Jesus was NOT A JEW!!!, I ask, "Was Mary even Davidic?"

You write about Walter Veith:

Yet Veith champions Romanist doctrine even while exposing Rome. Thus mirroring your own championing of Romanist aims. This email (not from myself) outlines this matter:

To which Eric Phelps responded:

Just for the record like.

So, we now turn our attention to your dismissal of your championing Freeman & Prothink:

Actually, it will have to do. These are common distractionary, diversion tactics & I can't discount this. They are late additions to mitigate your endorsement of major parts of their Jesuitical ideologies. Your ProThink quote forms the entirety of what this thread is based around. Post number one on the first page. You then proceed to use Romanist-convert Ben Freedman as your main reference for your defence. So yes I am totally justified in focusing on your use of their pro-Romanist propaganda.

Your translations of the use of the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah - the only book where it appears - as "morning star" is Romanist propagandist translations, as used in the NIV, which has Jesuit Cardinal Martini on the board:

These are the subtle ways of Rome's continuing Counter-Reformation designed to corrupt Christianity & the Bible of the Reformation. The publication & distribution of which brought about the freedoms to discuss this matter even, which is well & good, but don't you think that trying to using Rome's weapons to fight Protestantism is actually shooting YOUR-self in the foot? I guess it depends what your agenda & rationale is.

Then you misquote me:

That's not my point. My point is that you don't believe the AV1611 anyway & when you do use a preferred Bible to support you, its a pro-Rome Latin Vulgate-based translation. So why should genealogical charts bother you anyway, as you think that they are all bunkum? I state that those passages confirm what it says in Luke as can be discerned from the two differing, though not incompatible methods that I provide you with - both of which you reject, dismissing as "lame apologetics". That is not blind faith on my part - I have provided ample evidence to refute your ProThink Pro-Romanist quote that you launched this thread with. The secondary interpretation that I provided, which can be either be combined with the first or considered on its own, answers your extended "inerrantists" quote.

Consider also that ancient cultures all over the near & middle east had queens by birth as well as kings & that although due to Roman occupation Mary & her husband Joseph kept a low profile with their child & Jewish custom was based around the male line's importance in matters of lineage, that this was a discrete yet effective way of conveying this information in an age where there was no knowledge among the people of the woman's egg - or do you now deny your own quoted references? You clearly give the Bible no credit for subtlety. The AV1611 stands as the masterpiece that it is due to its preservation of such nuances that the profane scorn.

In your concusion you write:

What I am saying is that you are promoting one of the central, prime ambitions of the Jesuits & the Papacy: the Rome-created & sponsored distortions & fallacies that aim to subsume true Torah-faithful Judaism & true-Bible believing Christianity. Thus your goals are the one & the same. Whatever other doctrine of Freedman's or ProThink's you endorse is irrelevant & of little interest to me.

Thank you -

Troy

I had no idea he said this. Revelations clearly states that if you accept the mark of the beast into your head or hand (some say it's symoblism for Catholic dogma, others say it's RFID - either way, I won't tolerate either in my body or soul), you are toast when you come before God.

Have to agree with Eric Phelps in terms of biblical correctness or proper reading of the bible, or correct doctrine, whatever you want to call it regarding Veith. Tonight I listened to his lecture that was against Koestler's thesis. He talked about how if you read your bible properly you will see that God wants those who follow the King James Reformation Bible, to protect the Jews, but not necessarily to let them govern the white anglo saxon male, because they deny Jesus and also because they may use their Babylonian Talmudic nonsense to harm you if they get into power or something like that.

What jesuit ideologies? The first time I talked about prothink on this board, I cited his exposure of Ron Paul as a diversionary agent and how the idea that a gold standard will save us is A TRICK. When I quoted him recently again, it was a screenshot I made that MOCKED HIM while he mocked those of us who blame the Vatican.

Are you really having reading comprehension troubles or what? I was bringing to this board's attention that PROTHINK IS A MORON for trying to shift blamea way from the jesuits? I was WARNING PEOPLE about what he is saying about us on this board.

If you object to my claim that Prothink says that Jesus was not a Jew, I have already stated that prothink and Freedman are missing some puzzle pieces. I said Freedman was correct about the Latin over jesus' head, but I said I also cleared something up that Freedman left out. That Judea is a Roman-Greeko rendering of Judah and when you split up Judah, or Yehuda in Hebrew, you get Yehu and Da and then you also get Ju and then Dah. Therefore, Jew or Yehudim DID EXIST in Hebrew and it was long before the eighteenth century.

