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

Christians have been duped by the unholiest hoax in all history, by so-called Jews. This is considered their most effective weapon. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUrpoCwOD6s

This article gives a good account of the origin & derivation (etymology) of the word "Jew":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_the_word_Jew

Antisionist's info states that the word only goes back to the late 18th century. So that's over 150 years after the KJV AV1611 which has the term in both the Old & New Testaments.

I would suggest that the source of Antisionist's info is suspect there.

"And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS."

Matthew 27:37

This was a true statement. Rome's agents & assets wanted him dead & such a King with such a message was the reason why they had him killed.

Jesus most definitely was a Jew. He was descended from King David.

Would it make sense for Him to have come for "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" if He wasn't a Jew? He initially came for the Jews.

Matthew 10:

"[5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
[6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Probably a good job. There may not have been many Gentiles (Pagans) around that way back then:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Myth_Gentile_Galilee.htm

The Samaritans were half-Jews.

If you look at Acts, it goes from Jew to Samaritan to Gentile.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan

This is not hard to understand. Get this straight. Jesus was not a Jew. He was a man from the land of Judea! Even so called "jew" Benjamin Freedman knew that. Craig Oxley has even stated so. Jew is a corruption of Judean. It's a confusion of race with nationality. David is supposed to have been from the tribe of Judah though.

Quoting from Matthew won't do any good as the bible has already been corrupted by having this corruption of "Judean" placed in there. Benjamin Freedman explained this in FACTS ARE FACTS. So the bible SHOULD say that Jesus was crucified with a sign that said KING OF THE JUDEANS. But as that youtube video shows, Pilate was being ironic.

Moses, Solomon, David were not Jews, they were ISRAELITES. Judaism comes from the Talmud, not the written Torah. If Jesus is the Messiah and Jews (talmudists) reject him, and if Jesus rejected their oral tradition and said the Pharisees were 'full of dead men's bones', you can't call Jesus a Jew. He was not a Talmudist. You also can't call modern day Judaics God's chosen people if they reject his only son and call his mother a whore (in the Talmud they do this) and Jesus says that he is the only way to the father.

This Judaeans are not Jews business is semantics. The racial Jews are the descendants of the Judaeans & Israelites, both Hebrew peoples united under Saul, David & Solomon. Some black Americans call themselves "niggers", some white people call them that too, but they are still racially African.

You mention what Craig's thoughts are on the matter. If I recall correctly he is an endorser of Tsarion's work & for a fact Tsarion draws heavily on Ralph Ellis' conclusions on Biblical accounts. Even Ellis, despite his going off on one regarding Jesus post-crucifixion - so he's no Christian - acknowledges that Jesus was rightful King of the Jews. Nothing ironic about Pilate's actions - mocking maybe, but that's not irony my friend. My point is not to endorse Ellis' work per se but to show that if Craig does assert what you say he does then he has strong grounds to reconsider here.

Also: Consider that in John 1:49, Nathanael says to Jesus: "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel."

David was of the tribe of Judah & reigned over Israel & Judah. In Genesis 39:29 we find that Pharez is Judah's son. In Ruth 4:18, we find that the generations to David are Pharez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse to David. Solomon was David's son & the third king of the United Kingdom of Israel & Judah. Following the split his male heirs ruled over Judah alone. Moses was a descendant of Levi, he was of the tribe of Levi son of Jacob (Israel), the Levites.

Jews are not all Talmudists either - this is a complete fallacy. I have known well several Jews who state that they are not pro-Talmud & that it is not the accompaniment to the Torah that all Jew-haters insist it is. Put it this way: the black lodge Masons & Jesuits have infiltrated every branch of Protestantism, but that doesn't make Protestantism Luciferian or Satanic!

In true Frankist-Sabbatean fashion, Benjamin Freedman speaks disparagingly & falsely about his own people - & is a Roman Catholic convert! Are you promoting this tool of Rome on anti-Romish site? Amazing my friend! Who'd have thought it - well, well...

The utterance by the Christian clergy which confuses Christians the most is the constantly repeated utterance "Jesus was a Jew". That also appears to be your favorite theme. That misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestable historic fact is uttered by the Christian clergy upon the slightest pretext. They utter it constantly, also without provocation. They appear to be "trigger happy" to utter it. They never miss an opportunity to do so. Informed intelligent Christians cannot reconcile this truly unwarranted misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestable historic fact by the Christian clergy with information known by them now to the contrary which comes to them from sources believed by them to be equally reliable.

This poses a serious problem today for the Christian clergy. They can extricate themselves from their present predicament now only by resorting to ";the truth, the whole truth, and nothing the truth". That is the only formula by which the Christian clergy can recapture the lost confidence of Christians. As effective spiritual leaders they cannot function without this lost confidence. They should make that their first order of business.

