Jewish supremacists in Australia have denounced a textbook used in Victoria schools which blames the Jews for the murder of Jesus Christ — as described in the New Testament — decrying this charge of deicide as “the mother of all anti-Semitic blood libels”:
The Victoria Department of Education and Training (DET) textbook, which is on the booklists of many schools in Victoria, states that “because they saw him as a threat to their power, Jewish religious leaders had Jesus arrested, condemned and crucified by the Romans.”
Parents of students at Glen Eira College spoke to the Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC), a Australian Jewish advocacy group, about the textbook.
Frances Prince, of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV), told the Australian Jewish News in an interview that it was “disappointing in the extreme that such a libellous accusation made its way into a school textbook. I have no doubt that the education department will deal with the matter swiftly and appropriately.”
“The venomous charge that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus has resulted in more than 2,000 years of persecution, violence and murder,” she said.
She added, “Imagine how students of the Jewish faith would feel reading, along with their classmates, this warped text that casts them as ‘Christ killers’, and the hostility they would be subjected to.”
The DET said that it is planning to contact the publisher of Jacaranda Humanities Alive 7 (second edition).
A DET official told the Australian Jewish News that the book is not endorsed by DET. They added that they will contact the publisher to have the offensive portions of the book immediately changed.
“We are also working with our faith groups to ensure the change that is needed is appropriately communicated with the publisher. Victorian schools should use their professional judgment to decide which supports and resources to use in the classroom, based on the needs of their local school community,” the official said.
When Khazar Jews fraudulently took on the identity of Israelites, they took on some rather unpleasant baggage — it wasn’t just the “get out of jail free card” of being “God’s chosen people” as they had cynically hoped.
The Israelites in Judea at the time of Christ — known as “the Jews” in the New Testament — did indeed call for the murder of their own promised Messiah — in fact, both David’s Pslam 22 and Isaiah 53 give remarkably accurate accounts of Christ’s crucifixion at the hands of His own people hundreds of years before it happened.
And if the people who killed Christ were not His own people, He surely would not have asked God The Father to forgive them for what they had done — those not under the law have no need for forgiveness.
Many Judean Israelites under the influence of the Pharisees rejected Christ because He was indeed a threat to their worldly power in Judea — which they had gained by their blind, rigid and hypocritical adherence to the law.
Some contend that it was “fake” Israelites who murdered Christ, but that contradicts prophecy — and why would Christ allow Himself to be sacrificed by a people other than His own — if the purpose of his death was to atone for the sins of Israel?
Throughout the Psalms, King David clearly establishes that “bloodthirsty” Israelites were his persecutors — a foretelling of the persecution of Christ.
But today’s “Jews” want their cake and eat it too — they want all the perks and privileges that come with being “God’s chosen people,” but they understandably don’t want the responsibility of deicide on their shoulders.
And the only way “Jews” can exonerate themselves from the charge of “Christ killers” would be to publicly renounce their false identity as Israelites — as Hebrews descended from the Tribe of Judah.
Of course, in the 1980 edition of the Jewish Almanac, they did just that — admitting to themselves, “Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a “Jew” or to call a contemporary Jew an “Israelite” or a “Hebrew.“
And the fact that today’s “Jews” trace their “Hebrew” identity matrilineally through the mother rather than patrilineally through the father as the Israelites did — is prima facie proof that they cannot be the same people.
But since maintaining this false identity as Israelites is essential to their justification for their seizing the land of Palestine — and ethnically cleansing the Arab people living there — they have painted themselves into a corner and must maintain this charade — after all, duped evangelical Christians give billions of dollars to these fake Israelites based on that lucrative false identity.
And part of that charade is embracing their assumed role as “Christ killers” — subverting and destroying all Christian nations along with the true Israelite people who worship Christ.
In his 1931 novel A Jew In Love, Hollywood screenwriter and ultra-Zionist Ben Hecht wrote,
One of the finest things ever done by the mob was the Crucifixion of Christ. Intellectually it was a splendid gesture. But trust the mob to bungle the job. If I’d had charge of executing Christ, I’d have handled it differently. You see, what I’d have done was had him shipped to Rome and fed him to the lions. They could never have made a savior out of mincement!
the jews are the immemorial enemy of the Catholic Church down thru all the centuries..
“Radical traditionalist” Catholics, who may make up the largest single group of serious antisemites in America,
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/radical-traditional-catholicism
http://holywar.org/index.htm
Well, well…..“because they saw him as a threat to their power, Jewish religious leaders had Jesus arrested, condemned and crucified by the Romans.” How many others were persecuted and assassinated in our time because the Jewish supremacist saw them as a threat to their undue privileged position in Western countries. How many?
Somebody mentioned the 144.000 strong in another discussion and I second that, because this time around they will gather from all corners of the earth and Satanyahu will get his wish be the most powerful nation on earth….
Well said,Lisette!
As for the connection I was making with the quote from Diodorus is simply put, all the White peoples of history are connected, some call them indo-Europeans, others call them Aryans, it is my belief that the “other sheeps that I will bring into my fold” that Jesus said in John 10:16 are these non-Israelites and that wether Romans are of Shem or Japteth doesn’t really matter at the end of the day, we all have the living soul in us.
