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.
Benjamin H. Freedman, Jewish Historian - Researcher - Scholar.
From "Common Sense", p. 2-1-53 and 5-1-59
"Christians have been duped by the unholiest hoax in all history, by so-called Jews. This is considered their most effective weapon."
"This 'big lie' technique is brainwashing United States 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 18th century A.D. 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."
"American 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 curricular 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. Incontestable facts supply the unchallengeable 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 Turko-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 about 740 A.D. became so-called "Jews" by conversion, were concealed from American 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 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 him, 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 York'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."
Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew.
During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. 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 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".
JESUS WAS NOT A Jew by Jason Collett
Many denominational Christians and even church leaders are under the mistaken belief that Jesus was a Jew. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Judea and Galilee were two separate states and political entities, as illustrated on the map of Palestine in the time of our Saviour in your Bible. Jesus Himself was not a Jew (Judean) or resident of Judea, He was a Galilean or resident of Galilee (Matthew 26:69; John 7:41), and a Judahite or descendent of the Tribe of Judah. The Judeans of prominence were not of the Tribe of Judah, but of Edomites. Pilate was being ironic when he wrote the sign "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans" for the Cross (John 19:19). That is, "the Galilean who was King of the Judeans," as in "Queen Victoria of England, Empress of India." Jesus grew up in Nazareth in Galilee. His disciples were fishermen from the Sea of Galilee. And although He visited Jerusalem, he spent most of His life in his home country of Galilee. John 7:1, "After this Jesus stayed in Galilee; for He could not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him." His followers were constrained "for fear of the Jews" (John 7:13, 19:38, 20:19).
Why was this?
Psalm 83:3 says God's elect are "hidden" or protected ones, and that they are under attack from a coalition of evil groups led by Edom. Who was Edom?
Esau, the brother of the patriarch Jacob, became the ancestor of the people called Edom, or Idumea. The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, XIII ix 1; XV vii 9 instructs us: John Hyrcanus forcibly assimilated the Edomites as a national group and they became "Jews" in about 120BC. The Jewish historian Josephus, who lived just after the time of Christ, wrote, "They [Edom] were hereafter no other than Jews'. The Jewish scholar Cecil Roth in his Concise Jewish Encyclopedia (1980) says on page 154, "John Hyrcanus forcibly converted [Edom] to Judaism. From then on they were part of the Jewish people. In the Talmud the name of Edom was applied to Christian Rome, and was then used for Christianity in general".
Terrible judgements against Edom are made in most of the prophecies of the Old Testament. For instance, Isaiah 34, 63, Jeremiah 49, and the entire book of Obadiah.
Isaiah 63:1-6, "Who is this coming from Edom . . . in garments stained with crimson? It is I [the Lord] who speak in righteousness and am mighty to save."
"Why are your garments red, as if you had trodden the winepress?"
"I have trodden the winepress alone: and of the people there was none to help Me. In My anger I trod them down, trampled them in My wrath. Their blood splattered My garments, and all My clothes are stained. For the day of vengeance is in My heart, and the year of My redeemed has come. . . I will tread down the people in My anger, and bring their blood upon the ground".
These verses refer to Revelations chapter 19:11-21, when the Word of God destroys His enemies: "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse: and He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True. . . His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns, and He had a Name written that no man knew but Himself. And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and His Name is called The Word of God. . . and He trod the winepress of God’s fierce anger".
Jehovah of the Old Testament "hated Esau (Edom), against whom He has indignation forever" (Malachi 1:2-4). If Jesus will destroy Edom when He returns, then Edom is present today, and obviously evil, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic.
The Edomite, Antipater, became the Procurator of Judea in 47BC. Ten years later his son Herod actually became "king of the Jews," initiating the Edomite dynasty which ruled Palestine under Roman authority for over a hundred years. The Edomite assimilation opened the way for the virtual takeover along the lines predicted by Ezekiel and stimulus for an influx of population from the arid country of Edom into the more hospitable environment of Judea, an influx obviously encouraged for political reasons by the ruling Herodian dynasty. Edomites would have been appointed to the most influential positions, in order to extend and consolidate Edomite authority over the land and its people. Herod became notorious for his massacre of infant boys two years old and undger," a supernaturally inspired attempt on the life of Christ (Matthew 2:16). Herod's son Herod Antipas, continuing the work, and was responsible for the gruesome murder of John the Baptist (Matthew 14:6-12).
Christ demonstrated a very real antipathy towards the people called Jews, in Bibles published after about 1776, but who would be more accurately described as Judeans, or residents of the Edomite-dominated territory of Judea. Jesus said to the Jews "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:24-27). "I was only sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). In fact, Christ referred to "those Jews (or residents of Judea regardless of religion, race or color) who believed on him," as "of their father the devil" for although they were children of Abraham, they were not children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and heirs of the blessing of Abraham, nor did they have the faith of Abraham, and were in all probability descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Esau (John 8: 31,44). In contrast, Jesus instructed His disciples - who were from Galilee of the Gentiles, not Judea (Acts 1:11; 2:7) - to pray to <="" i=""> And in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, Jesus speaks of "those who say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan".
The Jews shouted "Crucify Him!" (John 19:15); "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). In an appropriate turn about, when Jesus returns, their blood will stain His own garments. The spiritual leaders of the Jews were the Pharisees, who not surprisingly were associated with the (Edomite) Herodians (Matthew 22:15-16; Mark 3:6; 12:13). Jesus repeatedly condemned the Pharisees as "hypocrites" (Matthew 15:7; 22:18; 23:13,15,23,25,27-27). He also called them "serpents, the offspring of vipers" (Matthew 3:7; 12:34; 23:33).
"Jesus spoke to the crowds only in parables" (Matthew 13:10-17). Why was this? Many nominal churches and Sunday schools teach that Jesus used parables to make His teachings clearer. But all four Gospels say the opposite. When Jesus was asked why He spoke to them in parables, He replied "Because it is given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given" (Matthew 13:10-11; Mark 4:11-12; Luke 8:9-10; John 12:37-44). Brother Branham simply said, Jesus spoke in parables to thin down the crowds.
