit in a very colorful way.

It was made into a movie by the jews, and the true meaning of the book was flushed down the memory hole for the masses.
 
Old March 22nd, 2006 #75
PatrickMc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 103
Default

.....It appears I'm still on a probationary period wherein my posts are monitored, creating a time lapse from the time I post to the time they show up, so interested parties may wish to scroll up and see the evidence you may have missed; apologies...
 
Old March 23rd, 2006 #76
Sunwheel
Junior Member
 
Sunwheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickMc
"There is no difference between a `Judean` and a `Jew`.
If you disagree then prove it but be prepared to give independant evidence."


Proof, (the definitive answer):


.....It should be understood, (verify this for yourself), that in the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible, the terms “jew” and “jews” are defined in the sense of geography, (i.e. a Judean, just as a person living in Texas is known as a Texan); The term “jew” is used twenty-two times in the KJV, A.V, New Testament and the term “jews” was inserted an hundred seventy-two times, an hundred seventy of which are derived from Strong’s #2453... there are six occurrances of the plural possessive “ jews’ “, five of which are dervied from Strong’s #2454; look these up now, and see... out of these two hundred usages, an hundred ninety-seven speak directly to geography of those mentioned therein; that is to say, they refer to a “Judean”, as in the sense of “from a place”, as in “a country”... If you’re not yet clear on this, ask; it would do well to remember that the term “jew”, in all of its various forms, was not added to Scripture until the eighteenth century...

.....The confusion reigns over the term “jew” due to the extensive “holocaust” propaganda, wherein we have been drilled repeatedly by the stories of German atrocities in exterminating “jews” during the second world war; most remain unaware that the same story had been run up the flagpole immediately following WWI, yet failed to garner a “salute”... there is much information concerning this issue, and I don’t wish to get bogged down with it here, but for those that still believe six million “jews” perished in that timeframe, research would be in order; there were not even six million “jews” in the whole of Europe at the time, according to the “jewish” census figures...

.....So, without going too deeply, (those of you that are already familiar with this, please bare with me for a moment), who are the “jews”? The International standard Bible Encyclopedia defines the term in accordance with the aforementioned Strong’s #2453, as follows: "'Jew' denotes originally an inhabitant of Judah, (2 Kings, 16:6 applies to the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom), but later the meaning was extended to embrace all descendants of Abraham." (James Orr, Volume III, page #1675); wherein derives such authority to have this meaning “extended to embrace all descendants of Abraham”? James Orr goes further; he states: “"'Jews' (always pl.) is the familiar term for Israelites in the Gospel, (esp. in John), Acts, Ephesians, etc."; this only further confuses an already highly confusing rendering into the English of any of the sacred texts, and I submit that is the very purpose for its usage... If “jew” actually refers to “Israelites”, why were they not also referred to as “Judeans”, or “Israelites” of the Hebrew faith?

.....There is no arguing the fact that the term “jew” did not exist prior to the year 1775, and that is inclusive of all languages on the planet; the term was first introduced to the English language in the eighteenth century when used by Sheridan in his play, The Rivals, (chapter 2, pp. 1), saying, “she shall have a skin like a mummy and the beard of a Jew.”... prior to this, there was no such word...

.....Despite what most folks believe concerning Shakespeare’s works, he had never seen, much less used, the term “jew” in his Merchant of Venice, (V, III, I, 61), nor any other; in this work, he wrote, “what is the reason? I am an iewe; hath not an iewe eyes?”... How can this be confirmed? There was not even in usage a letter “J”, (or “j”), at the time of this writing; check any resource you wish, and you will discover that this alphabetical letter did not exist until mid-eighteenth century; no one would have recognized such a letter at the time...

.....In Jerome’s fourth century Latin Vulgate edition of our New Testament, Our Christ is referred to as “Iudaeorum” in the Gospel of Saint John, which is the genitive plural of “Iudaeus”, in reference to the inscription of the “cross”, (stauros, in the Greek, meaning “death stake”, as opposed to the two-timbered symbol, today extant to a quite-deceived Christendom); Jerome’s Latin translation was done in the fourth century, translating to Latin, the original languages in which Scripture was written...

.....Jerome’s translation remains in use to this day by the Roman Catholic “church” authories as the Vulgate edition; Our Christ is first referred to as a supposed “jew” in the eighteenth century editions of the New Testament, that derived from the fourteenth century translations of the New Testament into the English language... the History of the origins of the term “jew” into the English, illustrate that this is a bastardized, contracted, and yes, corrupted form of the Latin “Iudaeus” which is found in Jerome’s Vulgate, and this stands as irrefutable...