But nonetheless, it is a fascinating history that makes my knees weak when I realize how much may be hidden from us and that every White Adamite deserves to hear this history.
YHWH bless.
Amen 🙂
Daniel wrote, “it is my belief that the “other sheeps that I will bring into my fold” that Jesus said in John 10:16 are these non-Israelites and that wether Romans are of Shem or Japteth doesn’t really matter at the end of the day”
Fair enough, and I agree… Though there are some whose theology actually hangs on the Romans being Israelites. As in, if the Romans aren’t Israelites, their whole theological view comes crashing down.
Daniel wrote, “But nonetheless, it is a fascinating history that makes my knees weak when I realize how much may be hidden from us and that every White Adamite deserves to hear this history.”
Right, although it’s not fashionable these days to study white history. The world is too confused and pre-occupied with non-whites and trying to give them a place in the Scripture.
Johan wrote, “Though there are some whose theology actually hangs on the Romans being Israelites. As in, if the Romans aren’t Israelites, their whole theological view comes crashing down.”
Interesting point. Can you explain why these people must insist on the Israelite identity of the Romans in order to uphold their entire theology?
Quoting from Finck’s commentary on Galatians 3 (https://christogenea.org/podcasts/epistles-paul-galatians-part-3-seed-seeds),
Paul is saying that no non-Israelite, no one who is not expressly included in the promises of the covenant, can change the meaning of the Scriptures to include himself into the promises of the covenant!
Anyone may read the essay for themselves, but that is basically the argument Finck makes: The covenant is only made to Israelites only.
Therefore, if the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians or Thessalonians are not Israelites, the theology falls over flat. Never mind Timothy (Acts 16:1) or those from Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea, or any of the congregations to whom to gospel was given in the book of Acts. Look at Acts 17:22-34 where Paul preaches to the Athenians… Are we to seriously expect every single one of these congregations were Israelites?
If we could prove just one of these entities to not be Israelites, the whole theology falls down like a house of cards.
As a side-note, just out of interest…
Finck says that the “seed” of Galatians 3:16 is Israel, not the Lord Jesus. He says,
However, in the context of all of the promises to Abraham, if we were to insist that the word seed must be interpreted to refer to a single individual, then it must be interpreted to refer to Isaac, and not to Christ.
Paul says in Galatians 3:16,
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as one would in referring to many, but rather as in referring to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.
Finck is so unable to follow Paul’s rhetoric, and so severely disagrees with Paul, that he says the following:
Therefore, in the context in which the promises of God were made to the patriarch Abraham, as well as the context of Paul’s other statements where he explains the nature of the promises to Abraham, we must assert that only one possible interpretation of the text of Galatians 3:16 is actually valid, and that is the one found in the Christogenea New Testament, which is also literally correct as well, where it says:
“16 Now to Abraham the promises have been spoken, and to his offspring. It does not say ‘and to offsprings’, as of many; but as of one: ‘and to your offspring,’ which are anointed.”
Here “Christos” is written in masculine singular in the Greek. With that in mind, there needs to be a strong case to not render it as referring to Christ Himself. However, Finck neglects to mention this little fact, because in his own eyes, his audience doesn’t need to know…
Yet Paul says in Galatians 3:19,
Why the Law then? It was added on account of the violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
Yet Finck states in his next essay
until the offspring would come to whom [or “to which”] He had promised Himself,
The precise dating of the coming of the Messiah…
So he admits Paul in verse 19 it is talking about the coming of Christ. Compare Finck’s own translation of verse 19 with the interlinear Greek: https://biblehub.com/text/galatians/3-19.htm
His translation is baffling and makes very little sense at face value, yet he hasn’t bothered to offer any explanation. Paul is obviously referring to that same seed to whom the promise had been made in verse 16 and 19. Yet through some translation wizardry — in the eyes of Finck die-hards — verse 19 is made out to mean something completely different to what the Greek says — without any justification as to the wild difference.
Everything which Paul says — line by line — is reduced to Finck’s own context, nonsensically changing the translation to suit that purpose if necessary. In this essay, there is apparently very little continuity in Paul’s own rhetoric. Amazing. It all just attests to the Talmudic nature of these essays…
To correctly interpret Galatians 3, the promise was obviously made to the Lord Jesus. He is the seed (singular). Galatians 3,
22 But the Scripture has confined everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe… 26 For you are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Through faith in Christ, who is the Seed of the promise, we are accounted as children of God. With this in mind, note how Finck’s interpretation quietly removes faith in Christ from the equation, because the promise was made to Israel, not to Christ…
Lavender’s literal Greek translation of Galatians 3:19 is as follows:
“Why then the Law? It was added on account of the transgressions, until the Seed should come, to Whom it has been promised, having been ordered by God through angels by a mediator’s hand.”
And why is it so important that the new covenant be only with Israelites and not also include the pure Adamic Genesis 10 nations?
Leyward —
“…And why is it so important that the new covenant be only with Israelites and not also include the pure Adamic Genesis 10 nations? ….”
This is the Million Dollar Question that I can’t get an answer to!