Jesus told "those Jews who believed in Him . . . You are of your father the devil, and lust for what is forbidden. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him . . . as he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:31-44). This characteristic is confirmed by the dictionary definition of the verb jew .
But do Jews ever come up with such brazenly audacious lies, lies so enormous in scope and implication as to qualify as "chutzpah," so admired by Jews?
Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York says:
"The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a ‘victim’ state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable benefits accrue to this specious victimhood – in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified" (Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (2000) published by Verso, p. 3).
In other words, Finkelstein exposes the HYPOCRISY.
Some further quotes:
"In an authoritative study, Leonard Dinnerstein reported: Sixty thousand Jews . . . walked out of the concentration camps. Within a week more than 20,000 of them had died." But ‘As it entered into negotiations with Germany [just two years ago, in 1999], the Holocaust industry demanded compensation for 135,000 still living former (camp inmates).’
On page 83 he notes that ‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of "living Holocaust survivors" at nearly a million.’ Finkelstein exposes the LIES.
On page 127 he further notes ‘If 135,000 former Jewish slave laborers are still alive today, some 600,000 must have survived the war. That’s at least a half-million more than standard estimates. . . If Jews only constituted 20% of the surviving camp population and, as the Holocaust industry implies, 600,000 Jewish inmates survived the war, then fully 3 million inmates in total must have survived. By the Holocaust industry’s reckoning, concentration camp conditions couldn’t have been that harsh at all; in fact, one must suppose a remarkably high fertility and remarkably low mortality rate. . . If, as the Holocaust industry suggests, many hundreds of thousands of Jews survived, the Final Solution couldn’t have been so efficient after all – exactly what Holocaust deniers argue" (pp. 127-8).
"Both my father and my mother were survivors of the Warsaw ghetto and the Nazi concentration camps. . . One of my father’s lifelong friends was a former inmate with him in Auschwitz, a seemingly incorruptible left-wing idealist who on principle refused German compensation after the war. Eventually he became a director of the Israeli Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem. Reluctantly and with genuine disappointment, my father finally admitted that even this man had been corrupted by the Holocaust industry, tailoring his beliefs for power and profit. As the rendering of the Holocaust assumed ever more absurd forms, my mother liked to quote (with intentional irony) Henry Ford: "History is bunk." (ibid. p. 7).
"The Holocaust proved to be the perfect weapon for deflecting criticism of Israel" (ibid p. 30).
"Much of the literature on Hitler’s Final Solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud." (p. 55).
"Given the nonsense that is turned out daily by the Holocaust industry, the wonder is that there are so few skeptics". (p. 68).
"Annual Days of Remembrance of the Holocaust are a national event. All 50 states sponsor commemorations, often in state legislative chambers. . . Seven major Holocaust museums dot the American landscape. The centerpiece of this memorialization is the United States Holocaust museum in Washington. . . [This] museum’s annual budget is $50 million, of which $30 million is federally subsidized." (p. 72). (This is in spite of the fact that, as he points out on page 32, per capita Jewish income in the US is almost double that of non-Jews).
"With a reelection campaign looming, Jimmy Carter initiated the [US Holocaust Museum] project to placate Jewish contributors and voters, galled by the president’s recognition of the "legitimate rights" of Palestinians.’ (p. 73).
Finkelstein exposes the SWINDLE, a word formerly most often associated with Jews.
"The Holocaust" is an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust. Like most ideologies, it bears a connection, if tenuous, with reality. The Holocaust is not an arbitrary, but rather an internally coherent construct. Its central dogmas sustain significant political and class interests." (p. 3). And:
"The Holocaust may yet turn out to be the "greatest robbery in the history of mankind". . . The Holocaust industry has clearly gone berserk." (p. 138-9).
Is this evaluation fair?
Have a look at a typical account by one of the seemingly endless number of survivors: Olga Lengyel’s Five Chimneys: a woman survivor’s true story of Auschwitz (Granada/Ziff-Davis, 1947, 1972).
The blurb on the cover of the book quotes the New York Herald-Tribune: "Passionate, tormenting". Albert Einstein, the promoter of the US construction of the bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is quoted as offering "You have done a real service by letting the ones who are now silent and most forgotten (sic) speak."
"After June, 1943, the gas chamber was reserved exclusively for Jews and Gypsies. . . Three hundred and sixty corpses every half-hour, which was all the time it took to reduce human flesh to ashes, made 720 per hour, or 17,280 corpses per twenty-four hour shift. And the ovens, with murderous efficiency, functioned day and night. However, one must also reckon the death pits, which could destroy another 8,000 cadavers a day. In round numbers, about 24,000 corpses were handled each day. An admirable production record, one that speaks well for German industry." (Paperback edition, pp. 80-81). [No trace of any remains of or in ‘death pits’ has been found.]
This implies almost 100,000 corpses per four working days, or a million in 40 days, or six million in 240 days (eight months).
Could this claim be a misprint?
Kitty Hart, in spite of her name, a Jewish survivor born in Poland, fully confirms these figures:
"Working around the clock, the four units together could dispose of about 18,000 bodies every twenty-four hours, while the open pits coped with a further 8,000 in the same period." (p. 118; Return to Auschwitz - paperback edition by Granada (1981, 1983).
According to the cover blurb, "The subject of the award-winning Yorkshire television documentary of the same name." "Both engaging and harrowing . . . an important addition to the growing holocaust literature, very little of which conveys so courageously both the daily torment and the will to survive" – Martin Gilbert, The Times.
Martin Gilbert, indefatigable Jewish campaigner on behalf of the ‘Holocaust’ and biographer of Winston Churchill, adds to the rich flavour and makes his own numerical claims, certainly not without chutzpah:
In his book Auschwitz and the Allies (1981) he states:
"The deliberate attempt to destroy systematically all of Europe’s Jews was unsuspected in the spring and early summer of 1942: the very period during which it was at its most intense, and during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed every day at Belzec, Chelmo, Sobibor and Treblinka." (p. 26).
