Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

��

Dear Ed,  Your statement, "Who killed Jesus? It was the Pharisees. Who were the pharisee leaders? They were Herod-appointed Edomite jews", is the basis of most Identity people's belief.  That is, the belief is based upon a supposed historical understanding rather than scripture.   But look at the Word instead.

Acts 6:7, And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

 

"The faith" here refers to faith in Jesus the Christ.    It is interesting that instead of ι�”ε�Îµï¿½‰Î½, priests, a few MSS., and the Syriac, read �™Î¿ï¿½…δαι�‰Î½, or  "Jews". That the word "company" = Î¿ï¿½‡Î»Î¿ï¿½‚ is often translated as "multitude" (of the same sort). That is they were of the same sort as that of the context which is the twelve apostles (Israelites).   The word ο�‡Î»Î¿ï¿½‚ is used as of a class that is compared with the rest of a body of people, and here that is the rest of the Jews.

Thus there is no way all the priests could possibly be Edomites.   But as you point out, we are given no reason to believe that all those priests who were Israelites came to believe.    The word "great" = polus has been translated many ways some of which are "mostly", "largely", and "all together".  This is a little contradictory but it indicates that the greater part of the priesthood were Israelites.  No one with a logical mind could say that Zacharias as a temple priest in Luke chapter one was not an Israelite.  We are not specifically told wether or not Annas in Luke two was a priest, but he was in the temple and "just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him".

Take this theme of Israelites in the priesthood a step further in order to consider racial identity.  If the two Alexanders are the same person, then we come to some racial identity of the High Priests.

 

Acts 4:6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.

 

Mark 15:21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.

Both verses refer to Alexander.  Then in Romans 16 we have a large list of people named, some of whom we can trace from history as being Israelites.

 

Now, let us go back to Zacharias and ask some questions.

 

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.  And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

To claim that the priests were Herod appointees this passage would mean that Herod appointed righteous Israelites.   We can note that Zacharias was "of the course of Abia" and these courses were of long standing. Thus the whole concept that Herod "would have" appointed Edomites like himself is obviously wrong.  To build a doctrine about who killed Jesus on such an invalid foundation is to come to a wrong conclusion.  That is why anyone who says Caiaphas and Annas were of Edomite extraction need to offer something better than "They would have been".

 

Now we can re-appraise the pronouns in Acts 5:30-31, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.  Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins".  If the Edomites killed Jesus, this would be found in prophecy.   But it is not there. But we can find what is there if we really want to do so and find the answer that is witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.  It is better for you to search out that answer rather than for me to do it for you, so I do not propose to do this.  It is there as we see confirmed in:

1 Cor. 15:4, And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

 

Then we can know who in fact did the deed.  As soon as we depart from what is written in the Law and the Prophets, as has been done almost universally in this forum we "have no light in us" on the subject.  We will no longer be able to talk about Edomite action as being a "great analysis"!!

Most sincerely,  Arnold Kennedy.

----- Original Message ----- .

From: eduardo

Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 7:39 AM

Subject: Who killed Jesus


Chief, Arnold:

 

Regarding the current "Who killed Jesus" polemic, I wrote the following and sent it to the forum. For some reason, it has not been posted yet. So, I'm sending my email to you.

 

It seems John is taking a "baby with bath water" view on this. There just aren't enough details in recorded Scripture to count racial heads including their words to make a blanket statement, such as "it was the jews that killed Jesus." Thus, I propose a prospective view looking at it from the question  - "Would Jesus be alive if the jews weren't there? Let's see where this leads us. Somehow, from what I've read of your reponses, this will echo your position.

 

P.S. Now reason tells me that there were racial Israelites who were Talmudic (Phariseeic). We are told Paul studied as one and persecuted Christians until he was "enlightened" by our holy Father. Today, there are cases where Christians convert to Judaism (Phariseeism). Albeit, none are really members (Think of Madonna for instance, or the Anglo-Saxon woman who marries and converted to Judaism).

 

Jesus said he came for only his lost sheep. Well, what did the lost sheep believe as a faith? Could it be possible some believed in Phariseeism, Sadduceeism, Baal, pagans, etc. How many believed in the true faith of Moses? How many were led astray by false teachings? Certainly, Paul was at one time. I will also grant, there were not many pure Israelites that were Pharisees. The region was after all a very intermixed race of Edomites. If one reads about those times when Jesus lived, they can easily find that many rreligious sects were vying for dominance. It almost appears as England and Canada is heading today...And America as well.

 

We also know only a few Israelites returned to the levant to rebuild the Temple during the reign of Darius. How many of them fell to the side and intermarried the already settled Edomite population? Recall that Nebuchadnezzar rewarded the Edomites for helping them subdue the Israelites. In repayment, he gave them the land that Israel once owned. Israel was depossessed of its land -- similar to what is happening in California with white flight as a result of the mestizo invasion. Another thought concerning the return of Israel in building the temple, is from the perspective of the Edomite population. Seventy years prior (2 to 3 generations), the Edomites and others possessed all that remained of what was once owned by Israel. This means they inhabited the farms, the businesses, the homes that contained all the household goods a family needed. I'm sure Nebuchadnezzar didn't let the enslaved and uprooted Israelites take their possessions. Rather, they were stripped and humiliated as a defeated and conquered people typically are. Yea, the Edomites moved in to those Israelite homes much like blacks in Zimbabwe and South African are doing today with white owned farms. The return of these Israelites must have been somewhat threatening to the Edomite mixed population. Could the small number (48,987) of Israelites returning have eased the threat? How did the Israelites cope with the Edomite mixed population? Were Persian guards protecting the Israelites every step of the way similar to America's early Civil Rights movement? Not much is written concerning this. So, we cannot state with certainty this was the case. However, a decree by the Emperor Cyrus was made. Israel could return to build their temple. But, all through the reign of Cyrus "adversaries" troubled the building of it. They said "Let us build with you, for we seek your God as you do; and we have sacrificed to Him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here." Ezra 4:2.

 

Who were these people? Definitely not Israelites. It was a well known policy of Assyria to intermix conquered territories with foreigners. Sound familiar? We are told in the Septuagint - "then Zorobabel, and Jesus (Jeshua) and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel said to them, It is not for us and you to build a house to our God, for we ourselves will build together to the Lord our God, as Cyrus the king of the Persians commanded us. And the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Juda, and hindered them in building, and continued hiring persons against them, plotting to frustrate their counsel, all the days of Cyrus king of the Persians, and until the reign of Darius king of the Persians." Ezra 4: 3-5.

 

These were LAWYERS!! Doesn't this sound familar in America as well?

 

The vast majority of Israelites left long ago under the Assyrian conquest. The region of Jerusalem was awashed with mixed kinds. But there were some Israelites who remained and His disciples were Israelites found by Jesus in the area of Galilee. Likewise, in probability a few Israelites may of lived and/or did business in Jerusalem, but could have already been lost. Perhaps, this why Jesus instructed His disciples not to go to Jerusalem to preach. Yes, Jerusalem was the seat of power, but it was controlled by Edomite pharisees. Herod was an Edomite and appointed individuals to its seat of power.

 

Who killed Jesus? It was the Pharisees. Who were the pharisee leaders? They were Herod-appointed Edomite jews. When the chief priests and officers cried out saying- "Crucify Him! Crucify Him! They already persuaded the crowd that undoubtedly consisted of many faiths and nations. Jerusalem was afterall an international city for merchantilism. Citizens from Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon, Syria, Thracia, etc. all did business there. It is obvious some of Jesus' disciples were there also to witness and record the events of Jesus before Pontius Pilate. Long lost Israelites may have been in the multicultural crowd. It makes no sense to me that ALL of crowd before Pontius Pilate were Edomite jews. Reason pursuades me to believe MANY people who witnessed and heard about Jesus and His extraordinary miracles came to see what was to happen to this man. They had many hopes and expectations. They asked is He God? The Messiah? What will He do to Pontius Pilate and the Romans? Will His mighty hand strike the Romans down so we will finally be free? Well, if I had these expectations and then witnessed Jesus being flogged and beaten, it is easy to see how people might of thrown in the towel in disappointment and joined in the chorus of "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" They could have just as easily cried out "Fake! Fake!" or "Disappointment! Disappointment!" They simply didn't understand His mission and were looking for a great sign on par with the seven plagues of Egypt.

 

The orginal question was - "Would Jesus be alive if the jews weren't there?" That indeed is the million dollar question. According to the prophesy of Jesus' crucifixion, they had to be there. The quick retort to this question would be "yes." BUT, the Jacob-Esau struggle would of changed dramatically the events leading to Jesus' crucifixion as well. Thus, changing the conditions that brought forth the promises of our Father.

 

Who killed Jesus? We know the pharisee chiefs and officers cried out "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" They pursuaded the multicultural crowd (Matt 27:20). "Pharmakeia" is a befitting word for what these pharisees caused. They had their own interests in mind. The crowd was not composed of only Edomites=jews.

 

-eduardo

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:50 AM

Subject: Re: [Israelites] [jacobisrael] Re: Israelite Identity, Who really killed Yahshua, and Edomites or Judahites!


Dear Chief,

 

It would be very interesting to know why you've spent so much more time thinking of new ways to insult John than you have thinking of the answers to some very important questions.

 

Do you not realize how important are these basic questions that you've avoided the answers to?

 

If you really believed that you're an Israelite, you'd WANT to know the answers, instantly, rather than continue to use these ad hominems to avoid answering them.

