Jesus was NOT a Jew

[WilliamSmith]

The legendary jewish defector Benjamin Freedman (who was once at the right-hand of Bernard Baruch and other elite Jew York City jews involved in financing both sides of the world wars, but defected against them), wrote an article exposing that Jesus was not a jew.



I myself an not a religious man (spiritual believer, yes, but not religious), so am impartial, but interested in this subject.

@Lucas88
@Pixel--dude
@gsjackson
@Outcast9428

What do you make of this?

https://www.henrymakow.com/jesus_was_no ... jamin.html

Excerpts from a long letter from Benjamin Freedman (left) to David Goldstein, LL.D. dated October 10, 1954. Freedman (1890-1984) had been part of the American Zionist inner circle but, like Goldstein, converted to Christianity. The complete letter appeared in a pamphlet entitled "Facts are Facts."

(Excerpts by Henry Makow)

The utterance by the Christian clergy which confuses Christians the most is the constantly repeated utterance that "Jesus was a Jew." ... That misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestable historic fact is uttered by the Christian clergy upon the slightest pretext....

Jesus Christ was not a so-called or self-styled "Jew". During His lifetime Jesus was known as a "Judean" by His contemporaries and not as a "Jew", and Jesus referred to Himself as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew".

...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.

At the time of the Crucifixion of Jesus Pontius Pilate was the administrator in Judea for the Roman Empire. As far as he was concerned officially or personally, the inhabitants of Judea were "Judeans" and not so- called "Jews" as they have been styled since the 18th century. In the time of Pontius Pilate, there was no religious, racial or national group in Judea known as "Jews" nor had there been any group so identified anywhere else in the world prior to 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 Yahve (Jehovah) concept which predated Abraham of Bible fame by approximately 2000 years. ...

As I have explained, when the word "Jew" was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century, its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean". However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well- financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the English- speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew". It is a misrepresentation.

... The United States Supreme Court has recognized the "secondary meaning" of words. The highest court in the land has established as basic law that "secondary meanings" can acquire priority rights to the use of any dictionary word. Well-planned and well-financed world-wide publicity through every available media by well-organized groups of so-called or self-styled "Jews" for three centuries has created a "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" which has completely "blacked out" the original and correct meaning of the word "Jew". There can be no doubt about that.

There is not a person in the whole English-speaking world today who regards a "Jew" as a "Judean" in the literal sense of the word. That was the correct and only meaning in the 18th century. The generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today with practically no exceptions is made up of four almost universally-believed theories. These four theories are that a so- called or self-styled "Jew" is (1) a person who today professes the form of religious worship known as "Judaism", (2) a person who claims to belong to a racial group associated with the ancient Semites, (3) a person directly the descendant of an ancient nation which thrived in Palestine in Bible history, (4) a person blessed by Divine intentional design with certain superior cultural characteristics denied to other racial, religious or national groups, all rolled into one.

The present generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" is fundamentally responsible for the confusion in the minds of Christians regarding elementary tenets of the Christian faith. It is likewise responsible today to a very great extent for the dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for their Christian faith. The implications, inferences and innuendos of the word "Jew" today, to the preponderant majority of intelligent and informed Christians, is contradictory and in complete conflict with incontestable historic fact. Christians who cannot be fooled any longer are suspect of the Christian clergy who continue to repeat, and repeat, and repeat ad nauseam their pet theme song "Jesus was a Jew". It actually now approaches a psychosis.

Countless Christians know today that they were "brainwashed" by the Christian clergy on the subject "Jesus was a Jew". ..

Countless intelligent and informed Christians no longer accept unchallenged assertions by the Christian clergy that Jesus in His lifetime was a Member of a group in Judea which practiced a religious form of worship then which is today called "Judaism", or that Jesus in His lifetime here on earth was a Member of the racial group which today includes the preponderant majority of all so- called or self-styled "Jews" in the world, or that the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today are the lineal descendants of the nation in Judea of which Jesus was a national in His lifetime here on earth, or that the cultural characteristics of so- called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today correspond with the cultural characteristics of Jesus during His lifetime here on earth and His teachings while He was here on earth for a brief stay. Christians will no longer believe that the race, religion, nationality and culture of Jesus and the race, religion, nationality and culture of so-called or self-styled "Jews" today or their ancestors have a common origin or character.

