The real holocaust
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (54)
sorted by:
This smells like bullshit to me. I don't care about surveys anyway. Let me be honest with you, I believe you're a jew. I'm not, but there are personal reasons I wish they could be saved. Let's just leave it at that.
They'll never accept Jesus, because they have no idea who or what he is. Heck, the Church, for the most part, doesn't know either. Only a miracle from the true God might change that. Like I said Jesus is the awakening, he is alive and he is the truth. All of it rejected by the jews today.
IMO, jews don't need to think about Jesus, all they have to do is get rid of all their possessions, money, fame, prestige, "the chosen people" mentality, their Talmud, Zohar and Kabbalah. And stop lying and trying to cause division with their lies, in order to become rich. But, that is hard to do. "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into God's kingdom." - Matthew 19:24
I know about that.
Go back and re-read my comment. I said the concept of jew was invented later, then the word jew was coined. The first time the word jew was used was in 1775 AD, when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals", II,i, "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew.". Even the letter J was only invented in the 16th century. It was first used as a letter by Gian Giorgio Trissino in 1524. However, the distinction between J and I as separate letters was not fully established until the 17th century. Trissino made the distinction from the Greek word “Iesus”, a translation of the Hebrew word “Yeshua”. He “found” that the proper spelling should be Jesus, as we now hear it in modern English.
No idea what that means. But I know this is confusing for most people. They worked very hard to conceal Jesus's identity. Most people in Judea (edomite jews) at the time of Jesus, to whom he had very harsh things to say, were not a part of any tribe of Israel, including the Tribe of Judah. They were a mixture of Babylonians, Cannanites, Hittites, but mainly Edomites.
Jesus was an Israelite. He was a direct descendant of Levi through Aaron. Levi was the third son of Jacob. Jacob was named Israel by God. Jesus was also a direct descendant of Judah through David. Judah was also a son of Jacob. Jacob’s sons were the first Israelites. Jesus was specifically an Israelite because he was a direct descendant of two of the sons of Jacob/Israel.
It doesn't really matter what Talmud teaches or doesn't. Many jews today define themselves as jews only in an ethnic or cultural sense. Most are either agnostics or atheists. For instance Theodore Hertzl, considered the father of Zionism, was an atheist. And that applies to the rest of the Zionists that work hard on the project Israel. They lie.
I'm a covenantalist Reformed Christian who discovered the Hebrew roots by study of covenant.
Then you would support Jewish evangelism that shows them unavoidably who and what Jesus is, by miracle, which is what Hebrew study drives me to strive for, including suffering with Jews as other missionaries suffer with the people they've adopted.
When Ju was coined ca. 900 it meant the same as Judaeus. The fact that it went through various spellings before standardization, Iewe, Iew, Jew, etc. doesn't change that; the late date of the I/J distinction doesn't either. I don't know the first time it was spelled "Jew", but that's irrelevant because it meant the same as "Iewe" which is much older. The pronunciation difference also emerged much earlier, probably before the 1300s, than it was made a hard rule.
Since the words for Jew always referred to the same polity of people descended from the Judahites, there is no point at which a new concept for "Jew" was invented.
That's what there is no evidence for. When the Jews were founded, a mixed multitude of Egyptians joined them and intermarried, and they were united not on birth alone but by birth or naturalization through circumcision. Over time the Canaanites and others sometimes intermarried but their culture was resisted consistently and only the Jewish circumcised culture was permitted; this is also true of Hyrcanus's conversion of the Edomites. There is no point at which the Judeans were regarded as two people, Israelite and non-Israelite; they were all Israelites by birth or naturalization and they kept Israelite culture. I pointed out that the Pharisees kept the same mishna as Jesus did, there were never two mishnas. Therefore Jesus and the Judeans were the same people, there was only one people; the other tribes of Israel had been absorbed into Judah/Judea. The fact that Israel was led by Aaronites (kohanim) and Levites shows that they were all Israelites.
The Bible gives Jesus's descent from Judah via his mother and his kingly rights to Judah via his adopted father, and explicitly denies that Jesus was from Levi (Heb. 7:11-14), so I don't know who's giving you the Levi angle because it's not the Bible.
So I've respectfully asked people, if they think there were two peoples that maintained such distinction that descendants of both can be distinguished today, when was there ever evidence of these two peoples staying apart all this time? The evidence doesn't show that. It shows that outsiders don't have the right to say who are Jews, and I add that this is so in the same way that everyone agrees that Jews don't have the right to say who are Americans.
Mary was closely related to Elizabeth, wife of Zacharias. Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron, and therefore so was Mary. So Mary was descended from the tribe of Levi, through Aaron. I did say Jesus was also a direct descendant of Judah through David.
Most people, like yourself, think Jesus was a jew, but Jesus was an Israelite, not a jew. Israelites were the ones who were called "the chosen people of God.” Edomites, and their descendants, now called jews, are not the chosen people. The fact that modern day jews want us to think they are descended from Israelites is one of the greatest intentional lies in history.