If we assume a minimum figure of 200,000 per day, this amounts to say one million over a five-day working week, or 6 million in six weeks, and this does not include the truly awe-inspiring claims for Auschwitz put forward by Hart and Lengyel with Gilbert’s blessing.
A detailed forensic examination of the site of the wartime Treblinka camp, using sophisticated electronic ground penetrating radar, has found no evidence of mass graves there.
For six days in October 1999, an Australian team headed by Richard Krege, a qualified electronics engineer, carried out an examination of the soil at the site of the former Treblinka II camp in Poland, where, Holocaust historians say, more than half a million Jews were put to death in gas chambers and then buried in mass graves.
According to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1997), for example, "a total of 870,000 people" were killed and buried at Treblinka between July 1942 and April 1943. Then, between April and July 1943, the hundreds of thousands of corpses were allegedly dug up and burned in batches of 2,000 or 2,500 on large grids made of railway ties.
Krege's team used an $80,000 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) device, which sends out vertical radar signals that are visible on a computer monitor. GPR detects any large-scale disturbances in the soil structure to a normal effective depth of four or five meters, and sometimes up to ten meters. (GPR devices are routinely used around the world by geologists, archeologists, and police.) In its Treblinka investigation, Krege's team also carried out visual soil inspections, and used an auger to take numerous soil core samples.
The team carefully examined the entire Treblinka II site, especially the alleged "mass graves" portion, and carried out control examinations of the surrounding area. They found no soil disturbance consistent with the burial of hundreds of thousands of bodies, or even evidence that the ground had ever been disturbed. In addition, Krege and his team found no evidence of individual graves, bone remains, human ashes, or wood ashes.
"From these scans we could clearly identify the largely undisturbed horizontal stratigraphic layering, better known as horizons, of the soil under the camp site," says the 30-year old Krege, who lives in Canberra. "We know from scans of grave sites, and other sites with known soil disturbances, such as quarries, when this natural layering is massively disrupted or missing altogether." Because normal geological processes are very slow acting, disruption of the soil structure would have been detectable even after 60 years, Krege noted.
While his initial investigation suggests that there were never any mass graves at the Treblinka camp site, Krege believes that further work is still called for.
"Historians say that the bodies were exhumed and cremated toward the end of the Treblinka camp's use in 1943, but we found no indication that any mass graves ever existed," he says. "Personally, I don't think there was a mass extermination camp there at all."
Krege prepared a detailed report on his Treblinka investigation. He says that he would welcome the formation, possibly under United Nations auspices, of an international team of neutral, qualified specialists, to carry out similar investigations at the sites of all the wartime German camps.
(Sources: "'Vernichtungslager' Treblinka: archaelogisch betrachtet," by Ing. Richard Krege, in Vierteljarhreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, June 2000 [4. Jg., Heft 1], pp. 62-64; "'No Jewish mass grave' in Poland," The Canberra Times, January 24, 2000, p. 6; "Poland's Jews 'not buried at Treblinka'," The Examiner [Australia], Jan. 24, 2000. Information provided by Richard Krege; M. Weber and A. Allen, "Treblinka," The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992, pp. 133-158; Y. Arad, "Treblinka," in I. Gutman, ed., Encyclopedia of the Holocaust [New York: 1997], pp. 1481-1488.)
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 will not find the word Jew in the first eleven books of the Bible. The first time Jews are mentioned in the Bible, is in II Kings 16:6 (and then only in translations revised in the eighteenth century) where we find Israel was at war with the Jews and drave the Jews from Elath. 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 their Torah. Do you not find it rather 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 anywhere in the book they call their 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 in Genesis 17:5, and that He changed the name of Jacob to Israel in Genesis 32:28, but nowhere in the Bible do we find where God changed the name of Israel to Jew! There is therefore no authority by which those who say they are Jews can claim to be Israel!
By the time of Jesus the word Edom or Edomite had been translated by Greek and Latin into Ioudaios and Iudaeus meaning a 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. The word Jew does not mean Israel or Israelite! We must conclude therefore that the first "Jews" were Canaanite-Edomite-Hittite. It is certain, according to the Bible, that Jews are not Israel. jesusjew.htm
Not at all... Despite the clamor of the blinded in part, "church-goer" and the duped "Judeo Christians" following the likes of Billy, Jerry, and Pat, et. al, Jesus would have been a follower of the Babylonian Talmudic Pharisaism of the day, which exists in the very same antiChristian Judaism form today... In fact, St. Paul even described it as well, noting that it was even then, working in his day, that "mystery of iniquity."
Judaism follows the Talmud and not the Torah, the first five books of Moses...The Torah takes a far distant 2nd place in the minds and comments of the Rabbi's of Judaism and as a consequence, they do not follow the original Hebraism of the early Israelties, those who met and agreed to abide by the Law given to them at Mt. Sinai.
When the tribe of Judah was taken to Babylon in a mild form of captivity, they abandoned their ancient Hebraism of the Torah and began to follow the "oral traditions" of the Pharisees who were called upon to circumvent these early Laws of the Torah while they were in the Las Vegas of the day, Babylon... This circumvention given to the Figs of Judah, both the good and bad, evolved into the long series of Rabbinical traditions that became the infamous, Talmud... now 63 volumes of very antiChristian writings and commentary... and cleary anti Jesus..
So, when He called them down and stated that their rules make the Laws of non-effect, He was speaking about their Talmud...
So, would Jesus have become a Jew in order to abide by the Talmud... Go figure... Hardly... Jesus was not a Jew..
--J, Richard Niemela.
Was Jesus A Jew?
The First Jew by Barton A. Buhtz
You and I, everyone has a heritage. We are intrigued by our past. Where did we come from? Who might be our ancestors? Few of us can trace our specific family ancestry back more than a few generations. In a broader sense we can often trace our racial ties back to Europe, Africa, Asia and so on.
Even the people of today called "Jews" are for the most part a social, religious group whose ancestry is nearly as obscure as others.