 

Here's my take on it, Chief.  You're not an Israelite.  In fact, you detest Israelites.  Your hatred of Israelites is justified because you blame Israelites for crucifying Jesus even long after we've pointed out to you that it was Edomites, not Israelites, who brutally murdered Him. Rather than taking this opportunity to defend Israelites, you replied "maybe" so that you can continue to hate Israelites.

 

Set us straight, Chief.  Does this accurately represent your view?  If not, then exactly what IS your view?

 

Sincerely,

 

 

John Knight

 

 

Greeting folks:

 

My name is Dick, and I am new to this forum.  Would you folks indulge me for a few comments on the ongoing controversy?  In times past our race of people have been captured many times by other races.  In times past our ancestors were told so many lies by so many men in so many ways over so many subject matters that the "truth" was scarcely recognizeable to them any longer.  This is still the case today.  I said that to say this:  Our main task is to garner what truth we can from whatsoever source we can find it, and then share that truth with one another in patience and love.  I suppose that we shall be forever "polishing" up and "dusting off" and "fine tuning" the new infornation that finds its way to us from time to time.  In that spirit, I would like to contribute to this dialogue;  not to put anyone down, not to suppose that "I" have the "answer", but rather simply to share more peices of the puzzle for your consideration.

 

It is my understanding that the concept of a "Jew" can fall into basically three different catagories:  Race, Region and Religion.  These catagories, in my personal opinion, are consistent with the Word.  Strong's Concordance does a fair job of delineating the race and residency aspect of so called "Jews".  The Word teaches us to look for "line upon line, line upon line" AND "precept upon precept, precept upon".  I have found this to be an unfailing formula to resolve most, if not all, biblical questions for us today.

 

Let's take a look at the "religious" "Jew" for a minute.  When our ancestors (primarily the Judah Kingdom is meant here;  i.e. the Judahite, Benjamite and Levite) were taken captive by Babylon ( without being given a "bill of divorcement" [IMPORTANT], like their whoring counter part, the northern Kingdom of 'Israel', including some Levite priests), Babylon then already had its own "religion". 

 

I think it is safe to say that their particular religion was at least in part [IMPORTANT] associated with the "Talmud", though it may not have been in toto as we know the Talmud today.  There are references to a Babylonian Talmud as well as a Jerusalem Talmud;  the Babylonian Talmud having taken precident over the Jerusalem Talmud;  Jerusalem being the ancient city of Jebus: threshing place; a Canaanitish nation; Jebusites.  A multi-cultural, crossroads cesspool.  Hold these thoughts.

 

Abraham found favor in Yah's sight because he kept Yah's commandments, statutes and laws;  Genesis 26:5.  Question: What commandments, statutes and laws?  Moses was yet to be born, and there weren't even any Levites in existence yet!  Answer:  The code of Hammurabi;  the teachings of Ham, or Ham the teacher.  We can find elements of this code, word for word, in the Mosaic laws that are in the Torah (first five books of the old parchments).  If our ancestors had access to Ham's writings, is it not possible that others as well had access?  (Much more on this later in another topic for your consideration) Canaanites were/are merchant traffickers. A mixed bunch of mongrels to say the least.  I would suggest that the "Talmudic" teachings, although not necessarily in the form that we understand today, were already in existence, and possibly flavored by the Code of Hammurabi, BEFORE the Judah Kingdom was captured.  I think it is reasonable that the "religion" of Talmudism (ancient Pharisees ?) has since been adopted, and better known today perhaps, as Judaism.  I believe that the "traditions of the elders" were no more or less than an adulteration (admixture) of the Torah with some spurious input from the Talmudists.  There was the "writen law" and the "spoken law" then, just as we have come to recognize in our corrupt court systems today. I would suggest that at the minimum that the true Torah was in (secret?) competition with the Talmud when Ezra and Nehemiah returned from their captivity.  I would also suggest that many did not return to Jerusalem, and that neither did they remain in Babylon, but rather migrated and caught up with remnants of the northern Kingdom....and some other folks, perhaps whom you have not heard of yet.  (More on this later if you are interested?)

 

Those that did return to Jerusalem found that the Jebusite and the Canaanite was still there, as well as the Babylonian, with his Talmudic influence.  History shows that the Mosaic/Levitical priestly functions eventually were taken over by "studious rabbi" and the Pharisee and Saducee elements, and that the traditional role of the Levite as priest had been supplanted by the kohanamin (cohen) priest of Talmudic persuasion.  Many of the priest in Messiah's time, including some Pharisee, were in fact pure racial Israelite, but their understanding of theology had been tainted by the doctrines of their "superiors"/captors, the "elders", and they were for the most part subject to that jurisdiction. (Paul was perhaps a prime example of that mindset.)  Hence, the common Israelite then had in fact been duped and was not expecting the "Messiah" that came.  I am in full agreement with you folks on that aspect.

 

Messiah's mission was looking for the divorced house of the northern Kingdom...to get them reconciled, to prepare them to get re-married at some future date.  The Judah Kingdom, although sent into their own captivity had never been divorced.  The message, I suppose, could have been to the Judahite and the residents of Judaea first, and then to the genetically related ones, the other tribes.  Does that make any sense now?  It was the "lost sheep" of the northern "tribes" that were put off in bansihment.

 

If the Husband, by a substitute (Agent for the Principal), had to die to enable the "wife" to remarry, then "God", to whom she had been married at Sinai must "die".  Was messiah "God"?  I did not say that;  neither did Yahshua.  The atonement (at one'ment) death was for none other than the "lost sheep", divorced house of Israel, i.e. the northern Kingdom.  It was for their sins, as well as the sins of their whoring sister Judah that the ultimate price of the Lamb being sacrificed had to be paid...before the wife could be remarried.  It was, in fact, booger brained Israel that "caused" the death of Messiah.  Having said that would it really matter who throgh the switch, who dropped the hammer, who pulled the plug?  If our ancestors did not do the deed itself, the knotheads were certainly consenting to it for the most part!  Kings often used "whipping boys" for some punishment that was due to the young prince or perhaps himself, if a juvenile.  By the same token, the King seldom laid a hand upon his son, he always had another do the deed so that the son would never make the connection to the father being the "heavy" hand of correction.  It is possible that we as Israel have to cop the plea of GUILTY as to the need for an atoning sacrifice of Messiah, expecting the open hand of correction, all the while that the King used a lacky to do the execution, a vessel fit for destruction later, to do the deed itself...and the closed fist of destruction for that lacky coming later?

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Dick

 

 

horizontal rule

----- Original Message -----

From: Chief

Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 5:30 PM

Subject: Re: [jacobisrael] Re: Who killed Jesus


Eduardo

 

I pretty much agree with what you have written below. I would like to add a few comments of my own to maybe "fleshen" it out a bit. Hope you won't mind.

 

First of all let me define some terms as I will use them in what I am about to write. When I say Judahites I mean the descendants of Judah (house of Judah), son of Israel. When I say Judeans I mean the people of the nation of Judah.

 

As you have stated, only a small group returned to Jerusalem from Babylon. The great majority of the Judahites remained in Babylon. We know that Ezra "cleaned up their family tree" at that time. He got rid of the "strange" wives and the mixed children. What remained was pure descendants of Israel. We must remember that if they were pure Judahites, they were WHITE. We must also remember that although Ezra cleaned up their families, he didn't clean their minds. They brought with them the teachings they received in Babylon such as the body having a soul that lived on after death, doctrines of devils (doctrines about devils), a good God vs. a bad god (a fallen angel called Satan or the Devil) and a lot of other stuff that became the traditions of the elders. They added to these things as they came into contact with the other peoples in the land. There is no doubt that some of them mixed with other peoples/races. Remember, however, they were white while the others were not and the majority of white people would, and still do, resist racial inter-marriage. Nigger in the wood pile, yes, but marriage - not too much. I realize that there is a lot of it today but it's still a minority.

 

We must recognize that at the time of Jesus there was NO RELIGION CALLED JUDAISM! There was a religion of the Hebrews that had split into a number of sects, the main two being Pharisees and Sadducees. These were the teachers, they had the Scriptures, the people did not. Most of the people, the true Judahites included, would have probably believed what they were taught by these sects. Did foreigners, Edomites and Canaanites, infiltrate these sects? No doubt they did but remember they would not have been pure white people and would have been recognizable as what they were. I don't believe that most of the white Judahites would have accepted the non-whites as the leaders of their religious services.

 

Would these people, even the pure white Judahites, have taken part in the murder/execution of Jesus? If they had been Zionist "Christian" of the ilk we have today would they have done it? You bet they would have. Israelites are sheep and they are easily led astray. Jesus was not what the people had been taught to expect so they believed Him to be an imposter. Some of Judahites believed the Apostles after the death of Jesus but some didn't. Many paid the price for their unbelief in 70 A.D. So did many of the Edomites and the Canaanites.