The resentment by Christians is more ominous than the Christian clergy suspect. Under existing conditions the Christian clergy will find that ignorance is not bliss, nor wisdom folly. Christians everywhere today are seeking to learn the authentic relationship between the so-called or self-styled "Jews" through-out the world today and the "Judeans" who populated "Judea" before, during and after the time of Jesus. Christians now insist that they be told correctly by the Christian clergy about the racial, religious, national and cultural background of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today and the basis for associating these backgrounds with the racial, religious, national and cultural background of Jesus in His lifetime in Judea. The intelligent and informed Christian are alerted to the exploded myth that the so- called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today are the direct descendants of the "Judeans" amongst whom Jesus lived during His lifetime here on earth.

Christians are becoming more and more aware day by day of all the economic and political advantages accruing to the so-called or self- styled "Jews" as a direct result of their success in making Christians believe that "Jesus was a Jew" in the "secondary meaning" they have created for the 18th century word "Jew". The so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today represent themselves to Christians as "Jews" only in the "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew". They seek to thereby prove their kinship with Jesus. They emphasize this fiction to Christians constantly. That fable is fast fading and losing its former grip upon the imaginations of Christians.

To allege that "Jesus was a Jew" in the sense that during His lifetime Jesus professed and practiced the form of religious worship known and practiced under the modern name of "Judaism" is false and fiction of the most blasphemous nature.

If to be a so- called or self-styled "Jew" then or now the practice of "Judaism" was a requirement, then Jesus certainly was not a so-called "Jew". Jesus abhorred and denounced the form of religious worship practiced in Judea in His lifetime and which is known and practiced today under its new name "Judaism". That religious belief was then known as "Pharisaism". The Christian clergy learned that in their theological seminary days but they have never made any attempt to make that clear to Christians.

[WilliamSmith]

Here's another one with more extended commens and excerpts:

https://americanwisdomseries.com/JESUS% ... EW%21.html

JESUS WAS NOT A JEW! as we define the Jews of this 21st. century or even as one who was called a Jew when He/Jesus walked on earth in a flesh and blood body!

The Article below was by Benjamin H. Freedman, Hebrew Historian - Researcher - Scholar.

JESUS WAS NOT A JEW!
By Benjamin. H. Freedman, [A Hebrew] Historian - Researcher - Scholar

From Common Sense, 2-1-53 and 5-1-59; reprinted in The Christian Guard Dispatch 76-77.

"Christians Duped By The Unholiest Hoax in All History, By So-Called Jews. This is Considered Their Most Effective Weapon."
"This 'big lie' technic is brainwashing U.S.A. Christians into believing that Jesus Christ was "King of the Jews", in the sense that so-called 'Jews' today call themselves 'Jews'. This reference was first made in English translations of the Old and New Testaments, centuries before the so-called Jews highjacked the word 'Jew' in the 19th A.D. century to palm themselves off on the Christian world as having a kinship with Jesus Christ. This alleged kinship comes from the myth of their common ancestry with the so-called 'Jews' of the Holy Land in the Old Testament history, a fiction based on fable."

"U.S.A. Christians little suspect they are being brainwashed twenty-four hours of every day over television and radio, by newspapers and magazines, by motion pictures and plays, by books, by political leaders in office and seeking office, by religious leaders in their pulpits and outside their churches, by leaders in the field of education inside and outside their cirricular activities, and by all leaders in business, professions and finance, whose economic security demands that they curry the favor of so-called "Jews" of historic Khazar ancestry. Unsuspecting Christians are subjected to this barrage from sources they have little reason to suspect.