Have you heard the disciples of Jesus referred to as Jews? Have you heard Jesus Himself called a Jew? Was Abraham a Jew? What does Scripture reveal? According to the Bible, who was the first Jew?
God, through his servant Moses, very carefully laid the groundwork for the answer to these questions in Genesis chapter ten.
His description of the geneology began with Noah and his three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth. Moses recorded the descendants of Ham and Japheth, but only for a few generations. The focus, however, was on Shem. Note that he dealt with the eldest son last.
Beginning with Genesis 11:10 Moses detailed the geneological line of Shem. His great-grandson was Eber. That name means "The Land Beyond" or The ones who crossed over." Genesis revealed that Eber's region of settlement was from Mesha toward Sepher, the hill country of the East. (Gen. 10:30)
The land of Eber can generally be defined as East of the Fertile Crescent and North of the Tigris-Euphrates river. This region became known as the Land of Eber and the Bible refered to his descendants as "Hebrews."
Thus, as we trace the family tree, we come to Terah, a Hebrew. He was the father of Abram later named Abraham by God. Abraham was a Hebrew as was his nephew Lot. Their ancestor had migrated to and settled in the Ur of the Chaldees.
Abraham's story is well-known. The call of God. His migration to Canaan, to Egypt and to Canaan again. The birth of Isaac. The choice of Isaac's bride from the Land of Eber. The birth of Jacob and Esau to Isaac and Rebekah.
Clearly to this point in history all of the descendants in the geneology are Hebrews. But with Jacob a change took place. God gave him the name Israel.
Now Jacob was still a Hebrew, but he was also the first Israelite. Jacob married two women, both daughters to Laban, also a Hebrew.
Jacob had twelve sons. All twelve were identified as children of Israel and all were Hebrews.
Only one of the twelve sons of Jacob, now Israel, was named Judah. He became the patriarch of the tribe of Judah from which we get the expression "Jew." Judah, therefore, was the first Jew. King David was a descendant of the tribe of Judah. After King Saul's death David became king of Judah. Later the other tribes of Israel made a treaty with him and David became king over all Israel.
Jesus was clearly a descendant of King David as recorded in Matthew and Luke, but was Jesus a Jew?
Why Watch Pharisees
By C. E. Carlson
What better time than the birthday of Jesus Christ to examine the Pharisees, as He did. Jesus had much to say about this sect that had established control over spiritual life in Judea and was even able to manipulated the leaders of the occupying Roman Legion. The noun Pharisee occurs at least 87 times in the New Testament. They are invariably in conflict with Jesus. However, any use of this word has mostly been eliminated from the teaching of seminaries and pulpits of America's churches and the professing Christian media .
What is a Pharisee and WHY don't we hear about them any more?
Webster defines Pharisee: "One of the members of a school or party among the ancient Jews noted for the strict formal observance of the rites and validity of traditions of the elders. Pharisee interpretation provided the standard of observation and belief for the great majority of the Jews from the 1st century A.D. Pharisaic: Hypocritical, self righteous and censorious of others" (Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd edition, 1950.)
Jesus confronted the Pharisees daily, as we believe all true followers of Christ should do. No longer an exclusive Jewish term, the pharisaic influence can be found in every church and synagogue in America, busily reshaping Christianity into its own image.
Every mention of "Pharisees" occurs in the New Testament, forming the center of conflict swirling around Jesus, His disciples and followers. The Pharisees stalked and persecuted them throughout their missions. Along with the 78 verses where they are mentioned by name, the Pharisees are also named by the pronouns "they" or "them" in many more verses. They are the object of Jesus' debates in several complete chapters of Matthew, John and Luke which provide accounts of the ongoing conflict and plot against his life.
The name Pharisee occurs 54 more times than the infamous name of Judas, and twenty times more often than the name of Pontius Pilot. It is without a doubt the most infamous name in the New Testament, second only to Satan. Jesus consistently denounced them as associates of Satan and his lies.
Yet the word "Pharisee" has been pointedly ignored and all but forgotten in modern Christendom. It may be the most avoided word found in the Bible. Many church pastors and most televangelists are capable of preaching the year through without ever mentioning the word Pharisee, except in passing over it like an extinct and irrelevant species. Bible study courses rarely mention who the Pharisees were, and why Jesus pronounced upon them so harshly. Could it be that any celebrity Christian who wants keep his TV contract knows that he must never suggest that the Pharisee's war on Jesus has anything at all to do with us, or that this anti-Christ sect may have survived to this day ?
The word "Pharisee" has not yet been removed from any Bibles we know of. Though we believe this too might soon be attempted. Most Bible commentaries and concordances avoid any serious treatment of who the Pharisees are and what they believe. One example is the concordance in the new, very popular Thompson Study Bible which is supposedly designed to help readers understand the scriptures. Amazingly it contains only one of the 78 sites about Pharisees found in Strongs, the accepted standard. The 1962 edition contained four of the 78. It appears that the publisher is progressively phasing the word out of our Christian vocabulary.
Jesus denounced this most powerful and destructive faction of anti-Christianity as damned, calling them a "generation of vipers" and "sons of Satan." However, most study Bibles and courses omit all but a casual mention of the Pharisees.
The purpose of Pharisee Watch is to bring to light the ongoing influence of the Pharisees on our modern society and how they continue the attempt to control our lives. Jesus clearly shows us how they controlled Judea during His time. Needless to say we do not think Pharisees have gone away or they would not still be tampering with The Faith. Webster's definition spotlights Pharisaism as modern Judaism. This is proudly echoed by many rabbinical sources, who are quite arrogant of their station. They would move heaven and earth to discourage thousands of pastors and televangelists from teaching what Jesus has told us so clearly.
The granddaddy of all the Pharisee censors is the powerfully promoted Scofield study Bible, first printed in England in 1908, but sold in America. It contains hundred of notes about the "rapture in the last days" and the return of the ancient tribe of Israelites to the Holy land.