I have heard “Chris” say that teaching the Genesis 10 Nations (Adamic) have an Inheritance into the Kingdom of Heaven, leads to Universalism.
But CLEARLY ………….. this is the last thing we are teaching.
So ……………. why do they care so much? They won’t answer.
I feel “Ottify’s” frustration when when we divide over issues such as these.
Hope that helps.
Curious —– How long have you been familiar with Malcolm Lavender’s works???
I read Lavender’s book(s) way back in 2005. “The Fallacy of the Sinning Christian” and “He Offered Himself” are my favorite books of his.
Sad to hear of his passing last year.
I have a Proton Mail account if interested.
Cheers.
Leyward wrote, “And why is it so important that the new covenant be only with Israelites and not also include the pure Adamic Genesis 10 nations?”
I think it’s their way of excluding non-whites from the covenant promises. In their eyes, it must be this way because the Scripture to them is a “racial” manifesto instead of being teachings for Israel to be a holy people. They have reduced holiness and the Scripture at large to “racial” purity — which is critical, but not everything.
Although it must also be this way due to their “husband had to die” theology. They believe in the modalistic view of the Son and the Father being literally the same entity, that the Son had to die in order to release Israel from the old covenant.
The old covenant was only made with Israel, and that because of this, the subsequent new covenant was also only made with Israel as well. They explain this because Israel was married to God, but then was divorced. They claim a divorced woman may not return to her husband, but Deuteronomy 24:1-4 stipulates that this is only the case if the woman took another man. However, Israel never made a covenant (Exodus 24:8) with any other gods or peoples, so Israel never took another husband.
In any case, they claim that Israel needs to be remarried to God, but it can’t because it was divorced. So then in order for Israel to be remarried, God as the Son needed to die, so that Israel could be remarried to the Son and to God. Hence the exclusivity with Israel. Hence also the need for a modalist view of the Father and the Son.
Naturally, this cannot be applied to Romans 7:1-6. Romans 7:4,
Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you also were put to death in regard to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
So Israel was put to death in regard to the Law — the old covenant (Exodus 24:8) — so that it could belong to another, which is the Son of God.
Why do they need to believe this brand of covenant theology? I’d probably just go back to the first paragraph in this comment. They’ve decided that the only way to rule out non-whites, is to make the covenant exclusive to Israel.
“….I think it’s their way of excluding non-whites from the covenant promises. In their eyes, it must be this way because the Scripture to them is a “racial” manifesto instead of being teachings for Israel to be a holy people. They have reduced holiness and the Scripture at large to “racial” purity — which is critical, but not everything…..”
Brilliant! Which got me thinking —- it seems that this “Camp” also espouses the “All Israel will be Saved” mantra; which is simply a reiteration of the judeo-christian creed of Once Saved Always Saved/Eternal Security.
Perhaps the two are related on a much deeper level.
Their “skin” saves them. Not their Obedience — John 14:21
Johan wrote, “They’ve decided that the only way to rule out non-whites, is to make the covenant exclusive to Israel.”
So they deny that Paul was the apostle to the “nations”? Or do they just define “nations” to suit their theology, that is, “nations” means the “lost northern 10 tribes of Israel” and no one else?
Why make such an effort to exclude racially pure Adamic people from the Genesis 10 nations? Why exclude them when prophecy clearly states that those non-Israelite nations will serve Israel? Will they serve Israel but not be saved?
And how do people who espouse this “Israel only” covenant theology know that they themselves are Israelites and not, say, Japhetites?
How is there any guarantee that someone who claims to be an Israelite is more likely to be racially pure than an Adamic person?
It seems to me that they lack complete faith in God–faith that He knows what he’s doing, and that He’s not going to let anyone in the kingdom who doesn’t belong there…..
westwins wrote, “it seems that this “Camp” also espouses the “All Israel will be Saved” mantra; which is simply a reiteration of the judeo-christian creed of Once Saved Always Saved/Eternal Security. Perhaps the two are related on a much deeper level. Their “skin” saves them. Not their Obedience — John 14:21”
I would take it a step further and say it is universal reconciliation, or true universalism. It is a salvation theology which requires absolutely no faith in the Lord Jesus, and so it is simply “another Jesus”. It is a theology that believes the Lord said in vain: “And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes will have eternal life in Him.” (John 3:14-15)
Chesterton wrote, “So they deny that Paul was the apostle to the “nations”? Or do they just define “nations” to suit their theology, that is, “nations” means the “lost northern 10 tribes of Israel” and no one else?”
Right, everywhere where it says “nations” in the NT, it must always be interpreted as the lost tribes of Israel.
It’s like Luke 4:29 and Acts 21:28 all over again…
I’m no expert on scripture or the Christogenea doctrine, but i know for a fact they do believe that all Adamites are part of the new covenant. They also view Paul being sent to the ‘nations’ as Paul being sent to those who were genetically related to the Israelites, rather than implying everyone must be a direct descendant of Israelites alone in order to get the attention of Christ or Paul. They also believe that ‘all Israel will be saved’ but that they may not have any rewards in heaven and may in fact have a lowly status if they do not believe in Christ etc. The notion of the fire being a temporary period of cleansing for unfaithful Adamites before their restoration into the kingdom squares this off. Like i said, i’m definitely no expert and pretty impartial, but even i can tell you are heavily misrepresenting the Christogenea viewpoint.