Incontestible facts supply the unchallengable proof of the historic accuracy that so-called "Jews" throughout the world today of eastern European origin are unquestionably the historic descendants of the Khazars, a pagan Turco-Finn ancient Mongoloid nation deep in the heart of Asia, according to history, who battled their way in bloody wars about the 1st century B.C. into eastern Europe where they set up their Khazar kingdom. For some mysterious reason the history of the Khazar kingdom is conspicuous by its absence from history courses in the schools and colleges.

The historic existence of the Khazar kingdom of so-called "Jews", their rise and fall, the permanent disappearance of the Khazar kingdom as a nation from the map of Europe, and how King Bulan and the Khazar nation in 720 A.D. became so-called "Jews" by conversion, were concealed from U.S.A. Christians by censorship imposed by so-called "Jews", of historic Khazar ancestry, upon all U.S.A. media of mass communications directed by them. Then in 1945 this author [Benjamin. H. Freedman] gave nation-wide publicity to his many years intensive research into the "facts of life" concerning Khazars. The disclosures were sensational and very effective but apparently angered so-called "Jews" who have continued to vent their spleen upon this author since then solely for that reason. Since 1946 they have conducted a vicious smear campaign against this author, seeking thus to further conceal these facts, for obvious reasons.

What have they to fear from the truth?

"In an original 1903 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia in New Yorks's Public Library, and in the Library of Congress, Volume IV, pages 1 to 5 inclusive, appears a most comprehensive history of the Khazars. Also in the New York Public Library are 327 books by the world's greatest historians and other sources of reference, in addition to the Jewish Encyclopedia, dealing with Khazar history, and written between the 3rd A.D. and 20th centuries by contemporaries of the Khazars and by modern historians on that subject."

American Wisdom Series Note: Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew.

During His lifetime here on earth in His flesh and blood body, no Israelites. even those from the tribe of Judah (which Jesus was), were described as "Jews". That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their "homeland", and were known as Khazars. In neither of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew", 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 all the recorded history that there is a 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".

So take heed and understand the warning Christ has for the bad figs who are the kenites, the sons of Cain, and even to those teachers who are filled with their "leaven of hypocrisy" (Luke 12:1).

Matthew 12:34
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Jesus is talking directly to the kenites (vs. 25), the offspring (generation) of Kayin (Cain) who was the offspring of the viper (serpent) in the garden, who was and is the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" which bears bad fruit. How can one preach good things that bear good fruit for the harvest if one has an evil heart? He can't for his words are full of poisonous venom.
generation = gennema, ghen'-nay-mah, Greek 1081; from Greek 1080 (gennao); offspring; by analogy produce (literal or figurative) :- fruit, generation.
vipers = echidna, ekh'-id-nah, Greek 2191; of uncertain origin; an adder or other poisonous snake (literal or figurative) :- viper.
[35] A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
This is what the parable of good trees and corrupt trees is all about. Remember from Mat. 12:25 that Jesus "knew their thoughts", i.e. what was in their hearts!
WHO WAS THE FIRST JEW ?

We know that Saul was the first king of Israel and that John was the first man called Baptist but who was the first jew? Neither Adam, Seth or Noah are called jew. Nor were Abraham Isaac or Jacob. Moses was not called a jew and neither were Saul, David or Solomon called jew. In fact you cannot find the word jew in the first eleven books of the Bible.

American Wisdom Series Note: This is the preacher refered to in pamphlet #1062 talking and thinking to himself, But, you look and look. You can’t give up. "Wasn’t Moses a Jew? The Bible doesn’t say so. You were sure it did. "The Book of Revelation-the 144,000?" They are all of tribes of Israel but the Bible does not call any of them Jews. It is today's Christian church who call the Israeli from that little country in the middle east Jews. You find the word ‘Jew’ appears for the first time in 2 Kings 16:6, where the Southern Kingdom are fighting the Israelites in the North.

II Kings 16:6 "At that time Resin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day."