You could say Jesus was a jew by religion, but that would also be false. Jesus's religion was Hebrewism, the religion of the Hebrews and of the Israelites. “The return from Babylon [following the Captivity, about 538 B.C.], and the adoption of the Babylonian Talmud, marks the end of Hebrewism, and the beginning of Judaism" - Stephen S. Wise, chief rabbi of US
When the people returned from the Babylonian captivity, brought back a different religion than the one practiced earlier. The new religion was the Tradition of the Elders (or Judaism, see Steven S Wise above), and that religion was based on the teachings of the rabbis (Talmud). Jesus criticized the jews, or Pharisees, for establishing the Talmud, which at the time of Jesus was still called the Tradition of the Elders. The Israelites who were still in Judea in Jesus time practiced Hebrewism, the religion of their ancestors, even though that religion had been largely eliminated by the rabbis.
Yes, we now have the right to identify those so-called jews. The crimes they have and continually are committing all over the World gives us that right. From banking/usury, to financing wars (on both sides), to loxism, to Epstein, to secret societies, to ADL and AIPAC, to wokism, to terrorism, to communism, to pornography, to mass illegal migration, to genocide in Gaza, and more ... give us that right.
I told you that you don't have a separate group of Edomites that remained Edomites and suddenly got the name "Jew" later. You had Edomites that became (a minor) part of the Judahites by conversion and assimilation, and you had the remaining Idumaeans who disappeared from history after the war of 66-73. After losing the Temple there were only Judahites left. Some Judahites were Amoraim (the writers of the Talmud) and some were Christians. This difference was not ethnic but sectarian just like any other prior sects in Judaism. They were all Judahites and used the same mishna. The Christians didn't write down the mishna and adapted their oral traditions into the written decisions of the councils (starting with Peter at Jerusalem, which is judged very mishnaically with reference to the Laws of Noah); the Amoraim did write down their version of the mishna and their commentary and debates on it (the Talmud). The same Judahite Amoraim were called Judaeus in Latin and were the same ones shortened to Ju in 900s France. There was no Edomite people between 73 and 900 to suddenly emerge in France, there were just the Amoraim, who traced their lineage to the Judahites that lived before 70.
So the continuous polity that has called itself Judean and Ju all this time is the same people, even if they once had an influx of Edomites that did not change their base polity, commitment to Torah, or naturalization rules. The Jews don't get to say America is a black nation just because we've had a much longer influx of blacks than the Judeans did of Edomites, do they?
Stephen Wise is inventing words as there was no "Hebrewism" or "Ebraismos" in 538 BC and if we were to retroactively name it that name would be invalid because Edomites were Hebrews (sons of Eber) also. What they called it was elder tradition, Mosaic law, and in Greek Ioudiasmos or Judaism. It would be accurate to give it the retroactive name Yahwism. Further, he doesn't speak of an event that changed one to another but a millennium-long process of one expression becoming another (until the adoption of the Talmud after 500 AD). Well, during this millennium as he knows, the expression of Yahwism also yielded the Way, Messianism, Christianity. Both branched and became separate geographically and culturally. So in Jesus's day both he and all the Judeans (Judahites) kept the same dynamic Yahwism and argued over its direction. None of the Judeans continued to identify as Edomite; like Herod the Great, their children were recognized as birth Jews with naturalized Edomite heritage, and the objection that they were not Jews at all was popularly rejected. There was no Edomite people or nation identified as such that kept Yahwism or what Wise calls "Hebrewism".
The people who returned from Babylon were not Edomite but Judahite, including specifically Zerubbabel of the Davidic line. They followed the same religion, rebuilding a temple in the same place, and Nehemiah and Ezra established the elder tradition based on the same Torah and open Writings and Prophets as before. If there had been a separate "Hebrewism" at this time parallel to the elder tradition, there would have to have been a separate people who held it, but they don't exist. Also, my fren, you're just wrong to say there were rabbis or Talmud in 538 BC; there were no rabbis until the first century AD, and there was no Talmud until after 500 AD, although the generic word "talmud" for study was used (but not to mean a core of oral tradition, which instead came to be called mishna by Jesus's day). Anyone of standing could contribute to elder tradition, and Jesus learned from the example of Rabbis Hillel and Shammai in particular, who were noted for their hundreds of internal disagreements; there was no one tradition, there was a pattern of recognizing all deliverers of tradition and judging them, and that's what Jesus did as well, placing his judgments sometimes in agreement with and sometimes in disagreement with tradition (Matt. 23:3).