 

With the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans the Sadducees came to an end but the Pharisees lived on. To quote Rabbi Louis Finklestein, one of the major Jewish leaders: �€œPharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name ... the spirit of ancient Pharisees survives unaltered.�€  Their Sanhedrin moved to Babylon (recall that many Judahites had remained there), to Spain and finally to Poland. It is while they were in Spain that the door was opened for them in the Khazar kingdom. History reveals that these people are the descendants of the fierce Turkish, Mongolian Khazar tribes who trace their linage back to Ashkenaz, son of Gomer, son of Japheth, son of Noah. That's why they are called Ashkenazin Jews, for goodness sake.  They adopted the Talmudic religion now known as Judaism between the 7th and 9th centuries. Of the Pharisees who moved to that area some were no doubt Edomites and Canaanites. Although they probably mixed with the Khazars, they were always a small minority. They taught the Talmud and gained control as they do in every place they go. They are a small minority here in the U.S. but they control everything. It is there in the Khazar kingdom that Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism. The great majority (over 90%) of today's Jews are of Khazar descent with a small mixture of Edomite and Canaanite blood, and yes, probably even a little Judahite blood there too. Those who say the Jews are mainly Edomites just don't know what they are talking about. Does this make today's Jews any better? No, they are still the scum of the earth and should be exterminated as the bugs they are.

 

I do not believe there was any group in the Palestine area when Jesus was there that were called Jews. The term Jew is something that developed over time - something they took for themselves in order to steal the identity of the Judahites.

 

I don't think I have really contradicted you here Eduardo - certainly didn't mean to do so. Just so EVERYONE knows this is presented as what I believe - what my understanding is. I am not trying to change others opinion on this matter. As I have stated before, what each of you believes is your business. It's between you and our High Priest. I must trust Him to guide me.

 

Chief

----- Original Message -----

From: aekennedy

Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 1:01 PM

Subject: [jacobisrael] Re: Who killed Jesus


Dear Ed,  Your statement, "Who killed Jesus? It was the Pharisees. Who were the pharisee leaders? They were Herod-appointed Edomite jews", is the basis of most Identity people's belief.  That is, the belief is based upon a supposed historical understanding rather than scripture.   But look at the Word instead.

Acts 6:7, And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

"The faith" here refers to faith in Jesus the Christ.   It is interesting that instead of ι�”ε�Îµï¿½‰Î½, priests, a few MSS., and the Syriac, read �™Î¿ï¿½…δαι�‰Î½, or  "Jews". That the word "company" = Î¿ï¿½‡Î»Î¿ï¿½‚  is often translated as "multitude" (of the same sort). That is they were of the same sort as that of the context which is the twelve apostles (Israelites).  The word ο�‡Î»Î¿ï¿½‚ is used as of a class that is compared with the rest of a body of people, and here that is the rest of the Jews.

Thus there is no way all the priests could possibly be Edomites.  But as you point out, we are given no reason to believe that all those priests who were Israelites came to believe.    The word "great" = polus has been translated many ways some of which are "mostly", "largely", and "all together".  This is a little contradictory but it indicates that the greater part of the priesthood were Israelites.  No one with a logical mind could say that Zacharias as a temple priest in Luke chapter one was not an Israelite.  We are not specifically told wether or not Annas in Luke two was a priest, but he was in the temple and "just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him".

Take this theme of Israelites in the priesthood a step further in order to consider racial identity.  If the two Alexanders are the same person, then we come to some racial identity of the High Priests.

Acts 4:6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.

 

Mark 15:21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.

Both verses refer to Alexander.  Then in Romans 16 we have a large list of people named, some of whom we can trace from history as being Israelites.

 

Now, let us go back to Zacharias and ask some questions.

 

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.  And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

To claim that the priests were Herod appointees this passage would mean that Herod appointed righteous Israelites.   We can note that Zacharias was "of the course of Abia" and these courses were of long standing. Thus the whole concept that Herod "would have" appointed Edomites like himself is obviously wrong.  To build a doctrine about who killed Jesus on such an invalid foundation is to come to a wrong conclusion.  That is why anyone who says Caiaphas and Annas were of Edomite extraction need to offer something better than "They would have been".

 

Now we can re-appraise the pronouns in Acts 5:30-31, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.  Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins".  If the Edomites killed Jesus, this would be found in prophecy.  But it is not there. But we can find what is there if we really want to do so and find the answer that is witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.  It is better for you to search out that answer rather than for me to do it for you, so I do not propose to do this.  It is there as we see confirmed in:

1 Cor. 15:4, And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

 

Then we can know who in fact did the deed.  As soon as we depart from what is written in the Law and the Prophets, as has been done almost universally in this forum we "have no light in us" on the subject.  We will no longer be able to talk about Edomite action as being a "great analysis"!!

Most sincerely,  Arnold Kennedy.

----- Original Message ----- .

From: eduardo

Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 7:39 AM

Subject: Who killed Jesus


Chief, Arnold:

 

Regarding the current "Who killed Jesus" polemic, I wrote the following and sent it to the forum. For some reason, it has not been posted yet. So, I'm sending my email to you.

 

It seems John is taking a "baby with bath water" view on this. There just aren't enough details in recorded Scripture to count racial heads including their words to make a blanket statement, such as "it was the jews that killed Jesus." Thus, I propose a prospective view looking at it from the question  - "Would Jesus be alive if the jews weren't there? Let's see where this leads us. Somehow, from what I've read of your reponses, this will echo your position.

 

P.S. Now reason tells me that there were racial Israelites who were Talmudic (Phariseeic). We are told Paul studied as one and persecuted Christians until he was "enlightened" by our holy Father. Today, there are cases where Christians convert to Judaism (Phariseeism). Albeit, none are really members (Think of Madonna for instance, or the Anglo-Saxon woman who marries and converted to Judaism).

 

Jesus said he came for only his lost sheep. Well, what did the lost sheep believe as a faith? Could it be possible some believed in Phariseeism, Sadduceeism, Baal, pagans, etc. How many believed in the true faith of Moses? How many were led astray by false teachings? Certainly, Paul was at one time. I will also grant, there were not many pure Israelites that were Pharisees. The region was after all a very intermixed race of Edomites. If one reads about those times when Jesus lived, they can easily find that many rreligious sects were vying for dominance. It almost appears as England and Canada is heading today...And America as well.

 

We also know only a few Israelites returned to the levant to rebuild the Temple during the reign of Darius. How many of them fell to the side and intermarried the already settled Edomite population? Recall that Nebuchadnezzar rewarded the Edomites for helping them subdue the Israelites. In repayment, he gave them the land that Israel once owned. Israel was depossessed of its land -- similar to what is happening in California with white flight as a result of the mestizo invasion. Another thought concerning the return of Israel in building the temple, is from the perspective of the Edomite population. Seventy years prior (2 to 3 generations), the Edomites and others possessed all that remained of what was once owned by Israel. This means they inhabited the farms, the businesses, the homes that contained all the household goods a family needed. I'm sure Nebuchadnezzar didn't let the enslaved and uprooted Israelites take their possessions. Rather, they were stripped and humiliated as a defeated and conquered people typically are. Yea, the Edomites moved in to those Israelite homes much like blacks in Zimbabwe and South African are doing today with white owned farms. The return of these Israelites must have been somewhat threatening to the Edomite mixed population. Could the small number (48,987) of Israelites returning have eased the threat? How did the Israelites cope with the Edomite mixed population? Were Persian guards protecting the Israelites every step of the way similar to America's early Civil Rights movement? Not much is written concerning this. So, we cannot state with certainty this was the case. However, a decree by the Emperor Cyrus was made. Israel could return to build their temple. But, all through the reign of Cyrus "adversaries" troubled the building of it. They said "Let us build with you, for we seek your God as you do; and we have sacrificed to Him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here." Ezra 4:2.

 

Who were these people? Definitely not Israelites. It was a well known policy of Assyria to intermix conquered territories with foreigners. Sound familiar? We are told in the Septuagint - "then Zorobabel, and Jesus (Jeshua) and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel said to them, It is not for us and you to build a house to our God, for we ourselves will build together to the Lord our God, as Cyrus the king of the Persians commanded us. And the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Juda, and hindered them in building, and continued hiring persons against them, plotting to frustrate their counsel, all the days of Cyrus king of the Persians, and until the reign of Darius king of the Persians." Ezra 4: 3-5.

 

These were LAWYERS!! Doesn't this sound familar in America as well?

 

The vast majority of Israelites left long ago under the Assyrian conquest. The region of Jerusalem was awashed with mixed kinds. But there were some Israelites who remained and His disciples were Israelites found by Jesus in the area of Galilee. Likewise, in probability a few Israelites may of lived and/or did business in Jerusalem, but could have already been lost. Perhaps, this why Jesus instructed His disciples not to go to Jerusalem to preach. Yes, Jerusalem was the seat of power, but it was controlled by Edomite pharisees. Herod was an Edomite and appointed individuals to its seat of power.

 

Who killed Jesus? It was the Pharisees. Who were the pharisee leaders? They were Herod-appointed Edomite jews. When the chief priests and officers cried out saying- "Crucify Him! Crucify Him! They already persuaded the crowd that undoubtedly consisted of many faiths and nations. Jerusalem was afterall an international city for merchantilism. Citizens from Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon, Syria, Thracia, etc. all did business there. It is obvious some of Jesus' disciples were there also to witness and record the events of Jesus before Pontius Pilate. Long lost Israelites may have been in the multicultural crowd. It makes no sense to me that ALL of crowd before Pontius Pilate were Edomite jews. Reason pursuades me to believe MANY people who witnessed and heard about Jesus and His extraordinary miracles came to see what was to happen to this man. They had many hopes and expectations. They asked is He God? The Messiah? What will He do to Pontius Pilate and the Romans? Will His mighty hand strike the Romans down so we will finally be free? Well, if I had these expectations and then witnessed Jesus being flogged and beaten, it is easy to see how people might of thrown in the towel in disappointment and joined in the chorus of "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" They could have just as easily cried out "Fake! Fake!" or "Disappointment! Disappointment!" They simply didn't understand His mission and were looking for a great sign on par with the seven plagues of Egypt.