"Jews" is stated here should have been translated"house of Judah", for the term "Jews" came out of the Babylonian captivity many years after this. Even though Ahaz and the house of Judah remained a nation, they did lose the city of Elath to the Syrians, and never recoved the land again. It is God that held the small nation of Judah together, even when their king was doing those wicked thing, all for the sake of His promise to David.

Live Link to- Pamphlet #1062

You now understand that by Christ’s time the inhabitants of Judea —the Jews— were a mixed lot, most of whom Christ rejected. Yes, Christ's ancestry was of the tribe of Judah but, in those days no pure pedigree Israelites were called Jews, even if from the
tribe of Judah. Only foreigners who also lived in Judea were called Jews.

Isn't it interesting that we can read over five hundred pages of the bible before we find a jew anywhere yet those who call themselves jew today claim the first five books of the bible and call it there Torah.

Do you not find it very strange that those who claim to have written the first five books of the Bible and call themselves jew , can't find the word jew written in the book anywhere they call there own bible and claim to have written ?

Jesus Christ tells John in Revelation 2:9 "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are jews and are not but are the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN ". We know that God changed the name of Abram to Abraham Gen. 17:5 and that God changed the name of Jacob to Israel Gen. 32:28 but no where in the Bible do we find where God changed the name of his chosen people Israel to jew! Therefore there is no authority by which those who say they are jews can claim to be Israel!

What did happen to the ancient Israelites ("The House of Israel) & much of ("The House of Judah")
John's Note: Always remember the Jewish religious leaders, of that day when Jesus walked this earth and was crucified, were not descended from Judah or Benjamin (the former "House of Judah"). They were non Israelites descended from Cain, i.e. Kenites who had infiltrated the church back during its Babylonian captivity five centuries earlier. This is also the case today in that little country in the middle east we now call Israel.

The above reference is to the House of Judah, not the House of Israel. The House of Judah was taken to Babylon during the conquering of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzor in 586BC, 135 years after the House of Israel plus tens of thousands of Israelites/Jews (I suppose some of them could be called the real Jews, if they were indeed descendants of Judah, also from the House of Judah, but nowhere are they
called Jews, in the Bible) was captured by their Assyrian conquerors in 745-721 B.C. and taken captive and relocated below the Black and Caspian Seas. They were used by their Assyrian conquerors as a buffer state to ward off any advances by the Medes. Later, following the collapse of Assyria, they migrating into western Europe and some of them on to the Americas. A word of caution: Don't confuse the two events, They are different, they happened 135 years apart, to two different nations, although both were nations made up of ancient Israelites.

The former "House of Israel" has today formed the nucleus of our Christian nations located in Europe and the Americas. While the former "House of Judah" after being heavily infiltrated by Kenites, way back in 586 B.C. have since been further infiltrated in 740AD when the Khazar ruler - and probably the greater part of the ruling classes - were converted to Judaism
Live Link to- Ancient Israelite migrations
Live Link to- KHAZARS
It is obvious the people we refer to as Jews today are even less representative of the ancient Israelite tribe of Judah, today, then they were when Jesus said to the Jews in John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do"

So in 1948 that new nation we call Israel today, in the middle east, is really made up of some real Jews (the good figs) and allot of Kenite Jews (the bad figs). See Live Link to- The Parable of the Fig Tree

By the time of Jesus the word Edom or Edomite had been translated by Greek and Latin into ae-Ioudaios-Iudaeusalso including in this meaning were the terms Judea-Judean or person living in Judea. The original King James version of the Bible 1611 translated Idumaean - Judean into Iewes. It wasn't until the revised editions of the King James Bible, that the word jew appeared (after the year 1900 ). The word jew does not mean Israel or Israelite! We must therefore conclude that the first jews were Canaanite-Edomite-Hittite. It is certain according to the Bible that Khazar jews are not Israel. [From the Christian Guard Dispatch 76-77]

[Pixel--Dude]

I don't think Jesus was a Jew. But then again I don't believe Jesus existed anyway. I do think that Jesus is just a fabrication of the Jews to make their brainwashing programme of Christianity more appealing to the masses of Gentiles they wish to indoctrinate with their slave religion.