Constantinus wrote, “i know for a fact they do believe that all Adamites are part of the new covenant. They also view Paul being sent to the ‘nations’ as Paul being sent to those who were genetically related to the Israelites, rather than implying everyone must be a direct descendant of Israelites alone in order to get the attention of Christ or Paul.”
I know Christogenea doctrine fairly well, and they definitely don’t believe what you’ve stated. I’ve even cited Christogenea itself in what I said in comments above. As for the rest, yes I am aware.
Constantinus, ask someone at Christogenea who the “nations” are today, and you will get a blank stare, silence. They don’t know because their “theology” presumes that all white people, as they define them, are Israelites. That’s why they believe “all Israel is saved”….they believe if you are born white, you are automatically saved without the intercession of Christ, rendering the death of Christ pointless. This “lesser rewards” doctrine they’ve concocted does nothing to address how they’ve removed Christ from the picture and substituted idolatry of the white race in its stead. Your white skin is what saves you, not Christ. Pure evil.
How is Danaus connected to the Trojans? I’m not sure how this proves the Romans were Israelites. There’s a long way to go still to prove it, don’t you think? Unless I’m missing something?
“Imagine how students of the Jewish faith would feel reading, along with their classmates, this warped text that casts them as ‘Christ killers’, and the hostility they would be subjected to.”
I can’t imagine it would be any worse for them than reading about blood libels, communist purges, abortions, and a hundred other things the jews have come up with over the years… jews don’t tend to have much sympathy or empathy for anyone other than other jews.
I remember many years ago as a freshman in college, back in the Stone Age, I met one of the first Jews in my life, a friend of a friend. We hit it off, he found me amusing. During some back and forth banter, he said something about the dumb goyim, and I said to him with a smirk, “Yes, but you killed Christ.” He didn’t get offended, just laughed. Of course, he wasn’t a religious Jew, just a “cultural” or “ethnic” one, and like most Jews I’ve ever met, didn’t take his “jewishness” really all that seriously. The idea that he would be “traumatized” by a discussion of Jews killing Christ is a classroom is ridiculous. He knew he lived in a Christian society, and that came with the territory.
Below is a link to an extremely important booklet which I had published at another place until that site was burned by Jewry. Take the time to read it in order to understand how active jew communists were in their earlier subversions of America, especially during the FDR years. It tells facts which are never publicized anymore.
I republished it in 4 comments at this link.
Flanders [comments begin at November 14, 2015 at 12:43 pm]
“JEWISH “ANTI-COMMUNISM”
By George Pinckney – 1956 [Below are from pg — 13.]
“We have exterminated the capitalists and property owners in
Russia. We are going to do the same to the intelligensa of Europe
and America.” vnoveif, Chairman of the Communist Third Inter-
national (Congressional Record, Dec. 19, 1925).
“One of the finest things ever done by the mob was the cruci-
fixion of Christ. Intellectually it was a splendid gesture. But
trust the mob to bungle. If I’d had charge of executing Christ I’d
have handled it differently. You see, what I’d have done was had
him shipped to Rome and fed to the lions. They never could have
made a savior out of piincemeat.” Ben Hecht. Zionist Writer of
Hollywood p. 20 “A Jew in Love.”
“The Jewish religion is hostile to Christianity in general and to
the Catholic church in particular.” M. J. Ogln in “The Morning
Freiheit”, N. Y. daily, Jan. 10, 1937. (Jewish newspaper).
“We intend to remake the Gentile . . . what the communists are do-
ing in Russia.” Rabbi Lewis Browne in his book, “How Odd of God”
published 1924.
“Nationalities must disappear, religion must be suppressed. But
Israel must not disappear for this little people is the Chosen of God.”
Adolphe Cremieux, president of L’Alliance Israelite Universelle, in
“Les Archives Israelites,” Paris Nov. 25, 1861.”
—-
https://hofflandia.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/the-enslavement-of-mankind-this-is-the-future-of-white-nations/#comment-16229
Adolphe Cremieux made a name for himself defending a Jew in Damascus against charges of Jewish Ritual Murder of a child. According to Nesta Webster, Cremieux was also the founder of the Alliance Israelite and Grand Master of the Masonic Mizraim Lodge in Paris, allegedly the original source of the Protocols of the Elders Of Zion. So, it would hardly be a stretch to suggest that Cremieux was one of the authors of the Protocols….
A couple of points. Every single “anti-Semitic blood libel” has been proven to be true.
And Jews were despised for their objectionable behaviour generations before Jesus Christ was born.
It’s also worth noting that they freely chose one of two possible cosmic destinies… and they chose the collective role of Anti-Christ.
They owe the human race a huge, huge apology. Because they are the ones guilty of the worst sort of libel, betrayal, and hypocrisy.