 

The orginal question was - "Would Jesus be alive if the jews weren't there?" That indeed is the million dollar question. According to the prophesy of Jesus' crucifixion, they had to be there. The quick retort to this question would be "yes." BUT, the Jacob-Esau struggle would of changed dramatically the events leading to Jesus' crucifixion as well. Thus, changing the conditions that brought forth the promises of our Father.

 

Who killed Jesus? We know the pharisee chiefs and officers cried out "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" They pursuaded the multicultural crowd (Matt 27:20). "Pharmakeia" is a befitting word for what these pharisees caused. They had their own interests in mind. The crowd was not composed of only Edomites=jews.

 

-eduardo

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:50 AM

Subject: Re: [Israelites] [jacobisrael] Re: Israelite Identity, Who really killed Yahshua, and Edomites or Judahites!


Dear Chief,

 

It would be very interesting to know why you've spent so much more time thinking of new ways to insult John than you have thinking of the answers to some very important questions.

 

Do you not realize how important are these basic questions that you've avoided the answers to?

 

If you really believed that you're an Israelite, you'd WANT to know the answers, instantly, rather than continue to use these ad hominems to avoid answering them.

 

Here's my take on it, Chief.  You're not an Israelite.  In fact, you detest Israelites.  Your hatred of Israelites is justified because you blame Israelites for crucifying Jesus even long after we've pointed out to you that it was Edomites, not Israelites, who brutally murdered Him. Rather than taking this opportunity to defend Israelites, you replied "maybe" so that you can continue to hate Israelites.

 

Set us straight, Chief.  Does this accurately represent your view?  If not, then exactly what IS your view?

 

Sincerely,

 

 

John Knight


 

 

horizontal rule

At 05:52 PM 12/30/2004, Jacob Israel wrote:

 Thanks for those courteous responses. 


Oh you are quite welcomed.  Thank you for yours!

Please see my response below in red.


Thanks, but I am a bit disappointed in your skipping the majority of the post. 
 

No.  There is not an "old" covenant.  There is only the covenant that God "renewed", which is what the word means that the "translators" presumed meant "new".


Yes!  You are correct!  I have always said that the "New Covenant" was merely an update of the old one.  A contract does need renewing as time goes on.   This was no exception.
 

Heavens no!  The New Covenant excludes them and replaced them with Spiritual sacrifices (1 Pet 2:5).


Scripture, please.

You do not have Jesus' word on this.  You only have Paul's word (and we all may be misreading Paul).


In other words if Christ didn't say something then we cannot believe it?  Well, in one fail swoop, you've done away with the vast majority of the Bible!  What rule of eisegesis are you invoking here?

Either the Bible is the word of God or it is not. If you can prove that any book is wrong and contradictory of what Christ said, please do.

What about Hebrews John?  Is that book off limits too?  Do we just start throwing out anything you think Christ did not do or say? 
 

Law and Covenant is not the same thing.  The Law spoken of here is God's Ten Commandments.  Do you believe the physical sacrifices to still be in effect as per the Covenant at Sinai?  Do you offer animal sacrifices?


That's not the question.


It's my question to you.  Do you?  I mean if you are implying the law of works is still in effect as per the OC, then I want to know if you follow it.

The question is why you believe "nomos" means "ceremonial or sacrificial laws" in one verse, and "God's Ten Commandments" in another.


I have already shown you that.  The word "nomos" simply means "law."  There is the "nomos of works", "the nomos of faith", "the nomos of sin."  Why do you keep asking the same thing?   Is it because you wish to confuse the matter? 

Please show us the Scripture which confines Jesus' teachings to ONLY the "Ten Commandments".


Of course Christ taught the "whole law" as in the OC because it was still in effect at the time.  However, when the OC became the NC, it was not in effect anymore:

(Heb 9:28 - 10:1-2)  "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." {1}  "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. {2} For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins."

Since the Covenant was renewed please show the SCL being renewed by Christ.

 We know that Paul spoke Hebrew, so when he wrote "nomos" in Greek, he was referring directly to "Torah" in Hebrew.  If you don't believe this, the please provide a different definition for "nomos" which fits into all the Scripture.


Nomos simply means a precept or a statute.  That's the definition of it. -

H8451towrah, to-raw'; or     torah, to-raw'; from 3384; a precept or statute,  espec. the Decalogue or Pentateuch:-law.

It is used in Gen 26:5; Ex 12:49; 13:9; 16:4, 28; 18:16, 20 before the OC was instituted including the SCL.  

The agreement was called "an everlasting covenant".  The "law of Moses" is no different than the statutes, judgments, voice, commandments, and ordinances that Abraham followed.


Then why was the Law not called the Law of Abraham?  Abraham did not have the SCL.   Remember God did not even speak of animal sacrifice when He brought them out of Egypt -

(Jer 7:22 KJV)  "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:"

If the SCL was a "torah" to Abraham why didn't God command they keep it when they came out of Egypt since He said:

(Exo 16:4 KJV)  "Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law (torah), or no."

And Moses said:

(Exo 15:25-26 KJV)  "And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD showed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet: there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them, {26} And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee."

Remember this is before Sinai and the institution of the SCL.  Can you show Abraham sacrificing one animal for the forgiveness of sins?  Can you show Abraham doing any ceremonial washings or purifications?

If Abraham had the entire covenant Moses had, why did God have to give it to Moses since Moses was the progeny of Abraham?

Did Jesus violate any of the "law of Moses", or the "Torah"?


This is a rhetorical question.  Is it not? 

I would never follow any man in lieu of Christ.  I am sorry, but I do not know why you said this.


Because not a single word quoted about Jesus confirms that any part of the Torah should change.


OK! If you think the "torah" was the whole law as in the sense of the Law of Moses which included the SCL, then tell me why Christ kept the Passover the day before it was supposed to be kept?  Why did He institute the "Lord's Supper"?   Did the "torah" of Moses have any  such thing in it?  Was the "Lord's Supper" to be the sign of the "New" or "renewed" covenant?  If so, is that not a change in the "torah" of Moses?

And please do prove that Abraham kept the SCL.

 It's only a misinterpretation of what Paul said that leads people to believe that.


Such as?  Do you sacrifice animals for your sins or do you plead the blood of Christ?

If you read all of Jeremiah a few more times, you'll get a sense for the problem (and the fact that this has been a perpetual problem with Israelites).


What has?  Please be clear!
 

It is not only the "sacrificial and ceremonial law" (SCL) that is covered under the Law of Moses.  When I said that concerning Paul's becoming as a "Jew" I did not mean that the "nomos" pertained just to the SCL. However, the example I gave of Paul keeping the purification ceremony is about keeping a requirement of the SCL. Do you think that ceremony is still binding today?


Unless you can find a verse which quotes Jesus, who commanded His disciples to sacrifice a lamb for the passover, as claiming that some part of the Torah is to stand and some part is to be abolished, wouldn't you say it still stands?


No!  I would not!  There are plenty of Scriptures that show the SCL is no longer in place. Tell me why Christ kept the Passover on the 13th of Abib instead of the 14th.   Was He breaking the "torah"?   Do you offer animal sacrifices?   What is the reason you are harping on this?  Are you saying we should keep the SCL?  Make yourself clear. PLease!

Why give a misinterpretation of what Paul said so much more weight than what we know Jesus said--not a tittle of the Torah can fail?


I have not given a misinterpretation of Paul and you haven't shown Christ reinstituting the SCL in the New Covenant. 
 

You were the one who claimed that Paul's use of "nomos" in one verse meant SCL, and now you're claiming that Jesus' use of "nomos" in another verse means something very different ["only the Ten Commandments"].

Where's your evidence?  Where did JESUS ever say that?


I showed you why I said that about Paul including Scripture, but you obviously overlooked it as you have most of this post.  I showed you that "nomos" simply means "law" and covers several laws including the law of sin.  Please prove that "nomos" always means the "Law of Moses" including the SCL.  Hey if you can prove it, I'll accept it.
 

He (and many others) are following this forum very closely, and if you ask politely, he may reply, either directly or to this forum.  Perhaps 100 Israelites have studied his paper and discussed it in a video, audio, text forum on Paltalk, which is where we've reached the concensus.  We're in 100% agreement on the key points, though there are some side issues which nobody can ever agree 100%.


He's more than welcome to reply.  I would welcome his input.  However he's your witness, not mine.
 

Your error is presuming that Judahites [read: Israelites of the House of Judah] ever followed "Judaism" [read: the traditions of the elders].


No!  Your error is presuming that they did not!

It was the Edomites who followed it, and they attempted to impose it on Israelites just as they attempted to impose it on the Samaritan [read: Israelite] woman at the well, but just like her, Israelites never accepted it (even to this very day].


Scripture please!

As far as we know, Paul was the only "Judahite" ever to attempt to become "as a Jew", and look at what the jews did to him as a result.


What do you do with all the Jews from Israel in Ezra and Nehemiah? 

 Modern jews spout the same LIE that jews of his time spouted, which is that anyone can "convert to" being a jew. 


Even Christ said they made proselytes.  Do you disagree?