So, in a sense, Jesus IS Jewish as the whole religion is a fabrication of the Jews in order to replace authentic spirituality with a religion which teaches blind submission to authority and "turning the other cheek" when faced with oppression..





I made some good arguments against Jesus Christ and the fundamental principle of sacrifice in the Bible which I think you should check out @WilliamSmith I think you would like them. I'll quote them here:

"I wanted to analyse the significance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and ask what you guys think to the reflection.

Sacrifice of animals was common before the times of Jesus Christ, because as Paul said "The wages of sin are death!" People today value different things, but back then people would have valued animals for their food, clothing and financial security. So someone committing a sin would sacrifice one of their valued animals to God to atone for their sin.

The reason Christians don't sacrifice animals anymore is because of the substitutional sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Both were means to the same end, which was accounting for sin. Here are 5 distinctions between the two forms of sacrifice:

1. The first important distinction is that when an animal is sacrificed it does not come back to life. It is a permanent loss. If among your flock you had an animal that could bring itself back from the dead, how meaningful would it be to sacrifice that particular animal? How would that even be a loss or a sacrifice if the animal just came back to you after you lost it?

2. The second distinction is that animal sacrifice was not retroactive like the sacrifice of Jesus. First came sin and then the sacrifice followed. This is true for everyone before the sacrifice of Jesus Christ but not after. It would be shallow and insincere to kill an animal as an insurance policy just in case you sin in the future, or preemptively performing a sacrifice today so you can sin tomorrow. The sacrifice loses its meaning when you can sin with the knowledge that a sacrifice has already been made on your behalf. With the knowledge of the sacrifice of Jesus people know their sacrifice was already made and this can become a consideration for pretty much any sin.

3. Animals do not choose to be sacrificed is another distinction. They were chosen by their owners. How would the meaning of the sacrifice change if it were the animal that volunteered to be sacrificed? Thusly taking away responsibility from their owners? The focus would shift from it being the owners act to the animals act. This would fundamentally changing the dynamic for atonement, yet this is exactly what can be observed with Christianity. Jesus, unlike the animal, was a willing participant in his own sacrifice.

4. A fourth distinction is that people killed animals they valued, that is why the sacrifice is supposed to have meaning. But the people who killed Jesus did not value him. For whom was Jesus truly sacrificed?

5. Finally, animals were sacrificed to atone for the sin of the person who killed them. A sacrifice must be an intentional act for it to be considered a sacrifice, yet the people who killed Jesus didn't kill him for him to be offered as a sacrifice. When someone offered an animal as a sacrifice they intended that animal to be a sacrifice for their sin, in Christianity however it was God who valued Jesus and God who intentionally offered Jesus as a sacrifice. Given what we know about sacrifice this tells us that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was because God did something wrong and God offered a valued sacrifice to atone for God's wrongdoing. Because sacrificing Jesus would not be a logical way for humans to atone for their sin, but it would be a logical way for God to atone. Jesus never belonged to us, he belonged to God and therefore wasn't ours to sacrifice.

What if Christianity makes more sense if it is God who is asking humanity for forgiveness? And what if that is why the teachings of Jesus were mostly about the value of forgiveness? Yahweh trying to win over humanity with a sacrifice which loses its meaning when that which he offered as a sacrifice would just come back to him.

The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is the foundational principle on which the entire religion is built. But what do the previous considerations tell us about its true meaning?"

Here are some interesting thoughts on Jesus Christ and the meaning of sacrifice which I addressed in the following thread: viewtopic.php?style=11&p=376819#p376819"

@Cornfed argued that most of these points are dumb. What do other Christians such as @MrMan, @Outcast9428, @69ixine and @Mr. Mistoffelees think to the above reflections. Can they be refuted?