Whether you believe the jews to actually be the Israelites of the Bible *snicker, snicker* or mamzer imposters, their blatant denial of the involvement of the “jews” in the death of Christ is at the very least extremely preposterous, and absolutely speaks volumes when understanding the fundamental aspect of a jew (whether racial and/or religious) – that they are Christ deniers at the very least, and are absolutely the spirit of anti-christ. You can’t sugarcoat that, and no self respecting Christian should give these things any more than simple civility since we are forced to deal with them in our midst.
I agree wholeheartedly. Very nicely put. If we must cohabit, so be it, but I don’t go outta my way to be chummy with antichrists.
2 John 9- 11
Amen
Indeed!
2 John 5-6,
Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you are to walk in it.
1 John 3:7
6 No one who remains in Him sins continually; no one who sins continually has seen Him or knows Him. 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
“The return from Babylon and the adoption of the Babylonian Talmud, marked the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism. It is well know among students of the Talmud that it is diametrically opposed to every law of the Bible.”
—Stephen S. Wise, Chief Rabbi of the United States
“And if the people who killed Christ were not His own people, He surely would not have asked God The Father to forgive them for what they had done”
This remains a point of confusion for me because the scripture used as a source for this, Luke 23:34, reads as though Christ is asking God the Father to forgive the Romans.
The Romans were Israelites who indeed “[knew] not what they do” when they crucified Him. The Jews knew exactly what they were doing when they harangued the Romans into crucifying him, per Matthew 27:25.
If Mathew 27:25 relates to Israelites in any way, then that would be strange as then the Judean Israelites who followed Christ would be just as cursed as those who conspired to have Him killed, and the conclusion to be drawn would be that every Israelite of Judah and Benjamin lines is cursed?
Additionally, if the Khazars are not biological Jews, then how is it that they were accepted “into the fold” by the preexisting Jews who had been a blight on society for centuries before the Khazars purportedly converted around 800 AD?
What’s your Scriptural proof that the Romans were Israelites?
In brief:
Christ said that he had come only for the Israelites (Matthew 15:24)
He healed the servant of the Roman centurion (Matthew 8:5-13). Additionally, the Epistle to the Romans, since if the Romans were not Israelites then God would not have sent Paul to minister to them.
This site has more in-depth articles and transcriptions of sermons promoting this, here is one:
https://christiansfortruth.com/israel-the-true-identity-of-the-christian-church/
Johan earlier explained the non-Israelite origins of the Romans in Scripture:
“Daniel 11 line for line describes that time of troubles between the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt, which were two of the four kingdoms which split off after Alexander the Great’s reign. Daniel 11:30 states that the ships of Kittim would block Antiochus IV Epiphanes from attacking Ptolemaic Egypt. After that, in Daniel 11:31, he would go and oppress Jerusalem. All of these things actually happened.
It was none other than Gaius Popillius Laenas sent directly from the Roman senate who stopped Antiochus from attacking Alenandria.
Numbers 24:24 then shows how Kittim will oppress Asshur and Eber, which is fulfilled in the Roman conquest of the known world, including the Levant and all the Middle East, which is where Asshur and Eber were.
Therefore, according to the Scripture, given what we know of history, the Romans were a Genesis 10 nation — pure Adamic people — and not Israelites. All Adamic people are white, but not all Adamic people are Israelites.”
I have seen this Kittim argument torpedoed on here before.
Whom did the Romans oppress? As Monty Python made famous by quoting in The Life of Brian, even the Jews admitted that they were better for the Roman occupation.
Bringing civilization and order, while letting the people retain their language and customs, is not oppression.
Why wouldn’t the Romans be Israelites? Israelites left the Levant and went out into Europe (and north africa), and if they mingled with Adamics who may have already existed in Europe then, over time, those Adamics would become of Israel and eventually be refined into Israelites.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “Whom did the Romans oppress? As Monty Python made famous by quoting in The Life of Brian, even the Jews admitted that they were better for the Roman occupation.
Bringing civilization and order, while letting the people retain their language and customs, is not oppression.”
A sweeping generalization supported by a quote from Monty Python? Forgive me ReformingBoomer, but don’t you agree we ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that?
Military conquest forcing taxes and acknowledging of only Caesar as king. Emperor sanctioned, systematic persecution of Christians. Throwing Christians to the animals. Mass crucifixions. Forcing slaves to fight to the death. There is a long way to go to argue that Rome was not oppressive, no?
Daniel 9:26,
Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. (oppression)
Who is the prince of the people to come? So the Messiah Prince is different from the “prince who is to come,” as the context of the verse attests. If this were the prince of Israel, then it would be none other than Michael, because Michael is the prince of Israel. Daniel 10:21,
However, I will tell you what is recorded in the writing of truth. Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince.
The one who is talking in Daniel 10 is Christ (compare Daniel 7:9 and Daniel 10:5-7 with Revelation 1:13-15), so Michael is not the Messiah, because the Messiah refers to Michael in the third person.
So Michael is the prince of Israel, and He is not the Messiah. Therefore, the people and the prince who are to come, who are Rome, are not Michael or the Messiah. They are another people from another prince.
ReformingBoomer wrote, “Why wouldn’t the Romans be Israelites?”
Because the Scripture says so.
Luke 7:3-5 shows that the Roman was not regarded an Israelite, as the elders had to plead for him to be heard.
