Who Killed Christ
Parts 7 through 12
By Willie Martin

Jew Watch

Who Killed Christ - Part 7

 But nowhere are they or the descendants of Esau called children! However, God Almighty calls Abraham's other son Isaac "thine only son," indicating that only through Isaac would they be called "sons," or "children." For we know that Abraham had eight sons altogether, but only is Isaac is regarded in the Scriptures as Abraham's son. All the others are called "seed." (See Genesis 21:12, 22:16) This same pattern was followed in the rejection of Esau and his descendants and the choosing of Jacob [Israel] and his descendants.

 Jesus Christ, who knows the end from the beginning, knew that the scribes and Pharisees and the chief priests to whom He was talking were not Israelites, but were the descendants of Ishmael or Esau. That they were aware that He knew of their ancestry is admitted by their cry, false as it is: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth...When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

 To be sure that we would understand that these Edomites [Jews] would never heed God's Word; would never become Christians, Jesus went on to say to them: "He that is of God [descendants of Jacob-Israel] heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8:47)

 Now, Christians who have always wondered why the "Jews" continually refuse to hear [believe] God's Word in Christ need wonder no longer. The Book of Acts tells the story of the beginning of the calling out of the True sons of God, the Israelites: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12) And the changing of their name to Christians. "...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26) That Israel was to have a change in name, and that the new name was to be the NAME OF THEIR LORD, is prophesied in Isaiah: "...thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name." (Isaiah 62:2) Then in Isaiah 65 God speaks to the Enemies of Israel: "And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name." (Isaiah 65:15)

 The scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus: "...We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God."  Many so-called Judeo-Christian Ministers, pastors and etc., will say they are making reference to Christ and His birth here. But that is simply not so, the scriptures clearly state: "But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart." (Luke 2:19)

 Some will try to say Mary was keeping the things the shepherds were doing in her heart. But this is not true because the shepherds, "And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them." (Luke 2:20)

 What the Jews were talking about, was the birth of Pharez and Zarah, the twin sons of Judah and Tamar. The story is related as follows:  "And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep. And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife. When Judah saw her, he thought here to be an harlot [she was not but Judah thought she was]; because she had covered her face. And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it? And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it here, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him. And she arose, and went away, and laid by her vail from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood. And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand: but he found her not. Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place. And he returned to Judah, and said, I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, that there was no harlot in his place. And Judah said, Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent the kid, and thou has not found her. And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom [This is where The Jews were saying they were not the children of Abraham, nor of Judah because they were not descendants of Judah through Pharez and Zarah!]..." (Genesis 38:13-24) But, Esau is called a "fornicator" in Hebrews: "Lest there be any fornicator...as Esau [the father of the Jews]..." (Hebrews 12:16; See also Genesis 26:34 and 36:2-3)

 Genesis 36 makes it plain that Esau's offspring were to be known as "Edomites," meaning "Reds."  "...he is Esau the father of the Edomites." (Genesis 36:43) Note also, Ishmael's mother was not Abraham's legitimate wife so that her offspring were never called children either. Jesus Christ further denied the Jews' claim to be the sons of God, for He answered: "...If God were your Father, ye would love me..." (John 8:42) He then proceeded to relate a prophecy and a warning of what that mixed-breed race would do in the future. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do, he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is  no truth in him, when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44)

 Even as  far back as Moses, we find that God told Aaron and his sons [his descendants, who were the priestly line] that: "...they shall put my name [Christ (ian)] upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them." (Numbers 6:27) What race has been blessed by God above all other people? There is only one answer: True Israel, the Caucasian, White Race, the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Scandinavian, and kindred peoples, the descendants of the scattered tribes of Israel!

 This can be the only explanation as to why that within a few hundred years after the Resurrection of Jesus, as the story of Christ came to our race, the other gods [Greek, Roman, Scandinavian, etc.] which were being worshiped by them was cast aside, and Christianity came to be accepted as the one true religion by our European ancestors.

 These European nations soon became known, even in the eyes of the heathen, as "Christian Nations," or collectively as "Christendom," which means "Christ's Dominion." Surely, if the heathen can see that the White Race is named after Christ, and that God has blessed us, then it is past time for the White Anglo-Saxon race itself to begin to recognize its own True Israel Identity!

 However, there was no name change of the Ishmael- Esau-Canaanite-Edomite Jews, or Judeans, who were the civil and religious rulers in Jerusalem and who, as we have seen, were the murderers of the Lord Jesus Christ. They have, for almost two thousand years, refused to hear the Words of the Lord, as Christ has said they would, and they retained the name of Judean "Jew," in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah we just quoted, that the "enemies" of True Israel would leave their name "for a curse unto My Chosen."