My buddies @Lucas88 and @Winston probably know that Jesus could not have existed and must merely be a fabrication of the Jews.

[MrMan]

There's a lot of ignorant misinformation here. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, so a 'Jew' or Judean in that sense. But a patrilineal descendant of Benjamin, Saul/Paul was considered a Jew. Jews who grew up in Rome were Jews.

In the book of John Israelites are called Jews (or the word translated Jew). In some context it refers specifically to Judaeans who lived in Judea as opposed to Galillee, another part of the Holy land with Israelite residents, or to the rulers of the Jewish people in Judea who ruled from Jerusalem under domination from Rome.

Does the man who wrote this live in Judea? Like many first century Jews before the destruction of the temple, can he trace his genealogy to the patriarchs?

[MrPeabody]

Jesus never existed. He was a fiction created by Hellenized Jews who wanted to reconcile Greek philosophy with their Hebrew faith. In John, Jesus is called “logos”. Logos was a concept developed by the Greek philosopher Heraclitus.

[69ixine]

@Pixel--Dude see this https://www.ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=25

The christians according to Eusebius a christian historian were originally called Theraputae,and The theraputae religion was a amalgamation of pagan savior gods that died on a cross.Eusebius also stated they had the gospels before christ even allagedly existed.

After Julius Caesar rome became a dictatorship of the jews,and caesar was a dictator that served the jewish power interests.

the decadence of rome can be attributed to the jews,just like today in america.

@WilliamSmith As a Estruscan descendant of Rome,I apologize for what we did under jewish influence and control to your noble peoples.All roman emperors after Caesar(the first one,seeing were a democratic senate beforehand)were Foreigners too.

[MrMan]

@Pixel--Dude see this https://www.ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=25

The christians according to Eusebius a christian historian were originally called Theraputae,and The theraputae religion was a amalgamation of pagan savior gods that died on a cross.Eusebius also stated they had the gospels before christ even allagedly existed.

After Julius Caesar rome became a dictatorship of the jews,and caesar was a dictator that served the jewish power interests.

the decadence of rome can be attributed to the jews,just like today in america.

@WilliamSmith As a Estruscan descendant of Rome,I apologize for what we did under jewish influence and control to your noble peoples.

Where is the quote from Eusebius on that? I do not recall that in his Ecclesiastical History.

I don't see where you get the idea that the Jews were to blame on Roman decadence. They were probably a moderating influence, and where do you get the idea that Caesar served the Jews?

[69ixine]

There's a lot of ignorant misinformation here. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, so a 'Jew' or Judean in that sense. But a patrilineal descendant of Benjamin, Saul/Paul was considered a Jew. Jews who grew up in Rome were Jews.

In the book of John Israelites are called Jews (or the word translated Jew). In some context it refers specifically to Judaeans who lived in Judea as opposed to Galillee, another part of the Holy land with Israelite residents, or to the rulers of the Jewish people in Judea who ruled from Jerusalem under domination from Rome.

Does the man who wrote this live in Judea? Like many first century Jews before the destruction of the temple, can he trace his genealogy to the patriarchs?

Good post.christians are mental jews.

[69ixine]

@Pixel--Dude see this https://www.ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=25

The christians according to Eusebius a christian historian were originally called Theraputae,and The theraputae religion was a amalgamation of pagan savior gods that died on a cross.Eusebius also stated they had the gospels before christ even allagedly existed.

After Julius Caesar rome became a dictatorship of the jews,and caesar was a dictator that served the jewish power interests.

the decadence of rome can be attributed to the jews,just like today in america.

@WilliamSmith As a Estruscan descendant of Rome,I apologize for what we did under jewish influence and control to your noble peoples.

Where is the quote from Eusebius on that? I do not recall that in his Ecclesiastical History.

I don't see where you get the idea that the Jews were to blame on Roman decadence. They were probably a moderating influence, and where do you get the idea that Caesar served the Jews?

read the link timmy.