The latest version of Scofield has even advanced "anti-Semitism" to the status of a "sin." Each of the four successive editions have further advanced the claim of the self-proclaimed Jews to the real estate known today as the State of Israel. However, Scofield hardly contains a note about the hundreds of verses recording Jesus' daily conflict and the plot of his death by the Pharisees.
The first mention of Pharisees occurs in Matthew 3:7 when they appear in number at the Jordan River where John the Baptist proclaimed the coming of the Messiah. John's encounter is vividly recorded in Mt. 3:7: "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" Matthew 3:8, "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance."
One early exchange between Christ and the Pharisees occurred in Matthew 12 where Jesus called them "an evil and adulterous generation"in a powerful exchange that fills most of the chapter.
Matthew 23 primarily highlights Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees. Verses 31-34 reads: "Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city" (King James version).
How can such a discourse be ignored during the entire careers of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jack Van Empe and dozens more like them? They have made a career of promoting The State of Israel, regardless of the moral cost.
Luke 21 and John 8 contain more of the incessant confrontations of Jesus with the evil ant-Christ sect. We suggest every skeptical reader look up and read each of the 78 situations in Strongs containing the word "Pharisee." Ask your own pastor when he last preached on what Jesus meant. Every follower of Christ should ask himself, "Why is almost all mention of the most powerful and evil cult to appear in the New Testament avoided and shunned by Christian leaders today?"
For most Judeo-Christians, who has not come to realize that their pastor, priest, minister, or whatever title they go by, are either lying or don't know that when they say "Jesus was a Jew." Yet if one declares that Christ was not a Jew brings the immediate response: "Of course He was a Jew." And yet, how many who thus assert that Jesus was a Jew are doing so as a result of a study of the genealogical evidence? Recently there has been quite some discussion about the genealogical lists in Matthew and Luke. So let just study the evidence and see what turns up.
There is no factual evidence to verify or sustain those who have accepted the traditional teachings of the Judeo-Christian Church which proclaim Christ to be a Jew. This statement is made with the full realization that there are those who will dispute it; not because they possess evidence to the contrary but because they would defend a doctrinal teaching, even against the truth. Out of honest error, or because they have some agenda to deceive Christ's followers.
The assertion that Jesus was a Jew is the result of centuries of belief based upon the teaching of the Judeo-Christian Church whose leaders have assumed, because they have known no better, or wish to continue the deception because it enhances their image and finances, from the anti-Christs who have their own agenda for this falsehood to be perpetuated, that Christ must be a Jew. Just as the Judeo- Christian has been mistaken in assuming that all Israelites are Jews, so they have erred in presuming that all who are born of the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel must be, by virtue of their birth, Jews.
Along with the need of recognizing that not all Israelites are Jews, in fact few are, is the need of remembering that the word Jew had a much broader meaning than the designation of a racial group. In a strict religious sense, the use of the term Jew designates those who are of the Jewish faith and worship in they syna>gog Let us look at a few passages of Scripture frequently cited to confirm the belief that Jesus was a Jew. Christ met a woman of Samaria who said to Him: "How is it that thou being a Jew, asketh drink of me... for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." (John 4:9) She knew from His garments that Jesus was a follower of the Jewish doctrines and one who worshiped in the synagogue. She marveled that He would ask her for anything, for the strictly religious Jew refused to deal with her people. That was not a racial reason, but a religious one; and Jesus ignored the prejudices of His time.
Between the Jews and the Galileans was an even greater antipathy than usual. Christ, as we learn was mistaken by this woman to be a Jew. At another time He marveled when He beheld "an Israelite, indeed, in whom is no gile," and we like to think that He said this smiling. Do we need to be told that He knew how guileful they were? Instances are numerous throughout the New Testament and even today where the racial differences come to the surface. And on the Jewish part, all this is corroborated by the Talmud itself, which records a racial taboo against the peoples of the north. Surely it is a monstrous perversion of the truth; this claim that Christ was a Jew, that is now being used by Jews and modern Judeo-Christians in the incredible damage of Christ's mission to all the world. A recent historian said: "Whoever makes the assertion that Christ was a Jew is either ignorant or insincere: ignorant when he confuses race and religion; insincere when he knows the history of Galilee, and partly conceals, partly distorts the very entangled facts in favor of his religious prejudices, or it may be, to curry favor with the Jews. (Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Foundations of the XIX Century, p. 211)
The outstanding fact in the world's history is that CHRIST CAME. That even asked the beginning of this era. We reckon time both backward and forward therefrom. Its significance is acknowledged the world over. Why then, should Israelites and especially Christian Israelites, allow that supreme fact to be swallow up among the traditions of Judaism?
If He had been of the Jewish people it would merely have contributed to the insufferable arrogance of that unfriendly and unneighborly people; a people with a past to be apologized for perpetually. If it was a part of divine wisdom that He appeared in the midst of Judaism, the uncongenial background must be the explanation therefore, by way of contrast to His divinity. He came in the midst of Jewry at that time in history because He knew they would attempt to steal the birthright from its true heirs, and would almost deceive the entire world into believing they were Israel. This is the reason for His statement: "If I HAD NOT COME AND SPOKEN UNTO THEM (The Jews), THEY HAD NOT HAD SIN: BUT NOW THEY HAVE NO CLOKE FOR THEIR SIN. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But THIS COMETH TO PASS, THAT THE WORD MIGHT BE FULFILLED THAT IS WRITTEN IN THEIR LAW, THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE." (John 15:22-25)
Many of the earliest Christians, not yet emerged from the cult of Judaism, and because of their lack of perspective, deserve forgiveness for their nearsightedness. But how is it possible for any Christian today to betray Christ to Jewish pride, arrogance and duplicity, after all these years, these centuries of evidence, that He did not and does not belong to the Jewish people!
Two things these earliest Christians did; just as many of us might have done, in order to articulate this New Religion with their own personal and historic past: First, they appealed to the Jewish messiah tradition, naturally enough, since they were either Jews or Judaised; Second, they went back to Jewish prophecies (they did not have the Bible to read and study as we do), just as a Greek might have gone back to Greek prophecies had He been born in Greece.