.....The orignial MSS from the fouth to the eighteenth century translations trace accurately the origin, and successive usages of, as well as the complete History/etymology of the term “jew” in the English language; within these manuscripts are found each and every occurance of all of the equivalents used, as well as the order thereof, for the whole of those fourteen centuries in between...

.....From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" these English forms included, successively: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "I've," "Iew," and then finally the 18th century, "jew." The many earlier English equivalents for "jews" through the 14 centuries are "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then also finally in the 18th century, "jews"...

.....In England, in the eighteenth century, for the first time in History, the improved printing processes facilitated the printing of as many copies of our New Testament, as the market would bear; these were the revised, eighteenth centry version of the fourteenth century works, and families that had never boefore possessed a copy of the NT in any language, now obtained access; it was in these eighteenth century revised translation that the first occurrance of the term “jew” appeared in any English translation... by this usage, the term “jew” received the imprimature of the “authorities” of the day, thus establishing, and thereby stabilizing the usage of the term, which, in practice, continues down to our own day...

.....The most familiar of the eighteenth century editions of our new Testament in the English language are the Rheims, (Douai), edition of 1582, and the KJV, A.V. of 1611; in neither of these translations, (nor the Geneva Bible of 1530, did the term “jew” appear... this is inarugable, despite the fact that there are those that would, indeed, argue with it, and, failing that, attempt to proclaim it as completely insignificant; the term, “jew”, however, did, in fact, appear in the eighteenth century works...

.....Following the release of these revised editions of the Rheims, and the King James versions, distribution included the clergy and the laity throughout the English-speaking world; these people had no idea of the History/etymology of the English word “jew”, nor did they seem to care; in their ignorance of what had occurred, there had been no outcry over such a turn of events, be it from the people, or, particuarly, the clergy... general acceptance of the term “jew” as the English translation of the Latin “Iudaeus”, (as well as the Greek “Ioudaios”), was the order of the day; in fairness, there is no way that most could have known of the “new” English term, thus, there was no resistance to it...

.....In studies of the Latin, students are taught that the letter “I”, or “i”, when used as the initial letter of a given word, is to be pronounced as the letter “Y” in English, jus as the first letter is pronounced in words such as “year”, “youth”, or “yes”; the “I” in “Iudaeus” is so pronouced as the same usage in these words, “year”, “youth, and “yes” in the English... In every instance, with the translations from the fourth to the eighteenth century editions, the various forms of the word later translated to “jew”, the same was true with the letter “I” in its pronunciation, being spoken as the words “year”, “youth” and “yes”; likewise, the “Gi”, or the “Gy” when used in the place of the letter “I”...

.....The currently accepted pronunciation of the term “jew”, and the letter ”J”, is a fairly recent development; in today’s English language, the “J” in the term “jew” is pronounced like the “J” in the terms “juice”, “justify”, or “judge”; this has only been the case since the eighteenth century forward... prior to that time, the soon to be evolved “J” was pronounced exactly as the “Y” in the English terms from above, year”, “youth”, or “yes”; up to and until the eighteenth century, the term “jew”, in the English, was pronounced like the English term “you”, or “hew”, with the term “jews” like “youse” or “hews”... the presently accepted pronunciation of the term “jew” has only been acquired since the eighteenth century...

.....Webster’s Dictionary, 1828, has this to say about the letter “J”:

.....”A modern addition to the English alphabet."

.....The German language, however, yet retains the original Latin pronunciation; just as the Germna “jude” is the German equivalent of “jew”, the “J” is pronounced as the English “Y”... The German “J” is the equivalent of the English “I” and the pronunciation is exactly the same as the English “Y”; the German term “jude”, then, is essentially, the first syllable of the Latin “Iudaeus” and is pronounced exactly the same... the German “jude” is, similarly, the contraction and corruption of the Latin “Iudaeus”, and the German “J” is always pronounced just as the English “Y” in the words “year”, “youth” and “yes” when it is the first letter of the word; the pronunciation of the German “J” is not merely an exception of the pronunciation of the German “J”, but the rule...

.....The earliest translation of our New Testament in English from the Latin is the Wiclif, or, better known as the Wickliff edition, first published in 1380; in this edition, Our Christ is referred to as “one of the iewes”... that was the fourteenth century English version of the Latin “Iudaeus”, the pronunciation of which was “hew-weeze” in the plural and the singular “iewe” was pronounced “hew-wee”... in this edition from 1380, in the English, John, rendered today as:

.....John, 19:19: ...And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews.