The Lord Jesus confirms in Luke 7:9, as He is saying the Roman is not a part of Israel:
“When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”
@ReformingBoomer funny how some get those simple facts muddled. Almost as if to conflate and contradict. They also chose to ignore the continuity of scripture.
“I say to you that many shall come from east and west and they shall recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens, but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outermost darkness. And there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Much like Christ using the term Israel to describe Israelites in Judaea and then others trying to crowbar Edomites into Israel as Judeans or exclude others.
Here is an almost perfect example
https://greekcitytimes.com/2021/04/07/disney-lead-film-greek-freak/
Greek nor Jew hey????
The founding of Roman is a key to their racial stock. Lost sheep, divorced from God for their sins were not recognized as Israel until their reconciliation to Christ after the fulfillment of the law.
History of the Kings of Britain Chapter 2. Cassibellaunus’s letter to Julius Caesar.
“Cassibellaun, king of the Britons, to Caius Julius Caesar. We can not but wonder, Caesar, at the avarice of the Roman people, since their insatiable thirst for money cannot let us alone, though the dangers of the ocean have placed us in a manner out of the WORLD; but they must have the presumption to covet our substance, which we have hitherto enjoyed in quiet. Neither is this indeed sufficient: we must also choose subjection and slavery to them, before the enjoyment of our native liberty. Your demand, therefore, Caesar, is scandalous, since the same vein of nobility flows from Aeneas in both Britons and Romans, and one and the same chain of CONSANGUINITY unites us:
Isaiah 43
Chris wrote, “funny how some get those simple facts muddled. Almost as if to conflate and contradict. They also chose to ignore the continuity of scripture.”
It seems like you have decided before-hand what the Bible says, and everyone who disagrees with you you slander as dishonest. Simultaneously you are completely unable or unwilling to actually prove your version of “continuity of scripture”.
Did you read 1 Peter 3:15,
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect;
Revelation 21:8 says,
But for the cowardly… their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 16:13,
Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
If you know the Scriptures, stand firm, be strong and act like a man. Give answer for the faith that is within in you. Do not shy away from your moment to defend your faith like the cowards cast out of the city. If our views are wrong, it is your duty to show us, and you have made it your duty your own slander.
Go through these articles and show us why it’s wrong:
https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/
https://christiansfortruth.com/ruth-was-a-moabite-but-does-it-even-matter/
Chris wrote, “Much like Christ using the term Israel to describe Israelites in Judaea and then others trying to crowbar Edomites into Israel as Judeans or exclude others.”
“Israel” is a genetic term, not a geopolitical term. One cannot say “Israel” and it be implicit that it only refers to “Israelites in Judea”. The only way it could be explicit is if the speaker explicitly said, “Israelites in Judea”.
Chris wrote, “The founding of Roman is a key to their racial stock. Lost sheep, divorced from God for their sins were not recognized as Israel until their reconciliation to Christ after the fulfillment of the law.”
Prove it.
Incidentally, Romans 2:15 states that the Romans were following the law written on their hearts. Hebrews 8:7-13 makes it very clear that the law being written on the heart is a new covenant promise. That same new covenant made with the blood of the Lord Jesus.
But you would claim that the Romans, being Israelites, followed the law written on their hearts in ancient times. My question then is this: If the new covenant along with the promise to have the law written on the heart was created when the Lord died on the cross, then how is it that the ancient Romans inherited the promises of the new covenant before it was even made?
Chris wrote, “Isaiah 43″
I’m familiar with Isaiah 43, but don’t see how it helps you prove your contention that Romans are Israelites. You do this often….cite a verse with no explanation, as if it, in and of itself, is self-explanatory. It is not.
Cassibellaunus’s letter to Julius Caesar is an example of a conceit, a literary device, and cannot be taken seriously as historically reliable. And it was these mythical pagan genealogies that Paul was referring to in 1 Tim 1:4…” Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.”
Evidence in the Bible shows that the Romans are not Israelites, contradicting some third-party secular sources. Ask yourself: why is it so important to you that Romans are Israelites? Are you defending the Romans, or are you defending some “scholar” you should be questioning rather than blindly following?
Are you denying the Psalms prophesize that Christ would be crucified by His own people?
No, I am not trying to deny any Scripture.
This article links to Psalm 22, and it sure does seem to describe the Crucifixion, though I realize that I’m a bit biased as I’ve heard for my entire churchgoing life that it does, as I imagine most everyone else has.
In Psalm 22, I do not see the connection to the Jews per se. Christ was indeed crucified by Israelites–the Romans–but what of Psalm 22 tells us that the scheming kikes who forced the Romans’ hands were Israelites?
A topic that I’ve seen brought up on here is the concept of non-Israelite interlopers. The Bible is cut and dry about the Ammonites and the Moabites, but the burning question that I’ve seen here is one of Edomite infiltration of Judea. The “Edomite Question” is a difficult one as Deuteronomy 23:7 and the Book of Obadiah (as well as Jeremiah 49:7-22) seem at face value to be in conflict on it.
However, we seem to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Edomites ruled over Judea, at the pleasure of the Romans, during the time of Christ, and had been enjoying this position since 47 BC.