So Paul the Israelite studied under the Pharisee Gamaliel--only to have the jews try to kill him more than 30 times.


He studied Judaism.  He was a Judahite.  Two different things.  I have given the evidence for this so I see no need in repeating it here as it seems you just ignore it anyway.  But if that's what you wish to believe, please believe it.

You tell us.  Would "become a jew" be a more accurate description of what Paul did than "become AS a jew"?


Paul was a Jew/Judahite.  He became AS a Jew under the NC. He became as a Jew still following the OC mixed with man's way or Judaism.
 

To the jews, Paul was a jew.  To us Israelites, Paul "became AS a jew".  When Paul is addressing the jews, he can say "I am a jew".  When he's addressing us Israelites, he can say "I became AS a jew, TO the jews, in order to GAIN the jews".

Is this a contradiction?  No.  Both statements are accurate, but are obviously very context sensitive.


I have given you my understanding on this and explained it in detail. You have not shown how I was wrong.  I don't agree with anything you said above. I have shown why.   But I will not argue it anymore as I believe I have digested all I can benefit from it.  So there's no need to rehash it.
 

Only Israelites are under God's Law.  Only Israelites can sin.  Nobody else is, and nobody else can sin.


But when Christ tells Jews they will die in their sin and they have the written NOMOS, which you say is the whole law of Moses, you still don't believe they are Israelites.

The jews were not and are under God's Law.  The jews could not and cannot sin.


So how did Paul become a Jew under law to gain Jews under law?

You've misread what Paul wrote.


No! You have!

 You've used this misunderstanding of what Paul wrote to DENY what Jesus said about "not a tittle of the Torah can fail".


No, you have used the word "torah" to be another word for "Law of Moses" and now have become pusher of animal sacrifices for sins.

# 1 - Christ said they had the Law (John 8:17).

No.  He told the Pharisees that they had "YOUR" law, which Jesus said is very different from the Torah [read: "the command of God", or "the word of God"].


Remember the word Christ used for "law" there is "nomos" and by your own witness that means the "Law of Moses." So in essence you are saying these Jews had the Law of Moses and thereby destroy your own belief. Was the Tradition of the Elders (TE) written or oral in the days of Christ?  Where in the TE is it written the testimony of two men is true?  How did they sin if that was an Edomite law?
 

AND that they were not "children of Abraham", which means they were not Israelites.


Semantics!  I have explained this also. 

 Edomites are Abraham's seed,


No they are not!  They are not counted for Abraham's seed (Rom 9:7-8).

and Abraham is the father of Edomites


No He's not according to Rom 9:7-8. 

--but Edomites [and all other non-Israelites] are not "children of Abraham".


They are not even counted for seed.  To say these Jews were Edomites is to say what the Bible doesn't say.  You have to change the definition of the word Jew and have to misread what Christ said in John 8 to make these people be non-Israelites.

AND He told them "They 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. "

If they were Israelites, would Jesus accuse them of being "children of the devil"?


Of course He would if they served sin.

In Mat 23 we see Christ blast the Pharisees.  The following facts can be
gleaned from Christ's reprimand of them.

# 1 - Christ said these Pharisees sat in Moses' seat (Mat 23:2).


Yes, and He said they did so by deceit, and that they do NOT belong there,


No He did not!  Show me where Christ said they were not legitimately in that seat.

and that Israelites should NOT obey what they say but instead should never let a tittle of the Torah to fail.


He said they should observe what the Pharisees bid them to observe.  Do you really think Christ would recognize charlatans as legitimate and tell His people to observe what people who are forbidden to be in the Congregation of God bid them to do?  That reminds me of today's USA government that says illegal aliens have rights. What a paradox!

# 2 - Christ told the people to observe what the Pharisees bade them to
observe (Mat 23:3).


Read that carefully, again.  Jesus did not command the Israelites to obey them.  He told them that they were in error for doing so, and thus disobeying "the command of God".


You know John, you can say more verses do not say what they say than anyone I have ever had a discussion with.  Here's the verse -

 "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." (Mat 23:2)

Are you going to tell me that the above verse does have Christ telling the people they are to observe and do what the Pharisees bid them to observe?  If so, I must wonder if you can be honest with yourself when discussing something that challenges your belief.

# 3 - He said they had the option of entering into the kingdom of heaven (Mat 23:13).


Which they REJECTED.  Would Israelites reject this option?


So you are now saying they could enter into the Kingdom of Heaven if they wanted to even though they were never allowed into it (Deut 23:2)?
Did you not say that God never changes His Law?  Now you are telling me Edomites who were not allowed into the Congregation of God have a choice about entering into it?   When did God change?

# 4 - He told them they should pay tithes (Mat 23:23).
# 5 - He told them to clean up their inward man (Mat 23:25).
# 6 - He said they were the children of those that killed the prophets of God (Mat 23:31).


He said that they proved by their deeds that they were children of those who killed the prophets (and NOT children of Abraham).


So show me one Edomite in the Bible that killed the prophets.  Do you think Edomites were required to pay tithes and could clean up their inner selves?

# 7 - He said of the children of Jerusalem they killed the prophets and He wished to gather them unto Him (Mat 23:37).
Do Edomites fit those descriptions? 


Perfectly.


Really?  So Jesus wanted to save the Edomites?  Why would He want to save a people that He forbade to enter into His congregation to begin with? Did God change? Was Christ breaking the "nomos"/"torah"? If Christ wanted to save them, should you not want the same thing? 

Did you not say, yourself that they did not have the Law and cannot sin? 


And they proved it by rejecting Jesus.


Oh!  I see!  If you reject Jesus you do not sin.  By that "logic" accepting Him is sin.  Right!

If Christ is teaching them truth, why did He say He was sent only Israel (Mat 15:24)?


He didn't go to them. 


Sure He did!  He was from Nazareth and went to their abode.

They came to Him, threatening to kill Him.  For what?  For spreading the TRUTH about them.


But why would He teach them the truth if He is sent only to Israel? 

When did Edomites get appointed Moses' seat? 


King Harod appointed his buddies, which is why the temple was completely obliterated in 72 AD.


Nope!  They could only be Levites.  Herod tried bringing in a Levite high priest that was subservient to him, but the people rebelled and he had to appoint one they accepted.  But even if Herod did appoint Edomites into the place of the Levites why would Christ not tell the people to kick them out?  They were not lawfully there. Was Christ telling these people to break the "nomos"?
 

But if the jews belonged to the House of Judah, then they WOULD have been "children of Abraham"--and Jesus Himself said they weren't.


No He did not!  You just read it wrong.  He said they were the seed of Abraham which makes them the children of promise (Rom 9:7-8).

 Judahites have never followed the Talmud. 


Evidence please!

Only jews have.


Jews in the Bible are Judahites!

 While the House of Judah did sin, the Scripture tells us that God put away the House of Israel for their sins, but not the House of Judah.
Why not?


Because Christ was the Son of God and if God divorced Judah Christ would have been illegitimate.

 But the jews REJECTED Him, KILLED Him, and did not "believe on me" BECAUSE they were "not of my sheep".


Israelites killed the prophets of God, went a whoring after other god time after time and got themselves divorced.  Does that sound like people who follow Christ?

Paul risked his life by going to where jews were to try to spread the gospel to Israelites.  More than 30 times, Paul writes "the jews tried to kill me".


Your point?
 

Edomites are descendants of Esau's marriage to Canaanite women who were "a vexation to the spirit of Isaac and Rebekah".  God HATED Esau for this.


Not all Edomites were descendants of Canaanite women. God hated Esau before he was born.

 Israelites are descendants of Jacob's marriage to wives of Abraham's "my kindred, my people", and this became the sole heir of the everlasting covenant God made with Abraham. For you to say that they're both the same race is to impugn the entire racial message of the Holy Bible.


By whose estimation?  For you to say Esau is a different race than his brother, is to say there is no such thing as race.  Canaan was the same race as Eber as both came through Noah.  The Bible only speaks of one race of people and that's Adamic or white.  For you to make a racial issue of something that isn't is to destroy the truth that is presented about why Canaanites were off limits.
 

The Tribe of Benjamin was of the House of Israel,


No it wasn't!  It was of the House of Judah.

 otherwise Paul was not one of the sheep to whom Jesus was sent.


Judahites were Israelites! 

Why do you suppose that Jesus excluded the House of Israel from His Mission?


He didn't!
 

Jews are not under the Torah.


The Jews of the Bible were.

 They're under the Talmud. 


The Jews of the Bible were under the Law of God, but corrupted by the Tradition of the Elders.

Only Israelites like Paul are under the Torah.


And Paul was a Jew.  He said he was.  It's you that's calling Paul a liar.

All Israelites are children of Abraham.  The jews were not,


Yes they were! 

and thus at least this TYPE of jew that Jesus was talking to are not Israelites.


Yes they were.  They had the "nomos" and you, yourself said that's Moses' Law.

Do you see Christ eating lamb in His Passover observance with the Apostles?  I do not think so!  The OC was no longer in effect at that point.

 


Really?"


Really!

Mar 14:14 And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

Mar 14:16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

Luk 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. "
 
Jesus COMMANDED His Disciples to prepare a passover, and now you're claiming that He didn't even eat at the Passover?
 
It would be interesting to see the verse where Jesus ever said any such thing.
 
THIS IS CALLED THE TORAH.
 
This is the one Jesus said not a tittle of can fail.