Testimony to the advent of Christ, the claims of the anti-Christs and their poll parrots notwithstanding is not limited to the New Testament writers, nor even to the "church fathers," as anyone may find by consulting the following names authorities:
First: Flavius Josephus, a Roman governor of Galilee, the best known of the ancient Jewish historians (37-95 A.D.)
Second: Tacitus, Roman historian. (55-120 A.D.).
Third: Pliny the younger, Roman historian (112-??? A.D.).
Fourth: Suetonius, Roman historian (70?-140? A.D.).
Fifth: Lucian, Greek Essayist (middle of second century, A.D)
The testimony of these and all like them is all the more weighty because it is unwilling or even hostile. They saw the amazing spread of Christianity, "like a pestilence," as one of them put it, sweeping away ever vestige of their native Greeko-Roman religion. Naturally they were disturbed and antagonistic, the more so because of the agitation of the Jews.
Among moderns (Professor S.M. Woodbridge, D.D., L.L.D.) the following comments upon Christ may be cited:
Thomas Carlyle: "Jesus of Nazareth is our divinest symbol; higher has human thought and not yet reached; a symbol of quite perennial infinite character."
J.J. Rousseau: "For men to invent such a sublime character would make the inventors more wonderful than they being they portray."
Goethe: "I esteem the gospels to be thoroughly genuine, for there shines forth from them a reflected splendor of sublimity proceeding from the person of Christ, of so divine a kind, as only the Divine could ever have manifested upon earth."
Fichte: "There is no man of sense who will not bow before this astonishing phenomenon."
J.P. Richter: "The life of Christ concerns Him, who, being the holiest among the Mighty, lifted with His pierced hands empires off their hinges, turned the stream of centuries out of its course, and still governs the ages."
Napoleon I: "Jesus Christ was not a man; there is between Him and all others the distance of infinity. Conceive Caesar ruling the empire from the depths of his mausoleum, yet for Christ there are millions who would die."
Then it is pointed out that Pilate wrote a title over the cross, "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews." THIS IS SEIZED UPON BY THOSE WHO WOULD MAKE JESUS OUT AS A JEW RACIALLY TO CONFIRM THEIR DECLARATION THAT HE WAS A JEW. But would the fact that he was King of the Jews necessarily make Him a Jew? King George VI who once sat upon the throne of Great Britain was also King of India, but was he by virtue of that fact an Indian? Of course not. History amply proves many times that the king of a people need not necessarily be of the same race.
Scripture declares that the kingly line would be of the house of David, for God made a covenant with David promising the perpetuity of his throne. If Jesus was King of the Jews He must then, of necessity, be the house of David, for it was through this house that the fulfillment of the promise of the coming King was to be made. The question, therefore, resolves itself into this: If Jesus was a Jew, then the house of David is Jewish. And thus it becomes necessary to determine the racial characteristics of the house of David in order to secure the answer to the question of whether Jesus was a Jew or not. Jesus was of the house of David is taught in the Old Testament and confirmed in the Gospels. Let us, therefore, proceed to establish the nationality of Jesus by establishing the nationality of the house of David.
It is clear in Scripture that a people and race were selected through whom, according to the promise, the Coming One, who was to be the Savior, Jesus Christ the King, would come. It was the line of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob/Israel. The descendants of Abraham, however, even through Isaac and Jacob, are represented in different branches of the human race. The Turk and the Arab are descendants of Abraham but not through Jacob. It is "through the twelve sons of Jacob" that the promise of the Coming One was to be fulfilled. One son of the twelve was selected for this purpose!
In studying the blessings given by Jacob to his twelve sons (as recorded in the 49th chapter of Genesis) the scepter, or kingly line, was to come through Judah only but, as with Abraham so with Judah, his descendants are not confined to one people. The Jew, as we know him today, is only a small minority of all the Jews on earth, who are descended through Esau, Judah and other Israelites who mixed with the other races, and as such never received the promised blessing of having the scepter or of being the kingly line, for that passed to another in the line of Judah, centuries before the Jew as such became the rulers of Palestine and Jerusalem.
Judah had three sons: Pharez, Zarah and Shelah. Pharez and Zarah were born out of wedlock, while the two brothers of Shelah, Er and Onan, died before Pharez and Zarah were born. Without going into too much detail, but which detail can be found in the Bible, Pharez alone became the progenitor of the tribe of Judah. The descendants of Zarah left Egypt BEFORE the Exodus and became the progenitors of the Milesian civilization that was established around the shores of the Mediterranean; but, though of the line of Judah, they were not Jews. The descendants of Shelah, who were workers in fine linen, left the rest of Israel shortly after the Exodus and before Israel entered the promised land and joined with their brethren of the Zarah line in their westward trek.
Judah, the son of Jacob, was not a Jew but a Hebrew and Israelite; a Hebrew because he was of the line of Heber, who was one of Abraham's great-grandfathers (five generations before Abraham) and an Israelite because he was a son of Jacob: who was the first Israelite. So far the record is clear; and now, when it comes to following the line of Judah in its many branches, most students have assumed (without investigation) that there are no subdivisions in this line: an assumption contrary to the facts as shown in Scripture and verified by history.
For while Pharez became the progenitor of the tribe of Judah, as we follow closely the history of this tribe we find that it also is subdivided into distinct, separate groups of people. The scepter was promised to Judah but, studying and following the line of Judah, one discovers that out of the tribe of Judah God selected the house of David as the one who would wield the scepter.
It was to David the Lord said, "And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established before thee; and thy throne shall be established forever." Ferrar Fenton renders this, "Your House , and your Kingship shall endure forever. Your throne shall be established forever." (2 Samuel 7:16) Here, then, is the line of the scepter and in no other branch of the tribe of Judah will it be found. Jesus Christ must needs be of the house of David in order to fulfill the requirements of the Messiahship.