So since Edomites ruled Judea as its secular rulers, could they not have also occupied other aspects of its high society, such as the priesthood, and that these were the non-Israelite people who had Christ killed? Matthew 27:25, the blood curse, makes a strong distinction between the group of people who had Christ killed, and everyone else.
The high priests of Judea were not Edomites, a common misconception. Acts 4:6 describes them as “kindred” or of priestly descent, depending on translation.
This is explained in:
https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/
The point of the Psalms is that over and over again King David laments that his “blood thirsty” enemies who surround him are his own people — Israelites — not racial aliens!
This scenario should be seen also as a foretelling of Christ’s persecution, as Christ, of course, inherited the throne of Israel as David’s direct descendant, vis a vis, Matthew Chapter 1.
Christ died for Israel AND all the Adamic nations, so why is it so confusing as to whom Christ forgave? He forgave all his brethren involved in his death – all his adamic white brethren – so it doesn’t matter whether the Romans were Israelites or not (it is my informed judgement that they are NOT, but are Japethites).
The “cursed Israelites” were the ones who rejected Jesus and are more than likely ancestors of today’s mamzer jews, no longer having the law to guide them, and being excluded from the exploding European Christian society, they would have easily turned to their beastly neighbors and assimilated with them – bringing their Babylonian Talmudism with them.
In Luke 23:24 Christ says “forgive them”, and the very next sentence reads “And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.”
The “they” in the second sentence refers to the Roman soldiers, so the confusion is that the “them” used by Christ would in context refer to anyone except for the Romans.
Christ pleads for forgiveness of “them” due to their ignorance, and while it is logical that the Romans could be ignorant of what they had done, it does not seem logical that the Jews could be as they knowingly orchestrated the entire killing of Christ and adamantly took responsibility for it.
I do agree that Christ more than likely was referring to the Romans at Luke 23:34, but my point is, what does it truly matter who He was referring to? What does Christ say about our enemies? Love your enemies. Forgive your enemies…because only white people can be your enemy. Anything else is a mere brute beast. Christ died so that even the white Judaeans who rejected Him while He was alive the first time, had a chance to repent after His death and resurrection. It is preposterous to believe Christ a hypocrite to NOT forgive ALL his white brethren involved in His murder.
Good explanation that you’ve given, Ottify.
“Pilate went on to try and get Jesus released by reminding them of the custom at Passover when he would release a prisoner unto them, but these Jews had already convinced the people to ask for Barabbas as stated in Matthew 27:20 and Mark 15:11. “But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.” These Jews well KNEW what they were doing. They tried to kill Christ on numerous occasions, had hatched a murderous plot, had hired a traitor, had created a bunch of bogus charges, had spread slanderous lies, and incited a riot.”
—–
“No, God will NEVER forgive Satan, the Devil, the Serpent or his children, and Jesus would never pray for such an absurd thing. But He was praying for the ignorant, misguided multitude that was being manipulated by vehement Jew propaganda, and the exact same thing is going on today. The ignorant deceived white race is being herded to the slaughter pen by the deadly lying satanic seed of the serpent Jews. Thankfully, no matter how hard they try, their satanic stratagem will not stymie or stop the plan of God. These Jew tares will be gathered, bound in bundles, and burned as stated in Matthew 13:30. After this cleansing “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 13:43). (go to top)”.
https://www.truthfromgod.com/now_articles/father_forgive_them.html
The Romans are descendants of Aeneas, who fled Troy and founded what was to become Rome.
The Trojans are descendants of the very same stock as Moses;
“All the foreigners were forthwith expelled, and the most valiant and noble among them, under some notable leaders, were brought to Greece and other places, as some relate; the most famous of their leaders were Danaus and Cadmus. But the majority of the people descended into a country not far from Egypt, which is now called Judaea.. The leader of this colony was one Moses, a very wise and valiant man.”
There were other Greeks from Japteth (Javan >Ionian Greeks) however. All Adamic.
Source for my quote above is Diodorus Siculus – Library of History 40.3
How is Danaus connected to the Trojans? I’m not sure how this proves the Romans were Israelites. There’s a long way to go still to prove it, don’t you think? Unless I’m missing something?
My apology, I meant Dardanus (of the Zarah/Judah line) when I was speaking of the Trojans.
But nonetheless, some of the earliest Greeks (Danaus and Cadmus, Cadmus was the one who brought the “Phoenician alphabet” to Greece) were together with Moses and the Israelites in Egypt, I do not believe I have read anywhere that there were other Adamic peoples there except for the Israelites.
Dardanus and Cadmol (1 Chronicles 2:6) grandsons of Zarah was compared to Solomon (1 Kings 4:31)
Same as the many other Israelites/Adamites who became pagans when they left Judaea, so did also the Greeks and Romans fall to paganism. However, the resemblences to the Bible are strikingly obvious.
Okay no worries. What was the connection you were making with that quote from Diodorus? I’m curious to know regardless.
As for the 1 Chronicles 2:6/1 Kings 4:31 argument, I am familiar with it. I’m just going to copy paste a reply I made to the same argument from elsewhere:
We know that Zerah didn’t take sons into Egypt, but that means very little, because he could easily have had those sons in Egypt itself. Here I have cleared up how it is possible for Zerah to have had sons after the journey to Egypt, but not before. This is a foundation, but doesn’t refute it yet.