 And their own curse, that "His blood be on us, and our children," remains with them to this day. It cannot be removed or taken off unless or until they are converted and become Christians in truth and in righteousness. But our Lord's Words in speaking to them, show they will not turn or be converted, for He told them: "But ye believe not, because ye [Jews] are not of my sheep..." (John 10:26) Can it be said any more plain by Jesus: The Jews are not His Sheep, only the Israelites are His Sheep! Paul even more forcefully, said: "...a false prophet, a Jew...Then Saul [who was called Paul], filled with the Holy Ghost...said...thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the lord?" (Acts 13:6-10)

 Jeremiah relates the following: "Give heed to me, O LORD, and hearken to the voice of them that contend with me. Shall evil be recompensed for good? for they have digged a pit for my soul. Remember that I stood before thee to speak good for them, and to turn away thy wrath from them. Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle. Let a cry be heard from their houses, when thou shalt bring a troop suddenly upon them: for they have digged a pit to take me, and hid snares for my feet. Yet, LORD, thou knowest all their counsel against me to slay me: forgive not their iniquity, neither blot out their sin from thy sight, but let them be overthrown before thee; deal thus with them in the time of thine anger." (Jeremiah 18:19-23)

 And again: "...let them not come into thy righteousness let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous." (Psalm 69)

Who Killed Christ - Part 8

 For those of you who still remain somewhat confused over the term "Jew" in the New Testament, just remember that it is translated from a Greek word meaning "Judean," or "a resident of Judea."

 It was not a religious term, nor a racial term as such at that time in history, but was named on ALL who lived in Judea, except for the Romans. that is why the woman at the well in John 4:9 called Jesus a Jew, or Judean. And that is also why Peter was called a Galilean in Mark 14:70 and Luke 22:59.

 In fact, Pilate even asked Jesus if He were a Galilean when he heard that Jesus came from Galilee. Both words were geographic in meaning until after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Then, and this is most important to understand, the only people who retained the name of "Jew" were those who rejected Christ, and whose descendants still do!

 They were the non-Israelites, as we have seen in this study, while the True Descendants of Israel accepted Christ and became known as Christians. It is probably true that MOST of the residents of Jerusalem and Judea were Edomites which was the reason that Jesus chose His disciples from Galilee, except for Judas [the Jew -- the traitor]. Then at the Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the on lookers said:  "...Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans?" (Acts 2:7)

 Thus Making Another of Billy Graham's Statements a Lie. The statement: "At Pentecost there were people from all over the then civilized world, and the Spirit of God fell equally upon them all." See how Graham with subtlety distorts the Scriptures and makes a lie sound like the truth, and deceives many, for they only listen to his words, and do not examine what he is actually saying.

 Jesus went to the very "heart," the Headquarters of the Ishmael-Esau-Canaanite-Edomite Jews to fulfill the prophecy that His enemies would kill Him. (See Psalms 69 and Isaiah 53) Today millions of these Ishmael-Esau-Canaanite-Khazar [Jews] inhabit all the nations of Christendom, where they are active in all phases of society, government and religion.

 It might serve you well to realize they have always insinuated themselves into True Israel's society for their own purposes [review the parable of the "tares and the wheat"]; and Christ described this characteristic when He said: "...the lusts [desires and ambitions] of your father [the devil] ye will do." (John 8:44) In America and other Israel Nations, they have worked their way into the most powerful positions in government and in the professions. Many are in semi-religious organizations, claiming to seek "civil rights," "better conditions for the poor," and "improvement of race or personal relations among people." While others control the "peace" or "anti-war" groups. all of which in some way or another have a destructive effect on our Christian society and on our Christian beliefs.

 Their Most Effective Method is described by Luke in his story of their attempt to destroy Christ. "And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him...they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor." (Luke 20:19-20)

 This is still today one of their most effective methods, by which they, in order to demonstrate their power, have caused even Presidents to resign in disgrace. Today we find "humanitarians," "philanthropists" with their multi-million-dollar Foundations, "human-rights" workers, "liberals" in politics and religion, and others "Which feign themselves just men, such as Billy Graham, Mike Evans, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, Keneth Copeland and many, many more," crying for "equality," "justice for the poor," "love," "no-discrimination," "false Christian doctrines" and etc. And most attempt, always out of context -- just as we have seen about the quotations of Billy Graham, to quote something of Jesus, "taking hold of His Words," as it were, for deceit. "And Jesus...said...Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ [saying to men that Jesus is or was Christ]; and shall deceive many." (Matthew 24:4-5)

 Collectively they are all working toward one purpose -- to pass numerous laws, statutes and regulations so that "They might deliver [Christians] into the power and authority of the governor [government]."

 So as to eventually bring about the total annihilation of Christians and Christianity, especially in America. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit...Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:15-20)

 Do you not understand yet, there is nothing the Jews do, which benefits Christians or Christianity, but is always destructive to Christians, and brings only evil upon mankind in general.