Then why didn't He eat the Passover on the 14th of Abib as the Law requires?  Was He breaking the Law?
 

The Torah is the entire Word of God as emobodied in the first five books of the Holy Bible.


How do you obey Gen 1:1?

 If you look in there, you'll see that Israelites have a RIGHT to offer sacrifices to God, any DAM. time they please to, irregardless of what judeochristians "think" about it.


Your point?
 

Every last one of the Disciples, the Old Testament, and the Apostles, AGREE that women should not speak in "the congregation" [which includes far more than just the church].


Scripture please!

Do you disagree with all of them?


As far as they agree with Christ, yes!

I have yet to see a verse where Jesus outlawed the Torah.


Me either!

 You're making much ado about nothing here. 


I think it's you that's doing that.

Also, this reference to a "new testament" is a quote from Jeremiah 31:31:

Hbr 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
The Hebrew word from which "new" was translated is "chadash" [#2319] which has the sense of "renewed" or "fresh", as the following verse with that word in it illustrates:

Job 29:20 My glory 03519 [was] fresh 02319 in me 05978, and my bow 07198 was renewed 02498 in my hand 03027.


So by your example the covenant God was to make with both houses of Israel was to be a fresh covenant.  That means it is not an old one.  If there was nothing to change, then why freshen it?  Remember the next verse says that covenant was not to be like the one God gave their fathers when He brought them out of Egypt.  So if it's not to be like that covenant, it must be a different covenant, else it would be like that covenant.

 No, the Torah is defined as the first five books of the Holy Bible, which includes the SCL. But yes, the SCL was implemented because Israel was a wayward child--just as we are today. Did God make a mistake here?  Is this why you want to do away with it?  Or would Israel be well served to get back to basics [read: The Torah]?


I don't want to do away with it.  It seems you are willing to do away with God's word by your obvious wavering on the legitimacy of Paul. When you finally take that step you will have gotten rid of most of the NT.  Do you want to sacrifice animals for sins?   Please answer this question.  It seems you are so adamant to keep the SCL in when it was simply added and was to last only until the divorced Israelites were redeemed (Gal 3:19).
 

I will gladly toss out Matthew or Mark if they contradict what Jesus said. 


Luke didn't contradict Him and you questioned his legitimacy.

But I don't think they did, only you do.


Yeah that's why I quoted them to prove my point.
 

Oh really?  Where do you get your information?  From men?  Or from the God-inspired Bible?  Did the Jews keep the Sabbath (John 5:10)?  Did they keep Passover (John 2:13)?  Did they keep the Days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 12:3)? Did they tithe (Mat 23:23)?  Did they read the Law of Moses every Sabbath (Acts 15:21)?  Did Christ say they sat in Moses' seat (Mat 23:2)?  Did Christ tell them it was written in >>>their<<< Law "that the testimony of two men is true?  Was the Tradition of the Elders written or was it oral?  Is that Law written in the "torah" (Deut 17:6)?

Are you going to tell me all those things come from the Talmud and not the "torah"?


The Torah says sodomy is a sin, the Talmud says it's not.  The Torah says mamzers are mixed breeds who can't enter the congregation of the Lord even to the tenth generation, the Talmud says mamzers are just bastards who ARE allowed into the Synagogue.  The Talmud says Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier who was hanged on a tree for blasphemy, thrown on a dung heap, and is now boiling in hot excrement, the Torah doesn't. The similarities are trivial compared to the differences.


You didn't answer my question.  And what has your analyses got to do with anything?   I don't say the Torah and Talmud are the same thing.

>What Paul studied under the Pharisee Gamaliel had NOTHING to do with God's
>Law.


How do you know this?


By the way jews act, talk, look, and "think".


So you admit this belief is not from the Bible, but from your own formulation!   Thanks, but I'll stick with what the Bible reveals.

 Do you *really* think the Talmud is just another "version" of God's Law?


The question is, do you really think I think that?  The Talmud is filth and God is not a filthy God.  Does that answer your question?

AND that they were NOT "children of Abraham" and WERE "children of the devil".


So is anyone that serves sin and by your own belief only Israelites can sin and that's why Christ told these Israelites they were of their father the devil.

This is semantics!  The seed of one is the child of the same. If one has another as ones father, then that one is the child of that father. You fail to understand what "father" Christ was speaking of when He said "if you were Abraham's children....",  He was speaking of that father which they worshipped. They thought He was speaking of their physical forefather.  But when Christ made the statement about if they the children of Abraham, they would do the works of Abraham, they knew He was talking about their spiritual father.  That's why they said, "we have one Father, even God."  Why do you think they said to Christ "we be not born of fornication" when He said if they were the children of Abraham they would do his works?  Did He not just tell them they did the works of their father?


"Fornication" here means "mogrelization", not sex outside of marriage.  The "fornication" referred to here is Esau's marriage to the Canaanite women.


Why?  Christ did not say anything about that to them.  In stead He said they ARE His disciples if they continue in His Word.  Here again you just apply your own imaginings without benefit of Scripture.  But that is not what the fornication here means.  It means these Jews realized Christ was telling them they served another god and they were saying, "we have not been converted", we serve one god who is God.   Now I won't bother giving Scripture here as it seems most of my Scripture giving is ignored and it takes a lot of time to go through and put this down only to have you just brush it off via rhetoric.  But I can back it with Scripture if you ask for evidence.   Can you?
 

Tell me John, do those OT prophesies tell us that God will join both house of Israel, Judah and Israel together under one Shepherd?


Sure they do.  And it happened, 77 years after Jeremiah prophesied that it would.  The House of Israel and the House of Judah DID walk together in Judaea as described by both Nehemiah and Ezra, who tossed out the mixed multitude and other non-Israelites--including the Canaanite ancestors of these Edomites who Jesus met up with.


OK, show me any tribe in Ezra other than Levi, Benjamin or Judah as being in the land at that time.  So by your calculations, Christ came for nought as Scripture was already fulfilled and Israel had been redeemed without a Savior.  That's a new one on me John.  I pray you will understand my not exactly accepting that as "Gospel."
 

Do you REALLY believe that both Houses had, or have, the same covenant? 

 
Of course!  That's what Scripture says.  Else show me two different covenants for both houses.  When God said they would be no more two houses, but one, what do you think that means? 

The question is do you really think they don't have the same covenant?

horizontal rule

God is not a respecter of persons, nor of time-worn
"traditions". He demands of His people obedience to
His Divine Law, the National Covenant made formally
binding at Mt. Sinai. If His people follow His Divine
Directives-Principles they will be blessed without
measure. If we refuse to obey the National Contract,
we will be cursed in an ever-spiralling downward fall
into national dissolution. The promised Judgments for
national disobedience warned of in Deuteronomy Chapter
28 and leviticus Chapter 26 are all around us now. Our
nation faces great perils for her own survival.
Without true Biblical repentance, that is, a turning
to and a full embracing of the National Covenant, the
Law of YHVH, our ONLY National Constitution, America
cannot survive. But take heart, little flock. Our God
has promised us ultimate Victory in Christ Jesus,
Yahshua, our great and glorious King of kings and Lord
of lords. America, soon to be transformed into the New
JerUSAlem, will emerge from this travail as that
shining city set upon a hill. If you have faith as a
mustard seed, you can move mountains. Praise YHVH for
His everlasting Promises!

                                                Scott



--- Teacher of YHVH <teacher@venturecomm.net> wrote:

> To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
> From: "Teacher of YHVH" <teacher@venturecomm.net>
> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:30:08 -0600
> Subject: [Christian-Identity] Fw: roseanne
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rose Tridle" <rkt@gwtc.net>
> To: "Oscar&Shari" <Teacher@sullybuttes.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 3:03 PM
> Subject: Fw: roseanne
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "roseanne" <rkt@gwtc.net>
> > To: <rkt@gwtc.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:12 PM
> > Subject: roseanne
> >
> >
> > > roseanne,
> > > I found this site I thought you'd like to see:
> > >
> > > http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/forsakenroots.html

 

horizontal rule

 

STALIN - HERE And NOW!

Andrey Fefelov [af]

(tr. Yuriy Kirienko)

 

http://zavtra.ru/cgi//veil//data/zavtra/04/579/11.html

 

 

 

 

1.af]            After a wearisome night stop the high-speed train under the name " Russian history " has slightly moved, and slowly, as if unwillingly, has begun its slow movement. With squeaking of the springs, more and more accelerating every minute the train cuts heavily the way through darkness, buries in a dense space blizzard of the Future. It is driven by the mysterious machinist. His figure, the uniform and the peaked-cap to pain and tears is familiar to all of us. Is it really him?

 

2.af]            Yes, Stalin has returned.

 

3.af]            He is on the covers of thousand books; in the texts of numerous articles and abstracts … He is in the golden inscription "Stalingrad” at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier. He is in the Moscow Park of the Victory, in the main hall of military glory among the sculptures of the commanders of the Great Patriotic war.

 

4.af]            According to official polls the numbers of the admirers of Stalin in Russia continuously grow. Sociologists remark that there are fewer and fewer people who personally experienced the time of Stalin but the curve of popularity of The Generalissimo climbs upwards uncontrollably. They emphasize that among the admirers of Stalin the percentage of the Orthodox people is very high.

 

5.af]            Based on the data from Russian Orthodox church there is no temple in Russia where the Parishioners would not have regularly submitted remembering notes for the passing away of Joseph Stalin.