It was of that house the Bible declares He came! After the house of David was selected from the tribe of Judah, the remaining families of the tribe of Judah became the house of Judah. So the tribe of Judah was thus divided in David's time into two houses: the house of Judah and the house of David. Even then the Edomites (The father of the Jews) were working to destroy God's Israel people. For we find Edom warring against Solomon in I King 11:14-17: "And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom. For it came to pass, when David was in Edom, and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain, after he had smitten every male in Edom; (For six months did Joab remain there with all Israel, until he had cut off every male in Edom:) That Hadad fled, he and certain Edomites of his father's servants with him, to go into Egypt; Hadad being yet a little child." So we can see the Jews working, under the name of Edom, to destroy God's Israel people, but the Jews NEVER appeared in the house of David.
This is what Matthew and Luke were trying to relate to Christians but it went over their heads for lack of knowledge.
Nevertheless, to this day there are those who can not believe anything other than that Christianity is only a continuation of the Jewish religion with certain additions that are peculiarly Christian. What fatal nonsense is this? An imposter in His place would not have dared to flout the authority of Moses and the prophets, nor to invite comparisons with them; yet Christ, speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, asking for a "sign" told them that "a greater than Jonas," and "a greater than Solomon is here." (Matthew 12:39-42; Luke 11:31-32) Had He been only the Son of Man, with no more authority than that of a wandering teacher of righteousness, as modern Jewry would have us believe, they would have stoned Him to death for that saying. His attitude toward the best that the past had to give, including Moses, the law and the prophets, was scarcely more than a respectful indifference. At the same time, for those who had not yet abandoned the old nor chosen "the more excellent way," (1 Corinthians 12:31) he merely counseled compliance with the old. Men realized as they never did before that when He did speak with authority there was the combined weight of the whole universe behind His words. The positive conviction and assurance of His message and personality were His heavenly credentials. Whatever he called Himself, that, indeed, He was, let them say what they will of the miraculous birth to account for His presence among men.
Be aware that the scribes and Pharisees did question His authority. Yes, and so did the devil in the temptation in the desert. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4) That was their business, and they were answered on each and every occasion. But their object was merely to win a point in an argument, and had little, if anything, to do with the search for truth. The real significance of these parleys lies in the fact that both the scribes and the devil appealed to tradition: "For is it not written," etc., betraying a slavish adherence to the past that is typical of Judaism. Christ's mentality contrasts so vividly with the static-mindedness, a backward-looking type of mind, that this distinction alone divides Him from the Jewish people. It is utterly irrational to assume that He could have evolved from a people with a hide-bound concept of morality, of ethics, of deity and humanity and their relations to each other, in the most despicable ways. Even without the support of history, this is a difference which alone would lift Him immeasurably above the level of those whose only moral guidance was, "Thus it is written." His mentality was alive and unbound. It was not derived from Judaism, but IN SPITE OF IT.
Let us briefly follow the history of the house of Judah and note a few of the high lights so important in proving that even the house of Judah are not Jews. Just prior to the Babylonian captivity a remnant from this house took Jeremiah and his band, against Jeremiah's advice, into Egypt. The prophetic forecast as given by Jeremiah was fulfilled in their descendants who became the people we know today as the Gypsies; and though the Gypsies are descendants of the house of Judah, they are not Jews.
The major portion of the house of Judah was carried away into Babylonian captivity. When at the close of the seventy years of that captivity a remnant of this house returned to Jerusalem, the balance of the house of Judah, still in Babylonian territory, ultimately moved north and west and joined with their brethren of Israel in their westward trek. In the course of time these descendants of the house of Judah became the Jutes of Jutland (or Judahlanders) and in the fifth century A.D., took part with the Saxons in the invasion of England. But there were no Jews in this branch of the house of Judah.
At the end of the seventy years of Babylonian captivity a remnant of the house of Judah (just a small part, not the entire house of Judah) returned to Palestine with the tribe of Benjamin and some of the royal seed of David, as well as a few of the tribe of Levi. A small portion of this group married other races and became Jew, but they were not all Jews. The Benjaminites were a tribe in Israel and therefore not Jews. The royal seed were of the house of David while the priests were of the tribe of Levi. Certain one, both of the house of Judah that had returned from Babylon and some of the priests, intermarried with the inhabitants of the land. These intermarriages were severely condemned by both Ezra and Nehemiah. These forbidden marriages were made with the Hittites and this in time produced a distinct racial type whom we call Jews. In other words, the Jew as we know him today is not of pure Israel stock, but, the blood of the Hittites, Canaanites, and Khazars in their veins. This intermarriage gave the Jew his dark hair and eyes and the facial characteristics by which he is known and recognized today.
The origin of the Jew does not, therefore, antedate the return from the Babylonian captivity, but resulted from the admixture of Hittite blood after the return from Babylon to Palestine. Because the house of David was selected from the tribe of Judah many centuries prior to the time of these inter-racial marriages, there are no Jews as such in the house of David. Jesus, being of the house of David, was therefore not a Jew; though religiously He could be termed a Jew, for He worshiped in their synagogues.
Now we will turn to the record as given in the New Testament, which furnishes further evidence that Jesus was of the house of David and not of the house of Judah nor of the branch of that house represented in Jewry. Luke states: "The angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary." (Luke 1:26) In the annunciation to Mary the Angel declared, "The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David," (Luke 1:32) and by that ver declaration confirms that He is of the lineage of David, or else the Angel Gabriel could not refer to David as His father.
Many statements in both the Old and New Testaments prove Him to be a descendant of David. Every one of the prophecies concerning the Messiah by inference or by direct mention refer to the Messiah as of the house of David. Isaiah informs us: "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots." (Isaiah 11:1) Jeremiah declared: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called. THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jeremiah 23:5-6)
After the resurrection and ascension God gave His Son a special revelation which He communicated through John to His followers. It was a letter sent by Him through His messenger! At its close Jesus said of Himself: "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."(Revelation 22:16) There can be no question as to His being of the house of David.