Later in the same post, I go BEYOND Freedman and illustrate his LIMITAIONS. Just because Freedman was correct about the Latin, DOESN'T MEAN HE IS CORRECT ABOUT JEW BEING A MODERN WORD. I already explained this as you can clearly see. After this, I am going to quote myself once again and no more because I am sick of having to repeat myself showing where I broke intellectual rank with those guys because you either can't remember or are deliberately ignoring it.

Hmm. Sounds to me like a far cry from one hundred percent endorsement of everything they say from their claims about lingustic history to who rules the roost. So pretending I agree with them on everything and that I somehow have jumped back to the jews run it all crowd after having someone wake me up to the fact that it's the Romans nearly three years ago, is your aim of the day. Suits me fine because the person who brought me to this board knows this isn't true about me and I still hold Rome as the number one asshole.

So because I'm not a Roman Catholic anymore and am probably more of an agnostic deist bent (Thomas Paine) and don't believe in the bible, you say I have no intellectual right to pick out verses for my arguments. That's not so. I am looking at the bible like any English teacher would look at a novel or a work of fiction. I am looking for TEXTUAL COHERENCY AND NON CONTRADICTIVE STATEMENTS. So what I am doing is combing the bible for supposed biblical justification for believing that the Luke 3 geneaology refers to Mary and that Romans 1 claims Jesus is from the Davidic and thus Jewish line and in turn claims the same thing as you do about Luke 3, since you like to use Romans 1:3 in conjunction with Luke 3 to claim what you do about whose geneology is really is. I don't have to be a believer to look for textual coherency among a document.

And I have also corrected prothink and Freedman. You would know this if you pay attention. Prothink says in that video and writeup in the first post that Jew is short for Judean. After searching and digging, I concluded that he would be right to a point. But as I said on page one,

So what I said about Jew meaning someone from the tribe of Judah, is totally different from that prothink video which claims that Jew means a Talmudist from Judea. Once again, I contradicted prothink. AND ON THE FIRST PAGE. AND HERE YOU ARE TWO PAGES LATER STILL CLAIMING I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE SAYS EVEN GOING BACK TO PAGE ONE. Incredible.

So now that I had already explained to you that I don't swallow everything that Freedman and prothink have said, and that I had (in the post of mine before this current one) already explained that I take Jew to mean from the tribe of Judah THIS CONTRADICTING PROTHINK'S DEFITION OF JEW TO BE A TALMUDIST FROM JUDEA, you have to save your skin and say that what I think of them is irrelevant to you.

Then you top if off by saying that my biblical criticism in the last two posts on the top of page three fits in with the Roman agenda of destroying Christian faith. Well if you believe that, then I can't stop you. I only care about myself finding out the truth and finding the best arguments and evidence I can for a given proposition that comes my way. The idea that you and I can't be united in our hatred for Rome just because I'm not a believer is a divisive tactic. One that Craig Oxley made a turnaround on when he got back in contact with Eric Phelps after asking to be taken off his list and when Craig made the KJV 1611 Forum as an apology saying, "We need to be united against the common enemy." If I have a spiritual side to me, or an idea of god, it sure as hell won't be that Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman nonsense that was pounded into my head as a kid. It would be more of a Thomas Paine, deistic bent probably. I as a human fully admit my ignorance about the cosmos. I am not a trained scientist or physicist. I admit it. The more I have read this alternative history stuff over the years, the study of the infinite and occult secrets about other dimensions, the infinite, the further I seem to be getting from my once foolish atheism.

Right, I'll make this short & sweet for all concerned.

I don't care what you believe - faithwise, if anything. It's none of my business.

What does concern me though is when a poster on a site that is the main forum for exposing Rome's age old agenda starts using Roman tactics to attack Protestantism. And then tries to wriggle out of it by pulling the One-Love routine!

Did you listen to Craig's recent monologue recording? He's not a believer & yet I am happy to communicate with him, particularly as he seems to have seen the illogicality of doing what you have been doing from start to finish throughout this thread, no matter how much back-peddling you have started to do. In several places, even right up to near the end Craig discusses the infiltrational & ideological tactics of the Jesuits as revealed in the Jim Arrabito film, in a disgusted manner. These are essentially the same tactics & methods that I have called you out on.

I am not surprised in the slightest when you reveal that you are an ex-Catholic. I agree with Alberto Rivera that when it comes to Catholics, they can only truly escape Catholicism when they are truly born into the spirit of Christ.