My dear Dr. Goldstein, you are a theologian of high rank and a historian of note. Of necessity you also should agree with other outstanding authorities on the subject of whether "Jesus was a Jew". These leading authorities agree today that there is no foundation in fact for the implications, inferences and the innuendoes resulting from the incorrect belief that "Jesus was a Jew". Incontestable historic facts and an abundance of other proofs establish beyond the possibility of any doubt the incredibility of the assertion so often heard today that "Jesus was a Jew".

Without any fear of contradiction based upon fact the most competent and best qualified authorities all agree today that Jesus Christ was not a so-called or self-styled "Jew", They now confirm that during His lifetime Jesus was known as a "Judean" by His contemporaries and not as a "Jew", and that Jesus referred to Himself as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew". During His lifetime here on earth Jesus was referred to by contemporary historians as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew". Contemporary theologians of Jesus whose competence to pass upon this subject cannot be challenged by anyone today also referred to Jesus during his lifetime here on earth as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew".

Inscribed upon the Cross when Jesus was Crucified were the Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". Pontius Pilate was the author of that infamous inscription. Latin was Pontius Pilate's mother-tongue. No one will question the fact that Pontius Pilate was well able to accurately express his own ideas in his own mother-tongue. The authorities competent to pass upon the correct translation into English of the Latin "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum" agree that it is "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". There is no disagreement upon that by them.

During His lifetime here on earth Jesus was not regarded by Pontius Pilate nor by the Judeans among whom He dwelt as "King of the Jews". The inscription on the Cross upon which Jesus was Crucified has been incorrectly translated into the English language only since the 18th century. Pontius Pilate was ironic and sarcastic when he ordered inscribed upon the Cross the Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". About to be Crucified, with the approval of Pontius Pilate, Jesus was being mocked by Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate was well aware at that time that Jesus had been denounced, defied and denied by the Judeans who alas finally brought about His Crucifixion as related by history.

Except for His few followers at that time in Judea all other Judeans abhorred Jesus and detested His teachings and the things for which He stood. That deplorable fact cannot be erased from history by time. Pontius Pilate was himself the "ruler" of the Judeans at the time he ordered inscribed upon the Cross the Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum", in English "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". But Pontius Pilate never referred to himself as "ruler" of the Judeans. The ironic and sarcastic reference of Pontius Pilate to Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans" can hardly be accepted as recognition by Pontius Pilate of Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans". That is inconceivable by any interpretation.

At the time of the Crucifixion of Jesus Pontius Pilate was the administrator in Judea for the Roman Empire. At that time in history the area of the Roman Empire included a part of the Middle East. As far as he was concerned officially or personally the inhabitants of Judea were "Judeans" to Pontius Pilate and so- called "Jew" as they have been styled since the 18th century. In the time of Pontius Pilate in history there was no religious, racial or national group in Judea known as "Jew" nor had there been any group so identified anywhere else in the world prior that time.

Pontius Pilate expressed little interest as the administrator of the Roman Empire officially or personally in the wide variety of forms of religious worship then practiced in Judea. These forms of religious worship extended from phallic worship and other forms of idolatry to the emerging spiritual philosophy of an eternal omnipotent and invisible Divine deity, the emerging (Jehovah) concept which predated Abraham of Bible fame approximately 2000 years. As the administrator for the Roman Empire in Judea it was the official policy of Pontius Pilate never to interfere in the spiritual affairs of the local population. Pontius Pilate's primary responsibility was the collection of taxes to be forwarded home to Rome, not the forms of religious worship practiced: by the Judeans from whom those taxes were collected.

As you well know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the Latin word "rex" means "ruler, leader" in English. During the lifetime Jesus in Judea the Latin word "rex' meant only that to Judeans familiar with the Latin language. The Latin word "rex" is the Latin verb "rego, regere, rexi, rectus" in English means as you also well know "to rule, to lead". Latin was of course the official language in all the provinces administered by a local administrator of the Roman Empire. This fact accounts for the inscription on the Cross in Latin.

With the invasion of the British Isles by the Anglo-Saxons, the English language substituted the Anglo-Saxon "king" for the Latin equivalent "rex" used before the Anglo-Saxon invasion. The adoption of "king" for "rex" at this late date in British history did not retroactively alter the meaning of the Latin "rex" to the Judeans in the time of Jesus. The Latin "rex" to them then meant only "ruler, leader" as it still means in Latin. Anglo-Saxon "king" was spelled differently when first used but at all times meant the same as "rex"; in Latin, "leader" of a tribe.