.....was, instead, rendered:

....."Ihesus of Nazareth kyng of the iewes." Prior to the fourteenth centry, the English language had adopted the Anglo-Saxon “kyng” together with many other Anglo-Saxon words in place of the Latin “rex”, as well as the Greek “basileus”; the Anglo-Saxon also referred to a “tribal leader”...

.....Further, in the Tyndale edition of our New testament in the English language, first published in 1525, Our Christ was likewise referred to as one of the “Iewes”; in the Coverdale edition, first published in 1535, Our Christ was, again, described as “one of the Iewes”... Also in the Coverdale, the Gospel of John, chapter nineteen and verse nineteen, it was rendered “Iesus of Nazareth, kynge of the Iewes."; in the Cranner edition, first published in 1539, Our Christ was, yet again, referred to as “One of the Iewes”... In the Geneva Edition published in 1540-1557 Jesus was also described as “One of the Iewes." In the Rheims Edition published in 1582 Jesus was described as “One of the Iewes." Do you not see? The antiChrists are held in derision in this “trick of the scribes” by My Father; they couldn’t pull off replacing “Judean” with “Jew”, without providing testimony against themselves in the “murder of the age”, despite efforts at further concealment that continue to this day... since the pharisaical element were edomites, and fully in control of the area we know as Judea, despite the military presence of Rome, they were referred to as “Judeans”, just as all others living there at the time, including Our Christ; the Scriptural illustrations drawn by Christ Himself when addressing these edomites show clearly they were “not of His flock”, “hear not My Words”, “seek to kill me”, “not of YHVH”, “of your father, the devil” “cursed figs”... you fail to “rightly divide The Word”, and as a result, this doesn’t make sense to you; perhaps some prayer for understanding would be in order?

.....Also, in the KJV, A.V. published in 1604-1611, Our Christ was again referred to as “One of the Iewes”; the various forms of the Latin ”Iudaeus” were used, which were contemporary of the time these translations were rendered... the translation into the English, from the Greek, of the Gospel of John, 19:19, as it was originally written reads: "Do not inscribe 'the monarch of the Judeans' but that He Himself said 'I am monarch.'"

.....If you look at the original Greek MSS, “basileus” was rendered “monarch”, and “Ioudaios” was rendered into “Judeans” in the English; “Ioudaia” from Greek is “Judean” in the English, and “Ioudaios” from the Greek is “Judeans”... this solves the confusion of the varying accounts of the inscriptions placed upon the “cross”...

.....Were there a common understanding of the terms “Judean”, and “jew” in the English, by today’s standards, and they were understood to be identical in all meanings, as they both should be, the way they were so rendered, there would be no difference which term was used where, particularly when they were in reference to Our Christ in our New Testament, (or anywhere else, for that matter); however, the implications that are inferred by one reading these two terms today are vastly different... they can in no wise be considered synonymous...

.....Upon the introduction of the term “jew” in the eighteenth century, it had one, and one implication only, in the mind of the reader of Scripture, that being “Judean”; during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a group that Benjamin Freedman described as a “well-organized and well-financed international pressure group” had sought to instill a secondary meaning to the term “jew” in the minds of the masses... this secondary meaning had several purposes behind it; primarily to deceive Christians into believing these antiChrist “jews” were YHVH’s chosen Israelites, thereby usurping the heritage that rightfully belongs to the caucasian Israelites of Scripture... Mr. Freedman put it this way: “It is a misrepresentation presented to the world deliberately by this well-organized and well-financed pressure group to deceive Christians.”, (Facts Are Facts, by Benjamin H. Freedman, pp. 15-20)

.....The Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia gives the reference to the letter "J", as: THE LETTER J. “The history of the letter J is linked with the history of l. The Romans and their European successors used l both for the vocalic "i" and for the consonantal "y" (as in the English word "yet"). The English letter J did not come into existence until the end of medieval times, when scribes began to use a tailed form of "i," with or without the dot, next to the short form of "i" (1). When printing was invented, the tailed form of "i" (2) was often used for an initial "i," which is usually consonantal. Not until the 17th century, however, was the distinction between “J” or “j” as a consonant and “l” or “i” as a vowel fully established. (Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia)

.....In its plural form, the term "jew" appears a mere eighty-two times in the Old Testament, 45 of those times again are in the Book of Esther, (an inserted, non-canonical book, imho); the first use of the word "jew" in its plural form is 2 Kings, 16:6 which is about 742 B.C., and refers to the enemies of Israel; and this was about one thousand years after Abraham died. Therefore, it is beyond absurd, and intellectually dishonest, to call the Old Testament a “jewish” book. It is the book of the generations of Adamkind, (Genesis, 5:1), and Jacob/Israel in particular. From Genesis, 12:1 forward to the end of the New Testament, the Bible is written, to, for, and about Israel and not the other races or peoples on earth, save when Israel would bring it to them...