 

6.af]            Now, when the country is on the eve of the dangerous world-wide events and new cataclysms, all of us are peering intensely into the past century, looking there for the resolution of the horrible questions of the modern days. And we see there not Vitte, not Stolipin, not Bukharin and not Trotsky … Not Lenin or Nikolai II … We see there the son of the peasant of the Tifliss province, who has become the sole exact deliverer of the grandiose in its impulses and breaks through " Russian idea. " In the magma of history we see only fiery Stalin.

 

7.af]            Stalin is very close to all of us in " that country. " In Russia factually all are Stalinists. The damning and hating Stalin political, bureaucratic, financial and cultural elite of the present Russia – they all came out of the Stalin’s military overcoat because the systems of manufacture, defense, science and education - all that was construed, modeled, and put at the foundation at the time of Stalin. Stalin emotions, ways of thinking, style and the magic of behavior saturate the governing culture being the base of any power in Russia - yesterday, today and tomorrow.

 

8.af]            The Father of the peoples using the booster methods launched the country to the positions of the advanced industrial countries extending the Russian history, creating the margin of safety and the preconditions for the advancement even for the ugly regime of the present. For that reason the oligarchs and their henchmen, after occasionally capturing the constructed under the direction of Stalin state Infrastructure, should drop to kiss the icon of the " Sacred Joseph " on the hourly basis.

 

9.af]            Today Stalin's portraits can be seen, as before, on the windshields of automobiles, at the machine tools of the defense enterprises, on the T-shirts of young people, in the offices of businessmen and officials. Paradoxically but in the today's capitalist Russia the symbol of the Russian Statehood, Stalin, relentlessly, unstoppably and inevitably becomes the most authoritative figure of the past for he is the creator of the modernized Russian style. At heavy gait Stalin inexorably comes back in architecture. In Moscow, the tower on Paveletskaya square and the "high-rise" on the Falcon minutely reproduce the Stalin archetype of the Imperial Constructions. Stalinism in the architecture step by step presses out the glassy slime of Luzkov.

 

10.af]       Russia, unpredictable, mysterious, in its jerks and movements, remains Stalin Russia to this day.

 

11.af]       Probably, due to Stalin, Russia as such is alive still. The power stations, libraries, universities, rocket shafts live still on the Stalin batteries. The planes fly on the Stalin fuel …

 

12.af]       To oppose Stalin with Gorbachev or Yeltsin is plain stupid. To compare Stalin's way with the Putin's attempts is ridiculous. On the scale of the millennium they are non-comparable values. It makes no sense to compare the belfry of Ivan-the-Great with an underground parking lot. (Napoleon called Talleyrand “shit in a silk stocking”. The Western shit in general call Ivan-the-Great “the Terrible” – YK)

 

13.af]       Recently, they opened an elite restaurant in Moscow " On a visit at Stalin’s ". The magnificent perfumery shop is decorated with picturesque portraits of the leader.

 

14.af]       Oh, No! God save us to echo the " Trotskyst rabble ". Stalin is non-bourgeois.

 

15.af]       Simply put, if in the present Russia there is anything capitalistic, modernized, postindustrial – then that all is described by one word - "Stalin".

 

16.af]       Stalin is not Red and is not White. He is not head or tail. He is neither left nor right. He is wide and all-encompassing as the very Russia is.

 

17.af]       He, - a prophet of the Russian destiny, - will be perceived as the founder, as the Caesar of the Russian history, to whatever lowlands and summits the fate could throw us. Perhaps, in the eyes of our remote descendants, our history will start counting from Stalin …

 

18.af]       Can you not to believe in it? Do not you feel, how the soul of the people heaves, burns and is bursting mightily into the new space?

 

19.af]       By the Will of destinies a Georgian, a former Seminary student that was molded in the bloody belly of the Russian Revolution became the spokesman of the Continental thinking, of the ideology of the 1/6 part of the landmass of the world. He created the image and the matrix of life of the Native Land. Stalin's historical practice is more than imperialism or internationalism. It is a complex of concepts and measures, which are in essence Russian fundamentalism.

 

20.af]       The dream of the future space and hatred to the decrepit world, daring and inspiration, - that is the Russianess. Stalin’s epoch carried in itself that messianic charge.

 

21.af]       Stalin has returned. Well, but he never left at all. Registration of the continent proceeds along its tortuous way. Russia is either in the agony of death or in the suffering of the delivery struggling furiously in the great cold vastness. Her hoarse inhaling tomorrow can become a deep and mighty exhalation, which will result again in the concussion of the planet. Ahead, as always, lays the decisive century! What is ahead of us? - The strained isolation or entry in the coalition of the world powers? The mobilization type development or social explosion?

 

22.af]       They say that Stalin's error was in that he has not left a worthy successor.

 

23.af]       According to the testimony of the eyewitnesses, the last word that Stalin said on his death bed was the word "God". With a gesture of his hand he pointed to the icon of “The savior” that hanged at his headboard …

 

24.af]       Russian history proceeds forward. What is coming to us, comrade Stalin?

 

25.af]       I stand on the bone paving blocks of the Red Square. Moscow ringing with hundred heads and hands starts rotating. Spaces and volumes are being slowly filled with the reflections of the coming day. There is neither pity nor grief in my soul - only the premonition of the rapturous joy. Above the frozen river arises, as the unconquerable shield of the archangel, the new sun of steel.

 

(“Stal” in Russian is steel. “Stalin” means the “man of steel.” - YK)

 

 

 The GUEST BOOK

 To add the message.

horizontal rule

 

 


Some of our forum participants may not enjoy this information, but it
is vital to note
that 'Ioudaioi' does not always refer to the same people after all:


http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
8:22 So the Jewish leaders47 began to say,48 "Perhaps he is going
to
kill himself, because he says, `Where I am going you cannot
come.'

47tn Or "the Jewish authorities"; Grk "the Jews." In
NT usage the
term *Ioudai'oi (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish people, the
residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the authorities in
Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus.

(For further information see R. G. Bratcher, "`The Jews' in
the
Gospel of John," BT 26 [1975]: 401-9. available from
http://www.ubs-translations.org/scholarly/tbt/   )

Here the phrase refers to the Jewish authorities or leaders in
Jerusalem. It was the Pharisees who had begun this line of
questioning in John 8:13, and there has been no clear change since
then in the identity of Jesus' opponents.

(and who were the leaders in Jerusalem but the Herodian Edomites)
-----------------------------------------------

10:19 Another sharp division took place among the Jewish people50
because of these words.

50tn Or perhaps "the Jewish religious leaders"; Grk "the
Jews." In NT
usage the term *Ioudai'oi (Ioudaioi) may refer to the entire Jewish
people, the residents of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the
authorities in Jerusalem, or merely those who were hostile to Jesus.
(For further information see R. G. Bratcher, "`The Jews' in
the Gospel of John," BT 26 [1975]: 401-9.)

Here the phrase could be taken to refer to the Jewish religious
leaders, since the Pharisees were the last to be mentioned
specifically by name, in John 9:40. However, in light of the charge
about demon possession, which echoes 8:48, it is more likely that
Jewish people in general (perhaps in Jerusalem, if that is understood
to be the setting of the incident) are in view here.
----------------------------------------------------------

11:19 so many of the Jewish people of the region38 had come to Martha
and Mary to console them39 over the loss of their brother.)40
38tn Or "many of the Judeans" (cf. BDAG 479 s.v. *Ioudai'o"
2.e);
Grk "many of the Jews."

Here the phrase refers to the residents of Jerusalem and the
surrounding area in general (those who had been friends or relatives
of Lazarus or his sisters would mainly be in view) since the Jewish
religious authorities ("the chief priests and the Pharisees") are
specifically mentioned as a separate group in John 11:46-47. See also
the note on the phrase "the Jewish leaders" in v. 8.


--------------
As a side note, it is interesting that the term 'Jew' is used mostly
in the gospel of John but very rarely in the gospels of Matthew, Mark
or
Luke where the leaders of the Sanhedrin are instead referred to as
Pharisees rather than Jews (Ioudaioi).





Mat 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we
have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Mat 27:11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked
him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him,
Thou sayest.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Mat 27:29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put [it]
upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee
before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Mat 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS
JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Mat 28:15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and
this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash [their]
hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Mar 15:2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he
answering said unto him, Thou sayest [it].

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Mar 15:9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release
unto you the King of the Jews?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Mar 15:12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye
then that I shall do [unto him] whom ye call the King of the Jews?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Mar 15:18 And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Mar 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over,
THE KING OF THE JEWS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Luk 7:3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of
the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Luk 23:3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews?
And he answered him and said, Thou sayest [it].