During the lifetime of Jesus it was very apparent to Pontius Pilate that Jesus was the very last Person in Judea the Judeans would select as their "ruler" or their "leader". In spite of this situation in Judea Pontius Pilate did not hesitate to order the inscription of the Cross "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". By the wildest stretch of the imagination it is not conceivable that this sarcasm and irony by Pontius Pilate at the time of the Crucifixion was not solely mockery of Jesus by Pontius Pilate and only mockery. After this reference to "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans" the Judeans forthwith proceeded to Crucify Jesus upon that very Cross.

In Latin in the lifetime of Jesus the name of the political subdivision in the Middle East known in modern history as Palestine was "Iudaea". It was then administered by Pontius Pilate as administrator for the Roman Empire of which it was then a part. The English for the Latin "Iudaea" is "Judea". English "Judean" is the adjective for the noun "Judea". The ancient native population of the subdivision in the Middle East known in modern history as Palestine was then called "Iudaeus" in Latin and "Judean" in English. Those words identified the indigenous population of Judea in the lifetime of Jesus. Who can deny that Jesus was a member of the indigenous population of Judea in His lifetime?

Here are Craig's words on the word JEW from the Zagami topic on page seven

Please remember how the Jew word you may through around means not what you think. A Jew is someone trained to what they claim as God status via the 12th Degree of the Eleusian Mystery Religion. Anyone not of this degree is not a Jew and can only be known as a Judiac in reality. Now what they did was allow this term on the sheople in the 18th century onwards to confuse even further as people became knowledgable in the future.

Michael Tsarion has called Ralph Ellis a great scholar but guess whose side he takes overall when it comes to the OUT OF EGYPT theory? AHMED OSMAN. In terms of which Egyptian pharaohs were ripped off to make up the characters of David and Solomon and Moses. Ralph Ellis himself is also engaging in deception at times as I have explained here.
http://z13.invisionfree.com/THE_UNHIVED_MI...showtopic=62862
He is a pusher of the British-Israelite bullshit. He claims it as true yet Tsarion claims it as false. [Link.]

Well then rejecting the Talmud is one step closer to being a true Isarelite as Jesus rebuked the Talmud. However, Ralph Ellis claiming Jesus was the king of the Jews doesn't do much as he claims that these so called "jews" were in fact Egyptians. Those two are supposed to be very different. Egyptians were supposed to have enslaved the Jews.

Craig Oxley apparently sided with Freedman claiming the word JEW is a corruption that came to us a couple centuries ago. What're you gonna do now? Put him along with me in your hall of agents of Rome?

Regarding my example of Ellis, let me reiterate:

& if Craig does from this point on promote Freedman, knowing his covert Frankist-Sabbataian pro-Vatican agenda, then I would call him out on it too.

Craig may well have repeated the likes of the things that are brought up above at face value.

There is a word invented for the writings of the like of Freedman:

The Talmud was the invention of the Mystery Religion of Babylon: Rome.

You quote Craig as saying:

And you say:

Well I have proven you both wrong when I demonstrated the antiquity of the common currency of the word:

& in your case, its derivation:

I trust that Craig acknowledges the weight of true evidence & that you likewise are capable of doing so.

& Yes, I have a special place reserved in my Coadjutors' Corner for Ben Freedman fans like ProThink.

Thank you -

Troy

So because Freedman was a Roman Catholic convert who blamed the house of Rothschild for all ills, nothing he says is true? If that is the case about those who spit Jesuit doctrine, then why would Craig ever bother to quote articles by the likes of Steve Watson or even Alex Jones himself or post videos where Alex Jones does make valid points on things like 9-11, fema camps, etc? Because the way agents work is to dispense some truths to ultimately keep you boxed in.

Try not using vague, general language. Try being more precise. That way, you will realize that Craig doesn't "promote Freedman." Saying he promotes Freedman makes it sound like he believes everything Freedman says about the kosher mafia that started world war two for example and Craig doesn't believe that. Craig does what he does with most agents. Pick out the gems and move to the next level, where the likes of Phelps sits. If Freedman is wrong, what you are saying is that Pilate meant to call Jesus a Jew and not a Judean. Freedman's arguments about the true meanings in Latin are solid on that matter.

Tsarion even says Jew comes from Judite or Jew-dite, an old word meaning Judge. Craig says that a "Jew" is a twelfth degree of an old Elusian mystery religion. Thus the word "Jew" AS A SYNONYM FOR JUDEAN OR JUDAIC, as a MISUSE, dates back to the eighteenth century. Freedman's arguments on the Latin are solid so perhaps the misuse of JEW as a word must date back further if you say it appears in the 1611 King James. The fact that it is a corrupted word is without question.

Any Jew who is a Roman Catholic convert is immediately under suspicion. Go ask any Jew! Barry Chamish will tell you. The idea for non-Sabbateans is preposterous.