[69ixine]

[MrMan]

Can't really watch the vid without waking people up. Eusebius took them for Christians. If they weren't and were a pre-Christian pagan group, that does not mean that he was endorsing paganism. It would mean he was wrong about a group he had heard about. He lived in Syria. His Ecclesiastical History devoted some space to opposing heresies, quoting Irenaeus for example.

[MrMan]

@Pixel--Dude see this https://www.ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=25

The christians according to Eusebius a christian historian were originally called Theraputae,and The theraputae religion was a amalgamation of pagan savior gods that died on a cross.Eusebius also stated they had the gospels before christ even allagedly existed.

After Julius Caesar rome became a dictatorship of the jews,and caesar was a dictator that served the jewish power interests.

the decadence of rome can be attributed to the jews,just like today in america.

@WilliamSmith As a Estruscan descendant of Rome,I apologize for what we did under jewish influence and control to your noble peoples.

Where is the quote from Eusebius on that? I do not recall that in his Ecclesiastical History.

I don't see where you get the idea that the Jews were to blame on Roman decadence. They were probably a moderating influence, and where do you get the idea that Caesar served the Jews?

read the link timmy.

Where is the Roman decadence part or the quote from Eusebius.

Why do crackpot reinterpretation of history like this appeal to you? As with many crackpot conspiracy theories this article makes huge unsupported leaps to 'connect tge dots'. It's pretty ridiculous to conclude that Jews had a long game to create Christianity to psychologically tie Gentiles to the. It is dumb, unrealistic, and ignores much of history. In real life, how events pan out is not so predictable.
There was persecution toward early Christians from time to time from the priests and Pharisees.

Where is the evidence for Philo propping up the emporer. If he had some money, so what? A lot of people had money. That does not prove that he controlled the emporer in distant Rome from Alexandria. Given Philo's teachings, some of which aligned well with Christianity, it should not be surprising that some of the followers of his school of thought would embrace Christianity when it arrived in English. But the last I heard there was no evidence that he became a Christian, and why believe a crackpot theory that Christianity was invented in Egypt?

The author hear seems to treat Jewish global conspiracy as some axiomatic truth and reads it back into history. A Jewish mob in Rome after Rome destroyed the temple might have scared some Roman officials but that doesn't mean they ruled the empire or pulled the strings. Rome was nultiethnics, and Rome may have had concerns about Germanic and Celtic groups within the city.

[WilliamSmith]

I noticed this on Bitchute on the Sons of God channel (very based channel by a Christian anti-ZOG nationalist, by the way) where he explains the obvious point about how being a Judean does not make one a biological kikeroach (though as far as I know the so-called "Apostles" like that mentally twisted faggot Saul aka "Paul" were indeed biologic lying kikeroaches):

Lotus ✓
Of course he wasn't a Jew. But being born in Judea is like being a "New Yorker". It's just a geographic location. Not sure how these things correlate. Hehehe. Judaism didn't even exist when Jesus lived. Jesus was born in Judea but he didn't live there long because king Herod wanted to kill him. So they fled to Egypt when Jesus was an infant and when they came back he never lived in Judea again, but in Galilee.

The word Jew, meaning someone who follows the Talmud, was invented in 1775 A.D., whereas the occurrences in the Bible took place from around 4000 B.C. to 70 A.D. When the translators of the Bible translated "Jews" they either refer to "Judeans" or "Judahites" meaning someone from Judea or a descendant of Judah. They don't refer to ­­­­­­followers of Judaism. Judaism didn't even exist, but the traditions of the elders - did.

Its modern connotation points to someone who follows and adheres to a faith similar to that of the Pharisees of Judah, but is not of the tribe and stock of Judah. In other words, Jews are people from nations other than the 12 Hebrew tribes who practice a religion known as Judaism/Pharisaism, the doctrine of the Pharisees.

It is much like those who believe in Christ and are called Christians, in honor of the One whom they follow, and their religion is known as Christianity, the doctrine of Christ.