What you believe is up to you, but after many similar incidents with people at Myspace, on my blog comments & via email, non-Christians who then also turn out to be ex-Catholics, so-called, I have to say that I am not surprised.

I sure did. Did you? Right at the three hour and nineteen minute and 25 second mark mark he again says Jew really refers to the 12th degree of the Elusian mystery religion and wasn't used until the 18th century. Let's look at another clip from Freedman.

So it seems he would agree with me and you that Yehudim goes back a long long long time but that only in the eighteenth century it was given a letter J. I guess he was hung up not on a word, but a particular LETTER.

So my illustrated, as seen above, documented correcting of Prothink and Freedman constitutes backpeddling. Okay. Got it.

You haven't clarified the phrase 'attacking Protestantism' specifically since one could come up with many interpretations. I don't even know what that means since you have not defined your terms. I will say that my critique about this whole Luke 3 stuff could apply to Catholics as well since they hold the bible dear. Although they aren't really Christians. I respect Martin Luther and what he did and how he brought the bible to the people so they could see that so much of the Roman Church's doctrines have no biblical basis such as paying the pope to buy your way into heaven or calling priests 'father' or having a confessional. I like anyone who shines a light upon a fraud. The Roman Church is extremely heretical and anti-biblical. Just like the Talmud. They're both babylonian. The pope is the anti-christ. Do you know what they mean when they talk about the pope being the vicar of Christ? They say the pope is basically GOD IN THE FLESH. HE IS PUTTING HIMSELF IN PLACE OF JESUS. If you want to get technical, that is blasphemy. That is not biblical. Catholicism is like the Talmud in Judaism. It replaces the law of God with the law of man. That is not a religion. That is a cult.

And what methods would those be? It couldn't possibly be me correcting Prothink and Freedman ON THE FIRST PAGE and showing where they went wrong now could it? Something I have had to mention at least three times to you for some odd reason.

So are you saying that Thomas Paine and others who criticized the Catholic Church were really secret jesuits because they didn't convert to Protestantism and come to Christ? If so, that's your Protestant bias that has no basis in fact. Many people have escaped the Catholic Church and rejected it's teachings. Some do it through conversion to another religion. Some do it by way of atheism. You may not like atheists, but you can't deny the fact that they exist and hate the Roman Church for example. What bothers me about most atheists that I have seen write things on the internet infidels board is that they are so leftist and materialistic and they just don't understand how world politics really work and who really runs the show. They always attack the religious right thinking it's a Protestant Conspiracy that runs America. I find it hard not to laugh at these profane idiots.

Why should you be? Catholicism is the most widespread religion in the world. Didn't you know that? Unfortnately, I was brought up in that religious environment. Thankfully, I saw it for the nonsense it was. I struggled a lot with trying to reconcile certian teachings with the bible. Then Thomas Paine's Deist manifesto THE AGE OF REASON set me free when I was a teenager.

Not the point of Craig's that I was referring to - which you well know, as you've split this to comment on my actual point later on, i.e. the methods & tactics of the Jesuits.

No matter. I'll deal with the above in the same manner as I did before.

The AV1611 has the word Jew or Iewe in its original spelling. This is the same word. An abbreviation of Yehudim. Freedman is being Jesuitical to suggest that Jew & Iewe are different words, etc. & thus gives his game away. We're talking about a primarily verbal culture only just becoming a textual/verbal culture with the advent of the printing press. This may have been invented in 1439, but standardisation & formalisation of many words developed over the next three centuries or so. Honestly, it's like watching paint dry even discussing it.

You say:

Protestantism is based around the AV1611 Bible & its use as the ultimate ideological defence against the Satanic Vatican. The Old Testament you can consider as being about Judaism & Jewishness. The New Testament you can consider as being about Jesus. The Bible connects the two. You seek to isolate the AV1611 into the times that it speaks of that occurred past tense & to thus to also negate the relevance of prophecy.

How do you do this? By implying that Jesus is Lucifer (which I refute as a pro-Latin Vulgate Romish implication as appears in the Jesuitical NIV Bible); by denying that Jews (or Iewes) are descended from the Jews (or Iewes) of Bible, by some roundabout argument that the latter were actually Judaeans (which are ancestors of the Jews) by refuting the etymology of the word - a weak stand regardless of any other circumstances - thus the whole meaning of your original posting of "Jesus was not a Jew" as the thread title derived from the name of the ProThink article that you posted at the start of the thread & seem to have subsequently prevaricated upon & minced words to the point where its impossible to tell what you think; & by refuting that Jesus was of the seed of David, despite me giving you two explications of the geneology of Luke (which work both together & separately) & your complete denial of one & dismissing out of hand the other.