 The so-called converted Jew is well known in many Christian circles, always pleading the Name of Christ all the while promoting Jewish interests, to the detriment of Christianity! Which causes one to wonder just how many "converted" Seminary Professors, Preachers, Sunday-school Teachers, Evangelists, "Judeo-Christian Ministers," Priests, Writers of books and tracts, and Editors of so-called "Christians" publications today are actually spies sent forth by modern scribes and Pharisees to "Feign themselves just men" in order to entrap unwary Christendom; by bringing in more and more damnable heresies, such as those denying the Lord Jesus who bought them with His Blood, and through deceit and covetousness make merchandise of Christians and Christianity. "...there shall be false teachers among you, who privily [secretly] shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying [denying the Virgin Birth] the Lord that bought them...And many shall follow their pernicious ways [insidiously undermining or weakening Christianity]; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness [Greedy-covetous: implies greed for something that another person rightfully possesses] shall they with feigned [fictitious] words make merchandise of you." (2 Peter 2:1-3)

 Paul prophesies of them and says of Satan's "Judeo-Christian Ministers." "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ...ministers of righteousness [Judeo-Christian 'Ministers']..." (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

 They have been so successful that today, in the latter part of the 20th Century, they have filled Christendom with "Jewish fables." "For there are many...deceivers, specially they of the circumcision [Jews]...who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not...[But we as Christians to be sound in the faith are not to] not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." (Titus 1:10-14)

 Paul prophesied of our latter day Christians, proving that he was truly a prophet of God: "...the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers ['Judeo-Christian Ministers'], having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto [Jewish] fables." (2 Timothy 4:4)

 It is well known those who do the work of the "Jews" are not always of their race as is told in Acts. "But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy [Remember what Billy Graham said about Christians' envy of the Jews -- well Paul says the Jews are moved by envy not Christians], took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company [mob], and set all the city on an uproar..." (Acts 17:5)

 This same technique is being used today in America and the other Anglo-Saxon Nations. The Jews and their "agents" cry out, demanding something anti-Christian [But always in the Name of Christ], and then raise up mobs of "lewd fellows of the baser sort [men and women of corrupt moral standards] to set the city [or nation] in an uproar." "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." (Matthew 23:15) These so-called "demonstrators," are usually criminal degenerates or drug addicts, then are given wide publicity in the Jewish-controlled news media. Then the demonstrations, and the threat of more violent ones, are then used by these anti-Christs to force local or national authorities to accede to their demands.

Who Killed Christ - Part 9

 If any violence occurs during the demonstrations, the police are blamed [as were the Roman soldiers of Christ's time]; while the Jews successfully conceal their part from the public and non-Jewish authorities. This concealment is made easier by "PHONY PATRIOTS" who direct the anger of the people of the nation in the desired direction instead of against the Jews who manipulate the mob from behind the scenes! In this manner, laws and customs are changed; and the public never realizes how it has all come about!

 Then [Just as in Christ's time] come a breakdown of civil authority, in which Jewish Judges [along with the Communist Controlled "Civil liberties unions"] force the police to release the criminals [like Barabbas] upon society under the pretext of following the law, while persecuting True Patriots, such as the late Rev. Lester Rolloff, Gordon Kohl [murdered by Federal Authorities under the guise of "Obeying the Law"], Rev. Richard Butler, Rev. Bob Miles and Rev. Bill Gale, just to name a few.

 America is suffering from this same revolutionary technique, perfected during 2,000 years of practice. Other nations have already fallen under their anti-Christ control through the same methods, to the tune of tens of millions of Christian death's! If our Christian people were familiar with God's Word, they would take a look at the lewd fellows which are being gathered against our nation, and recognize them for what they are, and other events of the day, as part of the end of the age battle against Israel, Prophesied throughout God's Holy Word.

 But most are almost totally ignorant of the Bible, to the point that they do not know our identity as Israelites, nor the Jew's identity as Ishmael-Edomite-Canaanite-Khazar people. They have been beguiled by Spies and Traitors have "feigned themselves just men," and have taken over our political system, news media and our churches.

 The use, by the anti-Christian element of the word "Demonstrators" to describe their mobs has great significance. It does not come from our use of the word to mean show by example, or to teach by doing, but rather from two Greek words. The first is "Demon," which means "Devil," and the second is "Stratos," meaning "Army."

 So literally, the word Demon-Strators means a Devil Army. "...Presumptuous...self-willed...not afraid to speak evil of dignities...natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things they understand not...Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own decivings...Having eyes full of adultery...cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way...These are wells without water, clouds...carried with a tempest...For...they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh...they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption...But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." (2 Peter 2:10-22)

 It is probable that they chose the word deliberately. Remember, our Lord said to the, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." The next time you see one of their demonstrations and are amazed at their utter depravity, remember that you are watching a "Devil Army" marching against Christ and America. Just before His crucifixion, our Lord told His followers of the future persecution of Christians to come from the Jews, when He said: "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep your's also." (John 15:20)

 If they hated the sayings [teachings] of Christ, {"One of the finest things ever done by the mob was the crucifixion of Christ. Intellectually it was a splendid gesture. But trust the mob to bungle. If I'd had charge of executing Christ, I'd have handled it differently. You see, what I'd have done was had him shipped to Rome and fed to the lions. They could never have made a Savior out of mincemeat." (Rabbi Hecht, Jewish World)} they will hate the sayings [teachings] of His followers. Jesus then goes on to say: "But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake because they know not him that sent me." (John 15:21)

 They Will Persecute Christians, Because They Do Not Know God! Yet many Christians have been deluded into thinking that the Jews worship God. But Christ says: They do not know Him!!! The He explains why He came to Jerusalem and Judea to testify to the Jews: "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak [excuse] for their sin...but now have they both seen and hated me and my father." (John 15:22-24)

