Here we continue our series with another chapter from Charles A. Weisman’s book, Who Is Esau-Edom?
Weisman focuses on how the characteristics of modern Jewry — and the symbols they use in association with their agendas — clearly fit those found in the Bible concerning Esau-Edom.
We have seen that even Weisman concedes there is some difficulty pinning down exactly where the compromised Edomite bloodline entered Jewry within the Bible itself — though Weisman does cite Jeremiah 49:10 that states Edom’s “seed” or bloodline will become “spoiled” or mixed. The historical evidence that Jewry’s bloodline as indeed become spoiled or mixed is incontrovertible — even by their own admission.
That aside, modern Jewry has most certainly lived up to the characteristics of Edom — and appear to be fulfilling the prophecies associated with that tribe.
Weisman continues:
Who Is Esau-Edom?
It is critical we understand who the characters are and their proper role in the Script. To help clear up the confusion we will attempt to identify one of the main characters in God’s Script — that being Esau or Esau-Edom.
We can identify who is Esau-Edom by reading in the Script (Bible) what was written about him, what he was to be doing on stage (earth), what his role was to be (pre-destination), and what characteristics and attributes were assigned to this actor (prophecy) by the author (God). We then need to compare all this to historical and current events and see if any of the persons or nations involved fit the role of Esau-Edom or possess any of his attributes.
Just like when we see a creature who has a flattened scaly tail, who cuts down trees with its teeth, has thick brownish fur, prodigiously builds dams, has aquatic habits, and is warm-blooded we can identified it as a beaver. God had assigned these roles and characteristics to the beaver and they are permanent marks of its identification. In like manner, the Script of God reveals certain roles and characteristics surrounding Esau-Edom by which we can identify this people.
From the foregoing chapter, we have one good clue as to who may occupy the character of Esau-Edom, that being the Jewish people. The following material will help to verify this. If we know that one of God’s actors — such as Esau-Edom — is to perform a certain act or possess a certain characteristic, then when we see someone doing the act or expressing the characteristic, we have identified the actor on stage or in the world.
No student of history or modern affairs can appreciate the significance of world events without the knowledge of who is Esau-Edom and their connection with Jewry.
The Characteristics of Esau-Edom
As with any script the Bible reveals certain traits, attributes and characteristics of the various actors or characters it talks about. We can thus find in the Bible some attributes and characteristics of Esau-Edom, which will help identify who this actor was in history and perhaps in the world today. There is much evidence showing that the seed of Esau may safely be identified with modern Jewry.
Edom’s Symbolic Name
The first revealing attribute associated with Esau-Edom in Scripture is that of a color association with his name. Esau-Edom is symbolically associated with the color red. Esau was actually born with this attribute, as is described in the account of his birth:
“And the first [Esau] came out red. all over like a hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.”
–(Genesis 25:25)
Here we find that Esau had the physical attribute of being red and hairy, which is contrasted with Jacob’s appearance who “was a plain man” (Genesis 25:27). The red color of Esau was to be a sign that he would later sell his birthright to Jacob for some red pottage.
“And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.”
(Genesis 25:30)
The word ‘Edom’ actually means “red” [see Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, O.T. #123] — just as the name Esau signifies red. This character thus represents the color red. When we look at the meaning and symbology associated with the color red in both Scripture and secular history, we have a better understanding of the nature and identity of Esau-Edom, and who he is to be identified with.
Here are some illustrations:
-Red is representative of blood and bloodshed (2 Kings 3:22; Isaiah 1:15).
-Scarlet or red is symbolic of sin in general (Isaiah 1:18).
-The red horse of the Book of Revelation signifies war and the ability to cause wars (Revelation 6:4). Esau was to be war-like and live by the sword (Genesis 27:40)
-The anti-Christian, satanic system which ruled Rome was identified as a red dragon (Revelation 12:3). Jews are the most anti-christian people on the face of the earth.
-The great beast of Mystery Babylon which was to spread abominations and death to the whole earth is scarlet or red in color. And the woman on the beast controlling it is dressed in scarlet (Revelation 17:3-4). Jews are the major promoters of the Babylonian religion called Judaism.
-The banking industry, which is a part of red Babylon’s economic control over Christendom, is led by the Jewish banking family of Rothschild, which means “red shield “
-The Red Flag symbolizes revolutionary socialism. “The socialist movement, from its inception up to the present day, has been largely dominated by Jewish influence.” [see Joseph Jacobs, “Jewish Contributions To Civilization,” Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, (1919) p. 306.]
-In the Jewish Kabbalah red signifies bloodshed and also justice for the Jew. [see The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, p. 178 (1905).
-The Jewish author and historian Arthur Koestler shows that the Jewish Khazars (from which many Jews are derived) were commonly known as the “Red Jews ” [see Arthur Koestler, “The Thirteenth Tribe,” p. 135 (1976).
-The color of Jewish-Communism is red as indicated by such terms as red nation, red star, “Red Square” etc. The Russian Revolution that brought about “Red Communism” was planned and financed by Jews, and “the revolutionary leaders nearly all belonged to the Jewish race.” [see National Geographic Magazine, Vol. XVIII, No. 5, p. 314 (May, 1907). “Out of 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State, 457 were Jews.” Rev. Denis Fahey, “The Rulers of Russia,” p.8.