For the kind who do then read here:

http://biblesearchers.com/reflections/2004/augustkerry.shtml

The Jesuits & are a religious-military order, as are the SMOM & the Constantinian Order. They have a war against Protestantism, called the Counter-Reformation, as you well know. They also have a war against Judaism & Islam. Most obvious examples being the Holocaust & the so-called War on Terror. Lies about Judaism & Jesus are two obvious counterintelligence tools & ones best delivered by racially Jewish Judaism-hating Catholic converts - like Freedman. Big difference between that & Jonesco, who Eric, Craig & myself included acknowledgingly quote, eating the meat & spitting out the bones as Eric likes to say - while not shying from exposing those SMOM connections, etc.

You say, quoting me initially:

There is nothing vague about the language, man. More precise? Why? don't you understand definitive terms? I haven't said that Craig promotes Freedman! I wouldn't know everyone that he has or hasn't "promoted" (vague term that - not very precise! - L.O.L.!!): I don't spend my life on other people's forums, although I am happy to drop by for the occassional exchange.

What I said was that if he went around - like you - promoting Freedman (which as I state above, I don't know that he has before) from this point on (seeing as he no doubt will be reading this exchange), then I will call him out on it & say why are you referencing & quoting the counterintelligence propaganda of that agent of Rome, Ben Freedman. Are you ProThink's doppleganger? That's what I would say!

Why is an abbreviation a misuse? This is a "logical" fallacy. The term in Hebrew, in the Torah, is "Yehudi"

What could be clearer? This is the true, scholarly facts - not the Babylonian Vatican babblings of Ben "Romish" Freedman.

Thanks -

Troy

So if Freedman is wrong, is Tsarion wrong about Jew coming from Judite - a word meaning Judge? If Jew comes from Judah, which refers to a territory, then how is it associated in any way with a religion? If Jew refers to a nation of residence and not a religion, what would we call self titled judaics who reject the Talmud but don't hold Jesus as their messiah? Israelites?

RELATED:
Jesus and the Talmud
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/jesus.html

double post

Tsarion is wrong about many things, as is his mentor Jordan Maxwell, who is finally being shown for the shill he is. A name is a name: its descriptive. It can be as easily drawn from the region the people of the faith inhabited as anything else. The word Jew relates to racial Jews primarily & then those of them who practice Judaism. Confusing, but this is a fairly unique situation, but that's how it is.

Those Jews who stop practicing the religion of their ancestors, as outlined in the Torah, fall into apostasy & either become heretics, like the Sabbateans & their successors the Frankists or secularists, the former largely paving the way for the flourishing of the latter hand in hand with its derivative political ideolgy Labor Zionism, which Hitler allowed to flourish from 1933 while crushing all other forms of Zionism - around 250 other organisations banned. This Labor Zionism being Marxist-inspired & thus of a materialist nature & also being the advance guard for the creation of Israel for the benefit of Rome.

So we have racial Jews who can be observed as being either religious Jews, secular Jews or heretical Jews. In fact this can be seen as a circle with overlaps.

Religious Jews are Torah-faithful Jews.

Torah-faithful Jews who are also observing the Talmud encyclopedia of Babylonianism then fall into one end of heresy from Torah-faithful Judaism. They are Talmudic Jews.

The other side of the heretical Jewish segment is Frankist-Sabbateanism which survived via the Donmeh of Turkey & has connections with the Ottoman Turkish Freemasonry (derived from the Rite of Memphis) associated with Rudolf von Sebottendorf later a leading Thule Society member & founded the German Workers Party which Hitler turned into the Nazis.

Kind of going off on a tangent here, but it has been claimed that CIA asset Fethullah Gulen & Harun Yahya now lead two competing branches of Ottoman Turkish Freemasonry, which as leading Muslims (& in the case of the latter publicly an antimason - as was the high-level Mason Hitler, who targeted Blue lodge Masonry) shows how the infiltrating elite have one system for themselves & another for everyone else & do away with any leaders who truly have any empathy with the common people faithwise & in terms of unhindered social potential.

Sabbateans can take the outward appearance of Jews, Catholics, Muslims & possibly even Protestants - although the latter is less likely as the black lodge papal-loyal Masons & Jesuits have that covered.

Secular Jews - if of the elites - are at the highest levels descended either ideologically & often genetically from the Frankists & Sabbataians. They can be either Ashkenazim or Sephardim, mostly Ashkenazi though. If of the common people, then they are usually merely lapsed & not vehement heretics per se.

You asked:

Torah-faithful Jews or non-Talmudic Torah-faithful Jews or even simply Jews with no need to add a prefix to. This is only really necessary for Secular Jews, Talmudic Jews & Heretical Jews (the province of the Sabbateans/Sabbataians).

Thanks -

Troy