 Therefore, any "Judeo-Christian Minister" who teaches the Jews may not like Jesus, but that they love God, the Father, is a liar. Then Jesus quotes Old Testament Scriptures to identify those of whom He has been speaking: "But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause." (John 15:25) This was in reference to: "They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty." (Psalms 69:4)

 Though there are many many more verses that could be quoted to show the hatred of the "Jews" for all Christians and Christianity; If these will not suffice then 10,000 more will not suffice to convince any more than the Jews were convinced by a Risen Christ. Psalms 35 identifies them [Jews] as the enemies of Israel, of Christ and of God. that these same enemies would be the one who would crucify Him is foretold in Psalms 69. As shown before in verse 4, He say, "They...Hate me without cause" and calls them "mine enemies." In verse 21 He says: "They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." (Psalms 69:21)

 It was on the Cross that Jesus' crucifers gave Him gall and vinegar to drink! And to forestall the argument that Luke 23:36 says the "soldiers" gave Him the vinegar I would insist that you read all accounts in the four Gospels. "They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink." (Matthew 27:34)

 Here when the "Jews" [chief priests, elders, scribes and Pharisees] offered Him vinegar mixed with gall, He did not drink. But later when an Israelite offered Him vinegar only -- He did drink of it! "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice...Some of them that stood there... straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink." (Matthew 27:46-48)

 Mark related the same, almost word for word: "And they [Jews] gave him to drink wine [vinegar] mingled with myrrh [gall - piss]: but he received it not." (Mark 15:23) So, here again, when the "Jews" offered it, He did not drink of it. But later offered vinegar [wine] only by an Israelite -- He did drink of it! "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice...some of them that stood by...one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink..." (Mark 15:34-36)

 Then we have a very short version as related by Luke: "And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar." (Luke 23:36); "Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. when Jesus therefore had received the vinegar..." (John 19:29-30)

 So we can clearly see that Psalms 69 was fulfilled not in the Roman soldiers, whom Jesus never called His enemies, but in the Jews who actually nailed Him on the Cross. Psalms 69 goes on to prophesy that those who offered Him vinegar mixed with gall would never become what we would call Christians. "For they [Jews] persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded [Jesus]. Add iniquity unto their iniquity: And let them not come into thy righteousness let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous." (Psalms 69:26-28)

 Again, how foolish it is to think we can preach or witness to the enemies of Christ and convert them. For if God's Holy Word says it won't be done; then it won't be done. Psalms 69 verifies what Jesus said to the Jews that they would not hear His Words.

Who Killed Christ - Part 10

 We of True Israel must recognize that our deliverance is in the hands of an Almighty God. We must know, as Christ knew when He told Pilate: "...Thou couldest have no power all against me, except it were given thee from above..." (John 19:11) Moses told our forefathers that disobedience would bring certain punishments to Israel. One such punishment was: "The stranger [non-Israelite] that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low." (Deuteronomy 28:43)

 The American Government, at all levels, is systematically being transferred into the hands of Jews, Negroes and other non-Israelites. Thus we can see this prophecy is being fulfilled before our eyes! But deliverance is also promised to Israel in the same Book, from which we have been reading in verses too numerous to quote. But let us end with one of the promises that eloquently shows that our redemption and deliverance comes from the same Christ that the enemies of Israel thought they had killed. Zacharias gave it when he was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied saying: "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hat visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; As he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware to our father Abraham. That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life." (Luke 1:68-75)

 And since that life is to be everlasting, we shall not only be delivered from the hand of Israel's enemies, but we shall also be delivered into the Kingdom of God. Jesus Christ shall rule and reign in righteousness and: "...hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Revelation 5:10)

 It is probable that these Edomite [Red-Communist] Jews will continue victorious over us, the True Israelites, for some time to come. For they are being used of God to chastise us for our disobedience, and their power over us will continue only until we repent of our sins and turn to God for deliverance as a people. Because of our special Blood Covenant relationship with Jesus Christ, their power over us will then be broken. That our deliverance will come when we "as a people" turn to God and to His Word is made clear in literally hundreds of verses. 2 Chronicles 7:14, not only promises deliverance upon obedience but identifies the Israel People as "My people which are called by My Name."  "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

 In Joel is a special prayer we will pray to be delivered from alien rule: "...Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?" (Joel 2:17) The next verses promise immediate release, and chapter describes the great, world battle that will destroy all heathen rule over Israel.

 The future destruction of the Edomite enemies of Jesus Christ, and our part in their destruction, is also foretold in the Bible: "And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau [Edom]; for the Lord hath spoken it...And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lords." (Obadiah 18); "...and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts." (Zechariah 14:21); "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27) And there are others.

 Both rewards and vengeance are in the Hands of the Living God. The unrepentant murderers of Jesus shall fail in their attempt to destroy Jesus Christ, because His Blood, shed on the cross at Calvary, has redeemed us "from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us."