None of the disciples, other than Judas (the traitor - as a good many of their kind), were Jews. They were Galileans and, therefore, from the tribe of Benjamin. It was the members of this tribe, and not the Jews, who accepted the teachings of Jesus and afterwards became Christians. It was Judas who betrayed Him and it was the Jews who fought the Christians, persecuting and driving them from Jerusalem; causing the early church to be scattered abroad.
John tells us that during the ministry of Jesus, "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." (John 7:1) The inferences is clear. There were no Jews in Galilee where Benjamin was residing and Jesus confined His activities to this territory for the time being and kept out of Jewry, or the territory of the Jews.
After the resurrection of Lazarus, which fact was reported to the Pharisees, a council was called of the Pharisees and chief priests to see what could be done about Him. "Then from that day forth they sought counsel together for to put him to death." (John 11:53) This fact was known to Jesus and so John states, "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near the wilderness into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples." (John 11:53-54)
Jerusalem was the seat of the Sanhedrin and the stronghold of Jewry. Here they were powerful and were able to wreak vengeance upon anyone who opposed them. But the hour drew near when Jesus knew He must go to Jerusalem and so Luke tells us, "And it came to pass, when the time was to come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem." (Luke 9:51) So Christ took the twelve disciples aside As they journeyed towards the city, telling them, "Behold we go to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again." (Matthew 20:18-19)
Although Jesus and His disciples were believed, by most of the Judeo-Christian Clergy of today, to be Jews as to their faith and religion and yet ONLY ONE OF THEIR NUMBER WAS ACTUALLY A JEW. IT WAS HE, THE TRAITOR, WHO BETRAYED HIM.
The failure to make the distinction between one who is a Jew by birth and one who is a Jew by faith has led to much confusion regarding the use of the word Jew in the New Testament. When Peter denied that he was one of the disciples of Jesus at the time of His trial he was told: "Thy speech betrayeth thee." Ferrar Fenton translates this, "For your dialect proves it plainly." (Matthew 26:73) Why could they say this of Peter? It could be said because Peter, though by faith a Jew, was not one racially for he was a Galilean and of the tribe of Benjamin and his dialect would be that of a Galilean, thus not Jewish. Jewry recognized that the men of Galilee were the followers of Jesus and that His disciples were Galileans; and so at Jesus' trial Peter, being known to be a Galilean, was immediately accused of being one of His followers.
Let it be recognized and understood that all who are declared to be Jews in the New Testament are Jews by faith and may not be Jews racially. This is clear from the statement in Acts describing certain ones who had come up to Jerusalem to attend the feast of Pentecost. We are told that many Jews, devout men, out of every nation, were present and a list is given of the nations in which they were born. That such were not all Jews by race is clear from the context, which states many of them were proselytes or converts to Judaism. Yet, regardless of their race, because they had accepted the faith of Jewry they are all designated as Jews.
We know that Christ kept the ritual and the requirements of the law and was in attendance in the synagogues, participating in its worship and thus by faith it could be said He was a Jew. In like manner any one who today accepts the Jewish faith and attends their synagogues would become a Jew, for the word Jew designates a belief as well as a people. But, though Jesus appeared to accept the Jewish religion, His purpose was to fulfill the law of ritual and become the Lamb to be slain; by His sacrifice making the keeping of the ritual for the remission of sins unnecessary in the future.
Upon the death of Christ the veil in the Temple was rent from top to bottom and in that act God brought to an end the rituals, abolishing the sacrifice of animals and opening the way for men to approach God through His Son, Jesus Christ.
But though religiously accepted as a Jew, as were all of His Disciples, yet BY DESCENT CHRIST WAS NOT A JEW racially or otherwise but of the royal seed of David's line, and in that line there are no Jews. Being of the royal seed He was born to be King, as the two different genealogies prove; He was heir to the throne through both His mother and his stepfather. This is clear in His reply to Pilate's question: "Art thou a king?" Christ answered, "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world." Prior to this, Pilate had asked Christ if He was King of the Jews? Jesus DENIED IT BY SAYING THAT HE HAD A KINGDOM BUT IT WAS NOT OF THIS WORLD (the original word translated world here is kosmos and means "world order"). He then goes on to declare that if His kingdom were of this word (world order), founded on violence, and the sword, then His servants would fight that HE WOULD NOT BE DELIVERED TO THE JEW; after which He informed Pilate that His Kingdom is far from this world order.
Therefore, the fact of Scripture is that the house of David was selected to become the kingly line, that this house was set apart to develop and expand in its own line as distinct from the rest of Judah, and that the remainder of this tribe became the house of Judah. Furthermore, no man of the house of David could be racially a Jew, for they are not a race, but only a people with a common religion.
Some say that the Jews have married into the royal line and have corrupted it. And well they might have, but that does not mean they have corrupted the entire line of David. For just as Mary and Joseph were not recognized as belonging to the royal family, they were directly descended from king David, through Solomon (Joseph - Christ's stepfather) and Nathan (Mary His mother). Therefore, it is clear to anyone using their head and thinking for themselves that when Christ returns the throne of David, the Lord's Throne; this is related in 1 Chronicles 29:23: "Then SOLOMON SAT ON THE THRONE OF THE LORD AS KING INSTEAD OF DAVID HIS FATHER, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him."
Why, then, do men call Jesus a Jew? It is because they are careless and unmindful of Biblical teachings regarding races and people, between races and branches of those races. They have failed in this as they have failed to make a distinction between the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Between the house of Judah and the house of David. Thus, failing to distinguish between the house of David and the house of Judah, and mistakenly believing that the tribe of Judah are the Jews, they call Jesus a Jew.
Of course much of this trouble results from the erroneous declarations of the Judeo-Christian church whose leaders, by their doctrinal teachings, have undertaken to make the Jews represent all there is of Israel and in so doing have designated Jesus as a Jew, through either ignorance or deliberate deception to placate to the Jews. When one is in possession of the facts of Scripture, and familiar with the genealogical evidence recorded in the book, the foolishness of many false doctrinal teachings of the Judeo-Christian church becomes apparent.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.