There is no evidence of two separate people called "Israelites" and "Judahites" (seeing as all Judahites are sons of Israel), who had two different religions and identities in the same land for 600 years, who never intermixed, who both had pedigrees from Judah meaning there was no way to distinguish them ethnically and yet who in this hypothesis were perfectly distinguished. No, one evidence is that there was a separate people already, Samaritans, over that period who was clearly distinguished from Judahites, and who did keep separate from intermarriage, and where we do have plenty of evidence of separation of culture despite similar tradition; none of that exists for this theory of Hebrewists and Judaists. Further, among the Judahites, we have a continuous testimony of teachers carrying on the same polity even though it typically resolved itself into two parties of elder tradition (the Zugoth), led by the Nasi and the Abbethdin who operated together to lead the one Sanhedrin. These two parties could be considered conservative and liberal, culminating in Hillel and Shammai and arising as the Pharisee and Sadducee (lead) parties. This division also exists and has nothing to do with a separate people from the Judeans that would still be called "Israelites". The Sadducees died with the temple and the Pharisees participated in the split of Rabbinical Jews and Christians, some Pharisees (Joseph, Nicodemus, Gamaliel, Paul) siding with the Christians and some (Johanan ben Zakkai) siding with the nascent rabbinical movement. It is facile to take a rabbinical statement about a millennium-long transition and to treat it as speaking of two separate peoples all that time instead of a single chain of tradition among a single people (without reference to same chain informing the Messianic branch).
TLDR 1: You are perpetuating a narrative that has no basis in historical facts and that posits a distinction within a people for 600 years that does not exist. Your theory was already tried here again this month and found wanting.
If you were to speak of the Edomite influence in Judaism, that exists just as it would also in Christianity, because the Edomite influx informed both. There is no separate Edomite people that suddenly got called "Ju" in 900s France, as if the continuous people that were called Judaeus in Latin for the millenium before that, the Talmudists who had Judahite genealogy, didn't deserve that title.
Now I didn't say you don't get to call out the likes of Epstein for calling himself Jewish. By all means expose all satanists and cabalists with no need to reference ethnicity. So there's no need to read me as saying that. What I did say is that we don't have the right to say that the whole group who identifies as Jews and Judahites today, who still often have genealogies going back to Judah and Levi, don't have the right to the name "Jews". If we say that, we affirm that outsiders get to decide names rather than insiders, and that would give the Jews logical rights to say we're not Americans but unnaturalized immigrants are the true Americans. Every people-group gets rights to self-determination and to decide who is one of them by immigration processes. Your argument amounts to saying the Judahites were too stupid to manage their own immigration process to maintain their identity, and we get to say from outside who the "true" and "false" Judahites were because their immigration decisions on the ground, when they knew the requirements of circumcision, count for nothing. It sounds like a very Jewish and subversive argument, frankly.
TLDR 2: I write because I have data and I earnestly want to know if my data is wrong. This theory has reared itself on Scored repeatedly, always without evidence, and so my honest quest for evidence remains. A discontinuity of people is not evinced by one millennial rabbinical view of process. Instead, the history shows one people of Judah who have been influenced and intermarried successively with Egyptians, Babylonians, Edomites, and Khazarians, and others, but who maintained their unity and polity the whole time. If an influx of immigrants gives outsiders the right to declare a polity to have broken, then the American polity would be no more; but as long as Americans uphold the same Constitution they remain the original America. The same is true of Judahites upholding the same Torah.
I'm pretty sure your data is wrong. All human history has been erased, modified, altered. And THEY are hard at work every day censuring anything that could stimulate awakening. "He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." - George Orwell, 1984
I doubt Epstein called himself a jew. I have never heard or read anything like that. But, Jeffrey Epstein was the grandson of jewish immigrants. His father, Seymour Epstein, was jew. His mother Paula Epstein was jew. That makes Jeffrey Epstein a jew. He was deep into Kabbalah and was a satanist, like most of the Elites he associated himself with.
The original America was established to usher in the New World Order, which is the resurrection of the kingdom of Nimrod (Osiris to Egyptians). How do I know that? it's easy, THEY tell me. The Washington Monument is a giant obelisk. The word ‘obelisk’ literally means ‘Baal’s shaft’ or Baal’s organ of reproduction.”. It represents Osiris/Nimrod's phallus. It measures 555 feet in height and has a width at the base of 55.5 feet. In both British imperial and US customary systems of measurement a foot is equal to 12 inches. That means the Washington Monument is: 6660 inches tall and 666 inches wide (at the base)
How about another famous American icon, the Statue of Liberty? Have you ever heard about a famous painting from 1797 by Sir Thomas Lawrence called Satan summoning his Legions?
And the UN Parliament is basically continuing the unfinished work of Nimrod. The Louise Weiss building is meant to look like painting “The Tower of Babel” by Pieter Brueghel the Elder in 1563. Take a look at both buildings side by side here.
What evidence are you looking for? THEY tell you everything you want to know. All you have to do is open your eyes, use critical thinking and have the ability to connect the dots. Everything is hidden in plain sight.