The Crucifixion of Christ

 The following Note formed part of the text in the Second Edition of The Golden Bough (London, 1900), vol. Iii. Pp. 186-198. The hypothesis which it sets forth has not been confirmed by subsequent research, and is admittedly in a high degree speculative and uncertain. Hence I have removed it from the text but preserved it as an appendix on the chance that, under a pile of conjectures, it contains some grains of truth which may ultimately contribute to a solution of the problem. As my views on this subject appear to have been strangely misunderstood, I desire to point out explicitly that my theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth as a great religious and moral teacher, who founded Christianity and was crucified at Jerusalem under the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

 The testimony of the Gospels, confirmed by the hostile evidence of Tactius (Annals, xv. 44) and the younger Pliny (Epist. x. 96), appears amply sufficient to establish these facts to the satisfaction of all unprejudiced enquirers. It is only the details of the life and death of Christ that remain, and will probably always remain, shrouded in the mists of uncertainty. The doubts which have been cast on the historical reality of Jesus are in my judgement unworthy of serious attention.

 Quite apart from the positive evidence of history and tradition, the origin of a great religious and moral reform is inexplicable without the personal existence of a great reformer. To dissolve the founder of Christianity into a myth, as some would do, is hardly less absurd than it would be to do the same for Mohammed, Luther, and Calvin. Such dissolving views are for the most part the dreams of students who know the great world chiefly through its pale reflection in books. These extravagances of scepticism have been well exposed by Professor C.F. Lehmann-Haupt in his Israel, seine Entwicklung im Rahmen der Weltgeschichte (Tubingen, 1911), pp. 275-285. In reprinting the statement of my theory I have added a few notes, which are distinguished by being enclosed in square brackets].

 Many years ago an eminent scholar pointed out the remarkable resemblance between the treatment of Christ by the Jewish soldiers at Jerusalem and the treatment of the mock king of the Saturnalia by the Roman soldiers at Durostorum; and he would explain the similarity by supposing that the soldiers ridiculed the claims of Christ to a divine kingdom by arraying Him in the familiar garb of old King Saturn, whose quaint person figured so prominently at the winter revels. (P. Wedland, "Jesus als Saturnalien-K�nig," Hermes, xxxiii. (1898) pp. 175-179)

 Even if the theory should prove to be right, we can hardly suppose that Christ played the part of the regular Saturn of the year, since at the beginning of our era the Saturnalia fell at mid-winter, whereas Christ was crucified at the Passover in spring. There is, indeed, as pointed out, some reason to think that when the Roman year began in March the Saturnalia was held in spring, and that in remote districts the festival always continued to be celebrated at the ancient date.

 If the Jewish Temple guards conformed to the old fashion in this respect, it seems not quite impossible that their celebration of the Saturnalia may have coincided with the Passover; and that thus Christ, as a condemned criminal, may have been given up to them to make sport with as the Saturn of the year. But on the other hand it is rather unlikely that the officers, as representatives of the Temple, would have allowed their men to hold the festival at any but the official date; even in the distant town of Durostorum we saw that the Jewish soldiers celebrated the Saturnalia in December.

 But closely as the passion of Christ resembles the treatment of the mock king of the Saturnalia, it resembles still more closely the treatment of the mock king of the Sacaea. (The first to call attention to the resemblance seems to have been Mr. W.R. Paton, who further conjectured that the crucifixion of Christ between two malefactors was not accidental, but had a ritual significance "as an expiatory sacrifice to a triple god." See F.C. Conybeare, The Apology and Acts of Apollonius and other Monuments of Early Christianity (London, 1894), pp. 257; W.R. Paton, "Die Kreuzigung Jesu," Zeitschrift f�r die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, ii. (1901) pp. 339-341.

Who Killed Christ - Part 11

 The grounds for the conjecture are somewhat slender. It is true that a Persian martyr, S. Hitztibouzit, is said to have been crucified between two malefactors on a hill top, opposite the sun (F.C. Conybeare, p. 270), but the narrator of the martyrdom gives no hint of any sacred significance attaching to the triple crucifixion) The description of the mockery by St. Matthew is the fullest. It states: "Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. 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! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him." (Matthew 27:26-31. Mark's description (15:15-20) is nearly identical)

 Compare with this the treatment of the mock king of the Sacaea, as it is described by Dio Chrysostom: "They take one of the prisoners condemned to death and seat him upon the king's throne, and give him the king's raiment, and let him lord it and drink and run riot and use the king's concubines during these days, and no man prevents him from doing just what he likes. But afterwards they strip and scourge and crucify him." (Dio Chrysostom, Or. Iv. Vol. I. P. 76. L. Dindorf. As I have already mentioned, the Greek word which describes the execution (    �    ) leaves it uncertain whether the man was crucified or hanged) It is quite possible that this remarkable resemblance is, after all, a mere coincidence (but that is not likely, since the crucifixion was actually done by the Jewish Temple Soldiers and not the Romans, the Jews would be following their traditions, which Christ condemned so thoroughly), and that Christ was executed in the ordinary way as a common malefactor; but on the other hand there are so many scattered hints and indications of something unusual, so many broken lines seemingly converging towards the cross on Calvary, that it is worth while to follow them up and see where thy lead us.

 In attempting to draw these fragmentary data together, to bridge the chasms, and to restore the shattered whole, we must beware of mistaking hypothesis for the facts which it only professes to cement; yet even if our hypothesis should be thought to bear a somewhat undue proportion to the facts, the excess may perhaps be overlooked in consideration of the obscurity and the importance of the enquiry.