.....Now, as I said, the bulk of that part was for the benefit of those that had yet to understand these terms; with these thoughts in mind, let us move forward in lighting up the New Testament. Truth is what lights up the Word ofYHVH... YHVHshua declared in John, 8:32 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Knowing and understanding that the Old and New Testaments are written to, for, and about Israel is the first point of beginning in lighting up the New Testament.

....."They, (the “jews”), answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.”; Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye, (“jews”), seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye, (“jews”), do the deeds of your father...

.....Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, IF GOD WERE YOUR FATHER, YE WOULD LOVE ME: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. YE, (“jews”), ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND THE LUSTS OF YOUR FATHER YE WILL DO. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND ABODE NOT IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it...HE THAT IS OF GOD HEARETH GOD'S WORDS: YE, (‘jews”) THEREFORE HEAR THEM NOT, BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF GOD.", (John, 8:39-47)...

.....We are told in Matthew 13:38:

....."The field is the world: the good seed are the children of the Kingdom, (Israelites), but THE TARES, (the “jews”) ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE." This entire parable hearkens straight back to Genesis, 3:15, wherein YHVH Spoke to the physical seeds, (zera, in the Hebrew), of both the woman, Eva, and the serpent, the devil; it is also referenced in the parable of the husbandman, wherein the evil tenders slay The Son... This cannot be more clear, if only one has eyes to see and ears that hear His Words, as opposed to being one mentioned just bove that cannot hear...

.....Again, in Acts, 13:10:

...."O full of all subtility and all mischief, thou, (“jew”), child of the devil, thou, (“jew”), enemy of all unrighteousness, wilt thou, (“jew”), not cease to pervert the right Ways of YHVH”?

.....Once again, in 1 John, 3:10 we are told:

....."In this the children of God are manifest, and THE CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL, (the ‘’jews’’): WHOSOEVER DOETH NOT RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOT OF GOD, NEITHER HE THAT LOVETH NOT HIS BROTHER."

All very `interesting` but unrelated to the argument at hand.
This argument that Christ was a `Judaean` but not a `Jew` is nothing more than symantics.If you are saying that he was merely resident in Judah but not of Jewish and therefore Hebrew stock then the onus is surely on you to establish his racial and ethnic origins?
The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that he was of Hebrew lineage,the same lineage as the kikes who claimed to be delivered by Moses after ripping off the Egyptians.
I quote from your holy book-
1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

[Matthew 1:1-17]

And you would have us all to place our trust and devotion in the `son of David`?
How very Jewish.
__________________
Black twelve-armed holy sun.
Rise! Rise! holy black sun.
 
Old March 23rd, 2006 #77
Sunwheel
Junior Member
 
Sunwheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 244
Default

Quote:
=Durban]You think I am making this up from a tract in the christian bible?
No but I think that you are very desperate to establish that Jesus was not a kike and that we are all descended from the `children of Israel`. Both stand points are the stand points of religious nuts who cannot relinquish their childhood induced fear of Hell fire.

Quote:
There is plenty of evidence that JEWS are not semitic at all, yes even DNA evidence in addition to the historical writings. I dont have the time nor the patience to find it for you for free. You have google, use it, that is if you want to educate yourself.
I realise that some of the jews are not in fact biological descendants of the Jews/Israelites of the Bible but that does not mean that either group are off the hook. Whether they be biological descendants or not they are still our enemies as are those who can claim biological descent. I make no distinction between the two.

Quote:
Christians have been fooled, tricked, into believing that the JEWS are the same as the judeans. The eastern european jews found the achilles heel of western europeans and have been exploiting it for some time now. What better way to gain favor over a people, than to get them to believe that you are from the same tribe as the son of their god? Its been working great for the JEWS for the past 1200 years in Europe.
I couldn`t give a shit whether they claim to be descendants of the biblical Jews or not as they are all part of the problem[as are christians].




Quote:
Listen, a KIKE is a term coined by GERMAN JEWS to slur EASTERN EUROPEAN JEWS who hadnt been westernized like themselves. Jesus was most certainly not a KIKE.
According to Collins Concise English Dictionary kike is `an offensive word for Jew.[C20th: prop. var. of kiki, a reduplication of-ki, a common name-ending among Jews from Slavic countries.`
I realise that the fictional character of Jesus did not emenate from a Slavic country but `kike` is a term that we use for all Hebrews regardless of their recent country of origin.