This denial is the denial of Jesus Christ as the messiah & thus aligns itself with & seeks to bolster the Vatican's undermining of Protestant Christianity based upon the word of the Bible & not the doctrine of the Pope of Babylon Reprised. The Vatican knows the power of Christ & seeks to disguise itself as loving that which it hates most, such is the way of Satan.

You don't say? Now that is a surprise...

See the above.

Atheism & Catholicism are merely two branches of Satanism. Whichever is chosen is irrelevant, both are ultimately Satanic. Thus the Jesuit Adam Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati's championing of atheism. This doesn't make all atheists secret Jesuits, but they are unwittingly (& in some cases wittingly) acting out Jesuit designs.

Deism was the second branch of this attack on Christianity - this Illuminati attack presenting itself as an attack on Catholicism & the Papacy. Remember though that this was merely the Jesuits seeking revenge on the Papacy for banning them in 1773 & that both the Vatican & the Jesuits are Satanic (or Luciferian as they prefer).

The most widespread religion in the world? Actually that would be Islam at 1.5 Billion, where as Catholicism has 1.1 billion, as does non-Catholic Christianity. So no, your revelations are news to me & to the global religious demographics statisticians. You'd better let them know!

Catholicism is not an end in itself, that end is the goal of global worship of the Beast. Catholicism per se, as demonstrated in the French Revolution, is ultimately mere window dressing & is dispensible or transmutable in order to achieve the global system of universal worship of the Beast. Extending such metaphors, up till this point Catholicism has been merely the main hallway to the Inner Temple of the Beast. Another hallway serving a similar purpose was built in the 20th century from materials gathered over the preceding few centuries: so-called Marxist Communism in Russia & China.

There are many paths to the same destination.

I don't know what to say. I think he is being overly picky about the letter. He said Jew as a word didn't exist, and then says it should be Iew. So was he really denying the existence of the word Yehudim as you claim he was? It was only until I provided that extra quote from him just recently, that you can understand that he is basically implying that the Hebrew equivalent of Iew, being Yehudim, did exist a long time ago. And therefore, as you say, had no alternative but to show up in the Bible. But if he says Iew only became Jew in the 1700's perhaps he was not reading from the king james bible. I can not recall where in the document he specifies, if at all, what bible he was citing in his rant FACTS ARE FACTS. But I will say that since so many bibles have been through so many manipulations, I would like to see a King James from the 1600's to see if it was in fact Jew and not Iew as Freedman seems to imply it would be.

The writer of Matthew attempts to do this by making Jesus or Yeshua fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies. It makes sense since Matthew is the first book of the New Testament. So on a technical level, I would not disagree with you.

Well as I have said earlier, prothink defines Jew as a Talmudist from the land of Judea. But I define a Juda-an as someone from the tribe of Judah. Jesus is supposed to have been from that line by way of his mother. I say there is no biblical verse attesting to this positively. You of course disagree. Again, it all depends on how we define Jew. As I explained already, I ended up using a different definition than Prothink, which is a somewhat uninformed definition. I bet if you asked him which Judah came first, the man or the land name, he wouldn't have a clue.

Lucifer does mean morning star. Wikipedia bears this out. That verse in the bible where Jesus calls himself the morning star made me flip when I saw it.

Craig isn't a Christian either. So what? I'm not a Christian. So what? I'm not much of a religious person, but I'm an amateur historian and it's obvious how powerful Rome is and always has been. Secondly, if your bible is so perfect, you shouldn't be concerned about me making the arguments that I am.

Atheism. A-theism. A meaning lack of theism. Satan is supposed to be an evil god is he not? Atheists don't believe in God or the devil because they view them all as human constructs. However, if you mean to say that Catholicism and Atheism are pushed on the masses to the advantage of the Roman Church in order to control the minds of people and blind them to the real evil, the roman one, that rules the planet, then yes you are right.

Menses made a post on here after the death of Agnostic comedian George Carlin and said, "yeah maybe Carlin did some small time counterculture stuff, but his hatred of religion played into the hands of the elite." Menses then quoted Albert Pike who said that "WE WILL UNLEASH THE ATHEISTS."