 We have seen reason to think that the Jewish festival of Purim is a continuation, under a changed name, of the Babylonian Sacaea, and that in celebrating it by the destruction of an effigy of Haman the modern Jews have kept up a reminiscence of the ancient custom of crucifying or hanging a man in the character of a god at the festival. Is it not possible that at an earlier time they may, like the Babylonians themselves, have regularly compelled a condemned criminal to play the tragic part, and that Christ thus perished in the character of Haman?

 The resemblance between the hanged Haman and the crucified Christ struck the early Christians themselves; and whenever the Jews destroyed an effigy of Haman THEY WERE ACCUSED BY THEIR CHRISTIAN NEIGHBORS OF DERIDING THE MOST SACRED MYSTERY OF THE NEW FAITH, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. (Dio Chrysostom, Or. Iv. vol. I. p. 392)

 It is probable that on this painful subject the Christians were too sensitive; remembering the manner of their Founder and Savior's death it was natural that they should wince at any pointed allusion to a cross, a gallows, or a public execution, even when the shaft was not aimed at them. An objection to supposing that Christ died as the Haman of the year is that according to the Gospel narrative the crucifixion occurred at the Passover, on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, whereas the feast of Purim, at which the hanging of Haman would naturally take place, fell exactly a month earlier, namely, on the fourteenth day of the month Adar. While not wishing to blink or extenuate the serious nature of the difficulty arising from this discrepancy of dates, but we would suggest some considerations which may make us hesitate to decide that the discrepancy is fatal. In the first place, it is possible, though perhaps not probable, that Christian tradition shifted the date of the crucifixion by a month in order to make the great sacrifice of the Lamb of God coincide with that annual sacrifice of the Passover lamb which in the belief of pious hearts had so long foreshadowed it and was thenceforth to cease. (The extreme improbability involved in the suggested transference of the date of the Crucifixion is rightly emphasized by Professor C.F. Lehmann-Haupt in some observations and criticisms, which he wrote: "I regard it as out of the question that ‘Christian tradition shifted the date of the Crucifixion by a month' ...but in my opinion it is impossible. All that we hear of the Passion is only explicable by the Passover festival and by the circumstance that at that time every believing Jew had to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Without the background of the festival all that we know of the Crucifixion and of what led up to it is totally unintelligible.")

 Instances of pressure brought to bear, for purposes of edification, on stubborn facts are perhaps not wholly unknown in the annals of religion. But the express testimony of history is never to be lightly set aside; and in the investigation of its problems a solution which assumes the veracity and accuracy of the historian is, on an even balance of probabilities, always to be preferred to one which impugns them both. Now in the present case we have seen reason to think that the Babylonian New Year festival, of which Purim was a continuation, did fall in Nisan at or near the time of the Passover, and that when the jews borrowed the festival they altered the date from Nisan to Adar in order to prevent the new feast from clashing with the old Passover. A reminiscence of the original date of Purim perhaps survives, as we have already pointed out, in the statement in the book of Esther that Haman cause pur or lots to be cast before him from the month of Nisan onward. (Esther 3:7)

 Therefore it seems not impossible that occasionally, for some special reason, the Jews should have celebrated the feast of Purim, or at least the death of Haman, at or about the time of the Passover. But there is another possibility which, remote and fanciful as it may appear, deserves at least to be mentioned. The mock king of Saturnalia, whose resemblance to the dying Christ was first pointed out by Mr. Wendland, was allowed a period of license of thirty days before he was put to death. If we could suppose that in like manner the Jews spared the human representative of Haman for one month from Purim, the date of his execution would fall exactly on the Passover. Which, if any, of the conjectural solutions of the difficulty is the true one, we will not undertake to say.

 It may be objected that the mockery of Christ was done, as most Christians believe, not by the Jews, but by the Roman soldiers, who knew and cared nothing about Haman; how then can we suppose that the purple or scarlet robe, the sceptre of reed, and the crown of thorns, which the soldiers thrust upon Christ, were the regular insignia of the Haman of the year? To this we may reply, in the first place, that even if the legions stationed in Syria were not recruited in the country, they may have contracted some of the native superstitions and have fallen in with the local customs. This is not an idle conjecture. We know that the third legion during its stay in Syria learned the Syrian custom of saluting the rising sun, and that this formal salute, performed by the whole regiment as one man at a critical moment of the great battle of Bedriacum, actually helped to turn the scale when the fortune of the empire hung trembling in the balance.

 But it is not necessary to suppose that the entire garrison of Jerusalem really shared the beliefs and prejudices of the mob whom they overawed; soldiers everywhere are ready to go with a crowd bent on sport, without asking any curious questions as to the history or quality of the entertainment, and we should probably do the humanity of Roman soldiers too much honor if we imagined that they would be deterred by any qualm of conscience from joining in the pastime, which is still so popular, of baiting a Jew to death. But in the second place it should be observed that, according to one of the Evangelists, it was not the soldiers of Pilate who mocked Jesus, but the soldiers of Herod, ("And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him (Christ), and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe..." (Luke 23:11)) and we may fairly assume that Herod's guards were Jews.