Quote:
Im not even going to get into the use of the term ARYAN.
Then why mention it? Out of your depth?
__________________
Black twelve-armed holy sun.
Rise! Rise! holy black sun.
 
Old March 23rd, 2006 #78
PatrickMc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 103
Default

”All very ‘interesting‘ but unrelated to the argument at hand.
This argument that Christ was a ‘Judaean‘ but not a ‘Jew‘ is nothing more than symantics”


.....Hardly semantics, and wayward declarations fail to make it so...

[i]”If you are saying that he was merely resident in Judah but not of Jewish and therefore Hebrew stock then the onus is surely on you to establish his racial and ethnic origins?”[/i}

.....I’ve already proven that “jewish” and Hebrew are two different things, yet you persist in confusing the two; are you in this discussion, or are you so married to your erroneous views that you’ve slapped fourteen coats of shellack on them and called it “good to go”?

”The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that he was of Hebrew lineage, the same lineage as the kikes who claimed to be delivered by Moses after ripping off the Egyptians.”

.....I don’t disagree He was of Hebrew lineage, but that is not the kikes, and neither was Moses such; my last lengthy post proves the “jews” don’t show up until 2Kings, 16:6, many years after the death of Abraham, yet, again, you persist in confusing the facts...

”And you would have us all to place our trust and devotion in the ‘son of David‘? How very Jewish.”

.....Your tone grows more subversive by the post; are you sure of *your* lineage? Are you aware that all antiChristian activity is rooted in the antiChrist “jew”?
 
Old March 24th, 2006 #79
Sunwheel
Junior Member
 
Sunwheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 244
Default

Quote:
.....I’ve already proven that “jewish” and Hebrew are two different things, yet you persist in confusing the two; are you in this discussion, or are you so married to your erroneous views that you’ve slapped fourteen coats of shellack on them and called it “good to go”?
Whilst not all Hebrews are Jews, ie members of the tribe of Judah all Jews are Hebrews. Therefore there is very little distinction between the two terms. All Hebrews and Jews[bilogical ones] are descendants of the patriarch Abraham.
His descendants, both physical and spiritual are the ones that we are at war with.You seem obsessed with using the correct term to describe a people that we all know about. I feel you have a hidden agenda for doing so.
CI/British Isrealism?

Quote:
.....I don’t disagree He was of Hebrew lineage, but that is not the kikes, and neither was Moses such; my last lengthy post proves the “jews” don’t show up until 2Kings, 16:6, many years after the death of Abraham, yet, again, you persist in confusing the facts...
A Jew is merely a member of the tribe of Judah and Judah was one of the 12 sons of Isaac the son of Abraham. Whatever term you use they are still the hooknosed ones and so is your messiah.
I hope that you are not going to now `prove` that Jesus and Moses were of `our blood`?

Quote:
”And you would have us all to place our trust and devotion in the ‘son of David‘? How very Jewish.”
.....Your tone grows more subversive by the post; are you sure of *your* lineage? Are you aware that all antiChristian activity is rooted in the antiChrist “jew”?
Yes I am very sure of my lineage and if you care to pm me I will explain why I am sure.
Interesting that you should label those who do not buy into your `Jesus wasn`t Jewish` theory as `subversive`.
As Christianity is a Semitic religion and the Jews,ie members of the tribe of Judah are Semites I fail to see why you cannot understand that by supporting a Semitic religion such as Christianity you are in fact promoting the cause of the Jews in weakening our race.
Why do you follow the `god` of an alien people and not the gods of your ancestors? I think I know the answer to that one because you are about to tell me that northern Europeans are the descendants of the lost 10 northern tribes of Israel?

Just in case you missed it the first time-

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
__________________
Black twelve-armed holy sun.
Rise! Rise! holy black sun.
 
Old March 24th, 2006 #80
Sunwheel
Junior Member
 
Sunwheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 244
Default

There you go Patrick I have answered the question for you.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.p...868#post366868

"
PHP Code:
Was Christianity designed to be a weapon against gentiles from the very startTo pacify them and keep them 'wimpy'?"

Nooo...

.....But the "
judaizing" of such certainly was...

.....There is no such thing as "
judeo"-Christianity, and the edomite "jews" have no part in Scripture, save their prophesied destruction by the hand of true Israel, (the caucasian race)... 
So you are a British Israelite. We Aryans are not so desperate a bunch that we have to seek a lineage amongst an outcast middle-eastern Semitic people.
We Germanic peoples have our origins within the icy north of Europe not the deserts of `Israel`.
__________________
Black twelve-armed holy sun.
Rise! Rise! holy black sun.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:35 AM.
Page generated in 0.42583 seconds.