Well then. Islam has been growing A LOT faster than I thought. Last I checked, which was years ago, Islam was JUST BEHIND catholicism. Although this doesn't surprise me as both are Roman mafia controlled cults. They wouldn't let them thrive if it couldn't serve a purpose for the Vatican.

Just a quick one for reasons that I'll explain in a sec.

Great dialogue here, I think that we have exchanged most of our supporting evidence. I do want to reiterate that that Lucifer translation as "morning star" in Isaiah is from Latin Vulgate-based agenda-driven (that agenda being to undermine Christ's divinity & nature) translations. Also Wikipedia, as useful as it is & as much as I use it, has been hacked by the Vatican & the CIA in the top two positions. My issue with that article that you refer to is that as far as I recall, it doesn't discuss the refutation of that translation. I'm not saying that I want articles that agree with me, I just expect them to fairly show the different sides to any strongly challenged matter.

The fact that things like that get into Wikipedia without challenge is yet more evidence of how far mainstream religious establishments & committees have been so thoroughly infiltrated by agents of Rome & ecumenicalised. They have been soaked in their Romish NIV & other Vulgate-derivatives. The KJV was written at a moment when spoken English was at its peak & has degenerated since then. The translators were multilingual polymaths & some of the most intelligent mean ever assembled. Today's specialisation has some significant drawbacks & is obviously better for social control (compartmented knowledge).

People go on about other things like advances in archeology, Fact: most archeological sites have only lower single-figure percentages of the area excavated at most of any site. The implications of this are obvious once considered. In fact most academics now know more & more about less & less & even the better ones - especially the "better" ones - are like idiot savants.

The KJV is also a literal or formal translation, not one based on multi-choice selected dynamic equivalence. I also consider it to be the result of divine working that brought the full blossoming of the English language about at a very specific point in time. It had very specific (good word that) variants of words that were the result of a subtler more nuanced mode of thought. It's quite shocking how far this degeneration has affected thinking processes.

I have had arguments with an apparently intelligent American (relatively speaking, you know - L.O.L.!!) about what the term "Before the Lord" meant. He was insistent that the Bible was referring to some time before God existed! I explained that no, it meant "in front of the Lord" or in the "understanding of the Lord". He went on & on about me being biased! I said "no, my friend. Just ask any secular scholar of English at a major university".

Not that I recommend academics for everything. It's a bit like just using doctors when you break a bone, though not quite as crucial! He was another ex-Catholic & basically hated all forms of Christianity - still does really, but likes my research, so what can you do! He's alright in many other ways. I guess that America is a different world in many ways - "two nations divided by a common language", as somebody once remarked once upon a time about England & America.

In the first edition of the AV1611, the spelling was "Iewe". which is the same word as "Jew", like some say "Yehovah" instead of "Jehovah", etc, ad infinitum. It's neither a "j" or a "y" sound in actual fact, it's that lower-lip breathy attack to the sound in Hebrew that is ambiguous when trying to capture in English or other European languages. The subsequent revisions of the AV1611 in no way changed any of the meaning or intent, but English was still being standardised for another couple of hundred years. So consistencies like this were introduced.

For Freedman to say that the word didn't exist before the 17 or 1800's or whenever is false implication, though not false as a contextless textual analysis, if you catch my drift. That's why I say that his pedantry is nonsensical & in fact intentionally so & thus Jesuitical ("dissembling or equivocating, in the manner associated with Jesuits."). The sound IS the word. Thus the importance of Jews not speaking the Tetragrammaton. Writing it - no problem. Also interesting to note that Hebrew was a set, standardised language a long time before English, as obvious as it is regardless.

There are different levels of Satanism. The gateway level, e.g. the LaVeyan Church of Satan is Atheistic. The Satanic Bible is apparently among the top all-time selling books. Temple of Set, which is higher level is deity-based.

As for what I was getting at with my mentioning the denial of Jesus as Messiah, in terms of emphasis or intent I was referring to your methodology being that of Rome, not merely your viewpoint on the matter.

The Pike quote - aahh, I have a feeling - more of an intellectual assessment, that that letter is a hoax, after examining the investigations into it. An evidence-less & ultimately discrediting red herring There are a couple of very thorough articles on the net somewhere that look into this. FWIW, Barry Chamish's assessment is the same on this one.

Right, my friend, I will have to leave this for a while, as I have a large bunch of evidence to assess that has been sent to me regarding the Constantinian Order. So if you will excuse me I have to attend to that, as it is most pressing that I do so, based on what I have seen. I hope that you understand.

Thanks for the exchange -

Troy