 The hypothesis that the crucifixion with all it cruel mockery was not a punishment specially devised for Christ, but was merely the fate that annually befell the malefactor who played Haman, appears to go some way towards relieving the Gospel narrative of certain difficulties which otherwise beset it. If, as we read in the Gospels, Pilate was really anxious to save the innocent man whose fine bearing seems to have struck him, what was to hinder him from doing so? He had the power of life and death; why should he not have exercised it on the side of mercy, if his own judgment inclined that way? This can be explained and understood when we read: "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye [Jews] to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." (Matthew 27:24-25)

Who Killed Christ - Part 12

 We are told by the Evangelists that at the feast which witnessed the crucifixion of Christ it was the custom for the Roman governor to release one prisoner, whomsoever the people desired, and that Pilate, convinced of the innocence of Jesus, attempted to persuade the multitude to choose Him as the man who should go free. But, hounded on by the rabbi's and elders who had marked Jesus for destruction, the rabble would not hear of this, and clamored for the blood of Jesus, while they demanded the release of a certain miscreant, by the name of Barabbas, who law in goal for murder and sedition.

 Accordingly Pilate had to give way: Christ was crucified and Barabbas (who was a Jewish hero, because his sedition was against the Roman government, not the Jewish) set at liberty. (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19) Now what, we may ask, was the reason for setting free a prisoner at this festival? In the absence of positive information, we may conjecture that the Gael-bird whose cage was thrown open at this time had to purchase his freedom by performing some service from which decent people would shrink. Such a service may very well have been that of going about the streets, rigged out in tawdry splendor with a tinsel crown on his head and a sham sceptre in his hand, preceded and followed by all the rag-tags of the town hooting, jeering, and breaking coarse jests at his expense, while some pretended to salaam his mock majesty, and others belabored the donkey on which he rode.

 It was in this fashion, probably, that in Persia (Babylon) the beardless and one-eyed man made his undignified progress through the town, to the delight of ragamuffins and the terror of non-Jewish shopkeepers, whose goods he unceremoniously confiscated if they did not hasten to lay their peace-offerings at his feet. So, perhaps, the ruffian Barabbas, when his irons were knocked off and the prison door had grated on its hinges to let him forth, tasted the first sweets of liberty in this public manner, even if he was not suffered, like his one-eyed brother, to make raids with impunity on the stalls of the non-Jewish merchants and the tables of the non-Jewish money-changers.

 A curious confirmation of this conjecture is supplied by a passage in the writings of Philo the Jew, who lived at Alexandria in the time of Christ. He tells us that when Agrippa, the grandson of Herod, had received the crown of Judea from Caligula at Rome, the new king passed through Alexandria on his way to his own country. The disorderly populace of that great city, animated by a hearty dislike of his nation, ceased the opportunity of venting their spite by publicly defaming and ridiculing the Jewish monarch. Among other things they laid hold of a certain harmless lunatic named Carabas, who used to roam the streets stark naked, the butt and laughing-stock of urchins and idlers.

 This poor wretch they set up in a public place, clapped a paper crown on his head, thrust a broken reed into his hand by way of a sceptre, and having huddled a mat instead of a royal robe about his naked body, and surrounded him with a guard of bludgeon men, they did obeisance to him as to a king and made a show of taking his opinion on questions of law and policy. To the point the jest unmistakably at the Syrian king Agrippa, the bystanders raised cries of "Marin! Marin!" which they understood to be the Syrian word for "lord." (Philo Judaeus, Adversus Flaccum, vol. Ii. Pp. 520-523. Th. Mangey (London, 1742).

 The first to call attention to those passage was Mr. P. Wendland ("Jesus als Saturnalien-Konig," Hermes, 33. (1898) p. 175). Mar-na, "Our Lord," was the title of a Philistine deity worshiped at Gaza and elsewhere. See C.P. Tiele, Geschichte der Religion im Altertum (Gotha, 1896-1903), I. 258. Compare Hebrew and English Lexicon, edited by F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and Ch. A. Briggs (Oxford, 1906), p. 1101)

 This mockery of the Jewish king closely resembles the mockery of Christ; and the joke, such as it was, would receive a keener edge if we could suppose that the riff-raff of Alexandria were familiar with the Jewish practice of setting up a sham king on certain occasions, and that they meant by implication to ridicule Jesus Christ by comparing him to his holiday counterfeit.

 The poor imbecile who masqueraded in a paper crown at Alexandria was probably not a Jew, otherwise the jest would have lost its point; and his name, according to the Greek manuscripts of Philo, was Carabas. But Carabas is meaningless in Hebrew, whereas Barabbas is a regularly formed Hebrew word meaning "Son of the Father."

 The palaeographic difference between the two forms is slight, and if we conjecture that in the passage in question Philo himself wrote Barabbas, which a Greek copyist, ignorant of Hebrew, afterwards corrupted into Carabas. If this were granted, we should still have to assume that both Philo and the authors of the Gospels fell into the mistake of treating as the name of an individual what in fact was a title of office.