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Luk 23:5 And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the
people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this
place.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Luk 23:37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Luk 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters
of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Luk 23:51 (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of
them;) [he was] of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself
waited for the kingdom of God.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 1:19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests
and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 2:6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the
manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins
apiece.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to
Jerusalem,

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest
thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in
building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of
the Jews:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 3:25 Then there arose a question between [some] of John's
disciples and the Jews about purifying.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that
thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?
for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for
salvation is of the Jews.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 5:1 After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up
to Jerusalem.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 5:10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the
sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry [thy] bed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 5:15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which
had made him whole.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to
slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he
not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his
Father, making himself equal with God.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 6:4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the
bread which came down from heaven.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can
this man give us [his] flesh to eat?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not
walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 7:2 Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 7:11 Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is
he?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 7:13 Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man
letters, having never learned?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 7:35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go,
that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the
Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 8:22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith,
Whither I go, ye cannot come.
Jhn 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye
continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 8:48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well
that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 8:52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a
devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man
keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years
old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 9:18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had
been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of
him that had received his sight.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 9:22 These [words] spake his parents, because they feared the
Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess
that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 10:19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for
these sayings.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How
long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us
plainly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone
thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man,
makest thyself God.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 11:8 [His] disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late
sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 11:19 And many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort
them concerning their brother.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 11:31 The Jews then which were with her in the house, and
comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went
out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 11:33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also
weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was
troubled,

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 11:45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the
things which Jesus did, believed on him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 11:54 Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but
went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called
Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 11:55 And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out
of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify
themselves.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 12:9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there:
and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see
Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 12:11 Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away,
and believed on Jesus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall
seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come;
so now I say to you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 18:12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took
Jesus, and bound him,

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 18:14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that
it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever
taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always
resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him
according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not
lawful for us to put any man to death:
Jhn 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and
called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief
priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my
kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I
should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from
hence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said
this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in
him no fault [at all].

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at
the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of
the Jews?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 19:3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with
their hands.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he
ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the
Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not
Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against
Caesar.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the
sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where
Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in
Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 19:21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write
not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that
the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for
that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs
might be broken, and [that] they might be taken away.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of
Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he
might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave [him] leave. He
came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 19:40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen
clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 19:42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews'
preparation [day]; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Jhn 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the
week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for
fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto
them, Peace [be] unto you.

horizontal rule

Yes, is is true that many churches discard the Old Testament, but there are some groups who discard much of the New Testament.

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 8:28 PM

Subject: Re: [jacobisrael] Re: Can anybody resolve Paul's contradictions in these examples?




aekennedy <aekennedy@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

You are another one who ignores a Bible analysis.

I'm  NOT "ignoring" Bible analyses....else I wouldn't continue in the Forum and  I wouldn't bother responding to  the letters.

 

 

 Why should I bother further?

 This is a defeatist's attitude.  I should think that you might want to continue if for no other reason than that you might gain adifferent insight about the topics that are being discussed.  I think all this is tatamount to good brain exercises. 

 Just because a person has held to a certain idea, for many years,  does not mean that idea is the  correct one.  Consider all the people that have been in organized religion for years....(myself included), and when TRUTH was revealed, did we leave those denominational churches kicking and screaming?  No, we examined, studied, and accepted. 

It is NOT my purpose to "convert" anyone to what I consider the truth about Saul; my only purpose is to try to expose the deceptions that the Israelite People have embraced because of the false teaching of this apostate apostle. 

Just the fact that the churches have embraced the New testament, and have all but discarded the Old testament should raise a red flag. I think the words of the hymn by Julia Ward Howe speak volumes:

"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;

He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of WRATH are stored;

He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword,

His TRUTH is marching on."

Good night (here in NC) and YAH Bless!

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 7:25 PM

Subject: Re: [jacobisrael] Re: Can anybody resolve Paul's contradictions in these examples?



Arnold.....can't you detect the DECEPTION here in  the statement Saul makes?  In the Old Testament......NONE of it written by Saul or his cohorts,  YAHWEH  regards ISRAEL (NOTHING to do with jews!) as His Progeny.  HOW could the jews be equated with the (Hellenes) Greeks as having the promise of  "glory, honor and peace", etc....??  WHAT "good" did the jews (THEN, and NOW)   "worketh"?  "Can a leopard change its spots"?

You are totally negating the words that YAHOSHUA spoke to the jews when He called them the children of the devil!. Read  JOHN (A REAL BONA FIDE DISCIPLE) 8:39-47.

 


aekennedy <aekennedy@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

Eli, This seems a fair enough as a generalisation but it is not the full picture. In your statement, "The point is that you cannot equate a Jew with a Judahite" is not strictly true when we look at Paul's comparisons of the Jew and the Greek (or the House of Judah with the House of Israel).

Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

In these passages we have a different grammatical construction to that found in reference to "The Jews" (plural).  The differences are not only between the singular and the plural, but also between where we find the article and where we do not. These factors effectively separate one kind of Jew from the other.  This is a simple exercise, but those who take the trouble will find it clears this matter up and it will no longer be found to be vexing.

Kind regards,  Arnold Kennedy.

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 7:37 AM

Subject: [jacobisrael] Re: Can anybody resolve Paul's contradictions in these examples?



Hello, Jacob/Israel Group:

I'm new to this forum.  I'm not sure what the
original "contradictions" are that are referred to, but I would like
to put my two cents worth into the discusion of who killed Christ. 

Unfortunately, there is so much confusion as to the definition of the
word 'Jew' that it is almost impossible to assign blame entirely to
the Jews.  The real culprits were the Pharisees; and the Pharisees
created the religion which is today known as Judaism. 

When Herod massacred the Judahite priesthood and substituted his own
racial stock (Idumeans: Canaanites who descended from Esau's marriage
to two Hittite women), he effectively stole the priesthood away from
Judah.  This is why Jesus tells the people regarding the
Pharisees, "They sit in Moses' seat."  This does not make them
Judahites.  They are usurpers.  He later tells them that they are "of
your Father, the devil."  This means that they possess the genetic
stock of mixed breed Canaanites going all the way back to Cain, who
was the first murderer.  Some of these Canaanites do, in fact, have
Abraham as their father (ancestor), but they do not have any of the
female genetic stock of such matriarchs as Leah and Rachel.  Only
True Israel can trace their genetic stock through Abraham and Sarah,
Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and his wives.

Hence, any mixed breed human being, such as an Edomite (Canaanite),
cannot claim to be an Israelite.  At best, such a person is a half-
breed.  But half-breeds are not allowed in the cogregation of Israel.
Ezra and Nehemiah expelled these people upon the return from the
Babylonian Captivity.

Now, the Pharisaic priesthood, having usurped the Levitical
priesthood, pretended to be Israelites and many of the Judahite
population did not understand that these usurpers were not Israelites
of the tribe of Judah.  But many did understand and refused to follow
them.   That is why there were so many sects vying for control of the
priesthood.  My understanding is that the Essenes were the ones most
faithfull to the Mosaic Law; and they refused to have anything to do
with the Pharisees.  But the Pharisees, via their alliance with Rome,
had total control of Jerusalem.  The Essenes had to flee to the
countryside and establish their own communities.  The Sadducees were
also opponents of the Pharisees, but they were more aligned with the
Hellenes (Greeks). 

You will note that Jesus rarely entered Jerusalem.  And when He did,
there was nothing but conflict with the Pharisees.  Scripture tells
us that "He would not walk in Jewry, for the Jews sought to kil him."
To me, there is no clearer indication that here the word 'Jews' is a
reference to those Judeans who were aligned with the Pharisees.  This
group, therefore, is anti-Christ.  The first rule of Judaism is the
denial of Christ.  Therefore, all Jews are anti-Christ.  Judahites
are not anti-Christ. 

There may have been some pure-blooded Judahites who joined the
Pharisees in those days (as there are numerous race traitors today
who have been either fooled by Zionism or bought off by Jewish money
to join their Zionist crusade), but their number had to be very
samll.    Whatever their number, they had been fooled by the
Pharisees into thinking that they practiced the Mosaic Law. It is
with regard to these deceived Judahites and Israelites that Jesus
proclaimed, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

But any clear reading of the Gospels tells us that the Pharisees
taught AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LAW from that of the Old Testament. 
This teaching Jesus called the "tradition of the elders," "the
teachings of men," "the leaven of the Pharisees," etc.  Today, it is
known as Talmudism; but it is the same teaching as Judaism.

These two facts are of paramount importance.  Those who are today
called "Jews" never practiced the Mosaic Law and they are NOT racial
Israelites.  They are Edomites (Canaanites) and Khazars.  And since
the Jews have always practiced and encouraged race-mixing, they break
God's Law against this practice and encourage Israelites to do
likewise.  Can there be any greater enemy of True Israel?  I don't
think so!

What's the point?  The point is that you cannot equate a Jew with a
Judahite.  The True Judahites are Israelites and they follow Christ. 
The Jews are not Israelites and they follow their father, the devil. 
To call both groups by the same name is like calling the Yankees and
the Mets "New Yorkers" and never distinguishing between the two teams
even when they play against each other.  Do you see the absurdity of
calling Judahites Jews?

We need to come to an informed consensus.  I suggest this:  Since the
Jews are neither Judahites nor practitioners of God's Law, we should
let them keep the name 'Jew', but refer to Judahites as "Judah" or
as "Judahites."  This was the practice before the Edomites came on
the scene.  To avoid Babylonian confusion, we should always
distinguish between God-fearing Judahites and devil-worshipping Jews.

Thus, the answer is clear:  It was the Jews of Jerusalem, led by the
Pharisees, who killed Christ.  If there were any pure-blooded
Judahites among them, then they are also partly responsible.  But the
mob that was under the spell of the Pharisees in those days cannot be
considered to be Judahites.  They were Jews.  No doubt, the Christian
Zionists ("Judeo-Christians") of today would be the first in line to
crucify Christ again because they falsely believe the Jews are "God's
chosen"; but they would doing so under a great delusion.  He who
deliberately kills is much more guilty than one who has been deceived
or who does not know what he is doing.

Eli James





 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party