In fact, the religion that is known as Judaism is actually Pharisaism. Judaism – as it pertains to Pharisaism – is a misnomer, since it is neither the doctrine of Judah nor the doctrine that Christ practiced, hence not an Abrahamic faith.

Here's the link even though the subject of the video is different: https://www.bitchute.com/video/QahYfwXjGP6M/

[WilliamSmith]

Repost from an email I sent a while ago to @Lucas88 and @Pixel--dude :

I spotted an article by that fellow Dalton (not the best Bond actor, but rather the antisemitic researcher who wrote "The Jewish Hand in World War 3" among other excellent pieces) that seemed to be strongly echoing Lucas's conclusions about "rabbi jewsus" (LOL) and how he thinks "Paul" (Saul) and other lying jew "apostles basically fabricated the mythos as a means of subversion to weaken and bring down the Roman Empire:
https://www.unz.com/article/jesus-the-jew/

Obviously a great deal of what the lying jew apostles made up is an overt chintzy knock-off of oldtime pagan astrotheological religions (the "Suns of God" book by that chick Acharya S went into a lot of detail about that if I remember rightly), but I'm not sure about the historical Jesus part and the matter of whether he was a biological jew or a Gentile Judean....

Anyway, just thought I'd pass it on in case either of you found this interesting. Here's a quote from Dalton sounding a lot like what Lucas has told me about Jesus on several occasions :

The likeliest conclusion to this mess is that the Jew Paul and the anonymous Jewish gospel writers made it all up: that there was no miracle-working Son of God, no virgin birth, and no resurrection. They did so, not for fame or money, but because they believed that promulgating a pro-Jewish, anti-Roman theology would aid the Jewish cause. (Pro-Jewish, because the Christians are to worship the Jewish God, the Jewish rabbi Jesus, and the Jewish ‘virgin’ Mary; anti-Roman, because “the worldly powers” of Rome are a manifestation of Satan and must be defeated.[1]) And in the end, it did. Judeo-Christianity flourished, ideologically defeated Rome, and then took up residence in Rome itself. “Without doubt, Rome has been conquered,” as Nietzsche said.

[WilliamSmith]

Addendum:

A response to the Dalton piece (posted above) and others (apparently both Dalton and these "Christians for Truth" are "white nationalists," LOL) debating whether Christianity is a bunch of jew bullshit (which is what Dalton, the National Vanguard crowd, and Lucas and Pixel--dude all seem to think), or from these guys' POV (I guess) they think Jesus was a Gentile:
A Christian Response To 'Jesus The Jew' By White Nationalist Thomas Dalton - Christians for Truth
https://christiansfortruth.com/a-christ ... as-dalton/

They link to additional research articles for all points, but this quote here was somewhat interesting:

Here we would like to address the criticisms that Dalton directs toward Christianity point by point, but before we start, we would most certainly acknowledge that the vast majority of “judeo-Christian” denominations today certainly deserve the criticisms that many White Nationalists have brought against it — the most important and valid being that it has allowed Jews to infiltrate, subvert, and destroy our White, historically-Christian nations.

However, the reason that Jews have infiltrated and subverted Christianity is that it was a serious threat to Jewish power rather than an instrument of Jewish domination. And Jews began infiltrating the Catholic Church very early on as “conversos” who worked feverishly to “judaize” the faith — and corrupt the European bloodline.

And then Jews openly supported the Protestant movement in order to break up the hegemony of the Church — for the self-serving strategy of divide and conquer Christendom by replacing our hereditary aristocracy with judeo-Masonic bankers and their willing executioners.

The writer I quoted above there is certainly right about many things, including how the Catholic Church has been so taken over by jews at this point that it's practically like a bad joke. Did you hear that the jew-worshipping Pope, in addition to shilling for virtually every other aspect of the ZOG's "globalist" agenda for years, actually just invited the revolting "Piss Christ" artist to the Vatican for a personal visit with the f-ing pope, LOL? You can hardly make this shit up.