This is all hinged on the assumption that the sons of Zerah in 1 Chronicles 2:6 left Zerah before he went into Egypt. Then if I can give an example of those sons of Zerah with Israel, after the journey to Egypt, it would cast much doubt on the whole thing, no?
In Joshau 7:1 it says, “But the sons of Israel acted unfaithfully regarding the things designated for destruction, for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, took some of the designated things; therefore the anger of the Lord burned against the sons of Israel.”
Who is Zabdi, the descendant of Zerah? In Joshua 7:1 it says “Zabdi”, but in 1 Chronicles 2:6 it says “Zimri”. In the LXX, in each case where it says “Zabdi” and “Zimri”, it says “Ζαμβρι”. Therefore, according to the LXX, Zabdi and Zimri are actually the same person. For some reason in the Masoretic text they were written differently, but the LXX clears it up rather nicely. That Zabdi in Joshua 7:1 is the very same Zimri in 1 Chronicles 2:6, which is the son of Zerah. Therefore we have irrefutable proof that Zimri was born after the journey to Egypt.
You will notice that 1 Chronicles 2 gives the order of births chronologically; firstborn first and lastborn last. This makes sense when plainly reading, but is even witnessed explicitly in 1 Chronicles 2:3. Zimri is mentioned first in 1 Chronicles 2:6, making him the firstborn. If Zimri was born after the journey to Egypt, and he was the first born, then all of his other brothers were born after the journey to Egypt as well, because they were born after Zimri. If Zimri and his brothers were born after the journey to Egypt, then they are not the descendants of Trojans, because they are with Israel.
Up until now I’ve been overlooking the basic comprehension failure of Finck’s paper, but I’ll point it out here as the final nail in the coffin. Genesis 46:6-7 says, “6 They also took their livestock and their possessions, which they had acquired in the land of Canaan, and came to Egypt, Jacob AND ALL HIS DESCENDENTS WITH HIM: 7 HIS SONS AND HIS GRANDSONS WITH HIM, his daughters and his granddaughters, and ALL HIS DESCENDENTS HE BROUGHT WITH HIM TO EGYPT.”
The sons of Zerah could not have left them before the journey to Egypt, because the Scripture says explicitly, in no uncertain terms, THREE TIMES within two verses, that Jacob brought all of his descendants with him. That leaves no possibility for there to be other descendants he didn’t bring with him.
Then there are arguments against the idea Romans are Israelites from within the Scripture…
Romans are from Kittim, son of Javan, son of Japheth: https://christiansfortruth.com/jews-in-australia-outraged-by-venomous-school-textbook-that-affirms-they-are-christ-killers/#comment-46007
Incident with the Roman centurion shows he is not an Israelite: https://christiansfortruth.com/jews-in-australia-outraged-by-venomous-school-textbook-that-affirms-they-are-christ-killers/#comment-46015
Let me know what you think.
My sources are mainly Diodorus Seculus, Homer, Herodotus and a Phoenician historian I have forgotten the name of now. Josephus in his Antiquities of the Judaeans also states that the Lacedaemonians (Spartans) sent letter to the Judaean High Priest stating that the Spartans and Judaeans were racially kindred.
Safe to say that the Atheneans and Spartans atleast were descendants of the Hebrews.
Another Greek historian, Hecateus of Abdera who lived in the 4th century B.C states that “Now the Egyptians say that also after these events [the plagues of Exodus] a great number of colonies were spread from Egypt all over the inhabited world…They say also that those who set forth with Danaus, likewise from Egypt, settled what is practically the oldest city of Greece, Argos, and that the nations of the Colchi in Pontus and that of the Judaeans (remnant of Judah), which lies between Arabia and Syria, were founded as colonies by certain emigrants from their country [Egypt]; and this is the reason why it is a long-established institution among these peoples to circumsise their male children, the custom having been brought over from Egypt. Even the Atheneas, they say, are colonists from Sais in Egypt”
In the book “British History traced from Egypt and Palestine” by Rev. Lawrence Graeme Allan Roberts he states that “Dardanus is said to have built Troy about thirty-four years before the Exodus.” Hence why there are no mentions of Dardanus or Darda.
In the book Symbols of Our Celto-Saxon Heritage, by W. H. Bennett we can read the following;
“With these things in mind, let us now turn to that other part of ZARA’S DESCENDANTS which FLED OUT OF EGYPT under the leadership…[of] DARDA. In the authorized Version of the Bible this name is spelled DARA, but in the margin the ALTERNATE spelling is DARDA and the Judaean historian Josephus calls him DARDANUS. This is significant because the group which he led went NORTHWARD across the Mediterranean Sea to the northwest corner of what we now call ASIA MINOR. There, under the rule of DARDA (DARDANUS) they established a Kingdom, later called TROY, on the southern shore of that narrow body of water which bears his name to this day — DARDANELLES”
There are quite a few different sources of the claim that Dardanus/Dara/Darda was the founder of Troy and that Aeneas, a descendant of Dardanus in turn was the founder of Rome and the Romans.