 Thus the hypothesis which, with great diffidence, we would put forward for consideration is this. It was customary, we may suppose, with the Jews at Purim, or perhaps occasionally at Passover, to employ two prisoners to act the parts respectively of Haman and Mordecai in the passion-play which formed a central feature of the festival. Both men paraded for a short time in the insignia of royalty, but their fates ere different; for while at the end of the performance the one who played Haman was hanged or crucified, the one who personated Mordecai and bore in popular parlance the title of Barabbas was allowed to go free.

 Pilate, perceiving the trumpery nature of the charges brought against Christ, tried to persuade the Jews to let him play the part of Barabbas, which would have saved his life; but the merciful attempt failed and Jesus perished on the cross in the character of Haman. The description of his last triumphal ride into Jerusalem reads almost like an echo of that brilliant progress through the streets of Susa which Haman aspired to and Mordecai accomplished; and the account of the raid which he immediately afterwards made upon the stalls of the hucksters and money-changers in the temple, may raise a question whether we have not here a trace of those arbitrary rights over property which it has been customary on such occasions to accord to the temporary king. (Matthew 21:1-13; Mark 11:1-17; Luke 19: 28-46; John 12:12-15. As to the license accorded to temporary kings, see The Dying God, p. 56, 148)

 If one should ask why one of these temporary kings should bear the remarkable title of Barabbas or "Son of the Father," we can only surmise that the title may perhaps be a relic of the time when the real king, the deified man, used to redeem his own life by deputing his son to reign for a short time and to die in his stead. We have seen that the custom of sacrificing the son for the father was common, if not universal, among the Jews; and if we are right in our interpretation of the Passover, that festival; the traditional date of the crucifixion, was the season when the dreadful sacrifice of the first-born was consummated. (The Dying God, p. 166)

 Hence Barabbas or the "Son of the Father" would be a natural enough title for the man or child who reigned and died as a substitute for his royal sire. Even in later times, when the father provided a less precious substitute than his own offspring, it would be in accordance with the formal conservatism of religion that the old title should be retained after it had ceased to be appropriate; indeed the efficacy of the sacrifice might be thought to require and justify the pious fiction that the substitute was the very son of that divine father who should have died, but who preferred to live, for the good of his people.

 If in the time of Christ, the title of Barabbas or Son of the Father was bestowed on the Mordecai, the mock king who lived, rather than on the Haman, the mock king who died at the festival, this distinction can hardly have been original; for at first, we may suppose, the same man served in both capacities at different times, as the Mordecai of one year and the Haman of the next.

 The two characters, are probably nothing but two different aspects of the same deity considered at one time as dead and at another as risen; hence the human being who personated the risen god would in due time, after he had enjoyed his divine honors for a season, act the dead god by dying in good earnest in his own person; for it would be unreasonable to expect of the ordinary man-god that he should play the two parts in the reverse order by dying first and coming to life afterwards. In both parts the substitute would still be, whether in sober fact or in pious fiction, the Barabbas or Son of that divine Father who generously gave his own son to die for the world. (In favor of the theory in the text, which supposes that in the tragic drama of the crucifixion Jesus and Barabbbas played parts which were the complements, if not the duplicates, of each other, it might, as M. Salomon Reinach has pointed out, be alleged that in the Armenian and old Syriac versions of Matthew 27:16-17, as well as in some Greek cursive manuscripts, the name of the prisoner whom Pilate proposed to release is given as Jesus Barabbas, a reading which was also known to Origen and was not absolutely rejected by him. See Encyclopedia Biblica (London, 1899-1903), s.v. "Barabbas," vol. I. col. 477; Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, edited by F.F. Burkitt (Cambridge, 1904), I. 165, ii. 277. In the latter passage Professor Burkitt argues that Jewus Barabbas was probably the original reading in the Greek text, though the name Jesus is omitted in nearly all our existing manuscripts. Compare S. Reinach, "Le roi supplici�," Cultes, Mythes, et Religions, I. (Paris, 1905) p. 339)

 This seems to shed fresh light on some of the causes which contributed to the remarkably rapid diffusion of Christianity in Asia Minor. We know from a famous letter of the younger Pliny addressed to the Emperor Trajan in the year 112 A.D. that by the beginning of our era, less than a hundred years after the Christ's death, Christianity had made such strides in Bithynia and Pontus that not only cities but villages and rural districts were affected by it, and that multitudes of both sexes and of every age and every rank of or Israelite ancestors professed its tenets; indeed things had gone so far that the temples were almost deserted, the sacred rites of the public religion discontinued, and hardly a purchaser could be found for the sacrificial victims. (Pliny, Epist. x. 96. The province which Pliny governed was known officially as Bithynia and Pontus, and extended from the river Rhyndacos on the west to beyond Amisus on the est. See Professor [Sir] W.M. Ramsay, the Church in the Roman Empire (London, 1893), p. 224. Professor Ramsay is of the opinion "that the description of the great power acquired by the new religion in the province applies to Eastern Pontus at least."

horizontal rule

Under the heading of "A brief History of the Terms for Jew" in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following: "Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." (1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3)
Click Here if you would like a hard copy of any of Willie Martin's books

Jew Watch - Willie Martin

horizontal rule