– Red, in the West, has become a universal sign for warning or danger. Red Edom (Communism) has proven to be a danger to the Christian West.
The color red is as predominately associated with the Jews and their activities as it is with that of Esau-Edom. Also note that there are no positive or redeeming attributes associated with the color red in connection to Esau, or in its association to the Jews. Red is always representative of something bad or negative, such as bloodshed, sins, the Babylonian system, war, communism, etc. Esau-Edom and his descendants are possessors of these characteristics.
Esau Hated by God
Perhaps the most unique and unusual attribute possessed by Esau-Edom is his adverse relationship with God. The Script reveals that God never had any love for Esau as He did with Jacob. and in fact. God hates Esau:
“I have loved you [Israel], says the LORD Yet you say, How hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage to waste for the dragons of the wilderness.”
(Malachi 1:2-3)
That God’s hatred and anger towards Esau-Edom is not a one-time event is conveyed in the fact that Edom was “The people against whom the LORD has indignation forever” (Malachi 1:4). This is no mis-translation as the same concept is also conveyed in the New Testament:
“As it was written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
(Romans 9:13)
This hatred by God towards Esau is an attribute that the human heart cannot accept or embrace, and therefore many will try to explain it away. Thus scores of theologians have avoided this truth of Scripture or have whitewashed it into something more appealing to human nature.
God not only hates Esau-Edom and is against these people, but refers to them as “the people of my curse” (lsaiah 34:5). This curse is not just on Esau but also his “seed” and his “brethren.”
“But I have made Esau bare. I have uncovered his secret places, and he shall not be able to hide himself: his seed is spoiled, and his brethren, and his neighbors, and he is no more.”
(Jeremiah 49:10)
Among Esau’s brethren were the Amalekites which were descended from one of Esau’s grandsons (Genesis 36:4, 12). It was these Edomite kinsmen whom God had sworn “war against from generation to generation” (Exodus 17:16).
God’s hatred of Edom is not a temporary thing but rather is perpetual. The doctrine that God loves everyone does not stand up in light of what the Bible has to say regarding God’s merciless position towards the race of people called Edom. The God of the Bible says,
“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
(Romans 9:15)
No regard is given to what man thinks on the matter. Although the churches have tried to alter God’s true nature, we find that throughout the Bible God’s position toward Esau-Edom does not change:
“Therefore thus says the Lord GOD; Surely in the fire of my jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the heathen, and against all Idumea. . . ” ( Ezekiel 36:5)
“Shall I not in that day, says the LORD even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and the understanding out of the mount of Esau?” (Obadiah 1:8)
“Thus says the Lord Goo; Behold, O mount Seir, I am against you, and will stretch out My hand against you.” (Ezekiel 35:3)
There is not one favorable or positive statement in the Bible in relation to Esau-Edom. But how does this adverse relationship which God has towards Esau-Edom help us to identify who this character is in the world today?
To help us answer this we have to put ourselves into the role which Esau has been assigned in God’s Script. If God hated you and your ancestors how would you react and what would you do? By natural reaction you would be against God and His people — and try to prevent them from finding out you are Esau — the one God is against — knowing that if God is against something, so will be His followers.
Who is it that tries to conceal their identity as Edom — the one hated by God — by claiming to be Israel — the one Ioved by God? Only one group of people reacts as though God has a hatred for them — that is the Jews.
Why do you suppose the Jews form organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League, to monitor and combat ”hate” and to identify “hate groups?” Would not Esau want to do this? Why is it that it is predominately Jews who promote the “anti-hate laws” and other “hate-crime” legislation? If you were Esau-Edom would you not do the same?
An Edomite would also want to infiltrate churches and seminaries to get God’s people to believe that there is no God of hate — only a God of love and mercy. The Jews have done just that in Christendom.
The Edomite Jews of today are the main ones who are concerned about hate — and with good reason. They are desperately trying to suppress all hate — even any acts or words that could be construed as causing “mental anguish.” In response to their role as being the “people against whom the LORD has indignation for ever,” the Jews have made the concept of hate a taboo.
The Jew — Elie Wiesel — stated on Public Television — in the TV special “Beyond Hate” hosted by Bill Moyers in 1990 — that “Even hate of hate is dangerous.” This is an example of how paranoid the Edomite Jews are regarding God’s hatred of them — and the lengths they will go to eliminate from the mind’s of God’s people any aspect of the idea of hate.
Yes, God hates and has indignation for the Edomite Jews — and if any dare take God’s side on this matter, they will be met with great opposition and persecution from those who believe the Edomite Jews are God’s chosen people.
It’s fun to see the arguments about who ESaua is and Edom. Who the Jews are and who Israelites are.
No wonder Joe Biden and his Jewish Secretary of State deliberately suckered Putin to attack Jewish controlled Ukraine (the second Israel) just as Bush Sr. and his Jewish Secretary of State did to Saddam Huessein. And we laugh about Putin looking like a fool because suddenly the news tell of all the losses of men , vehicles and equipment. 100 000 men means a lot of widows, maimed men , children , mothers , fathers, relatives whose lives, jobs, careers, history , way of life , government , future will be changed.
Not only that , this war was probably caused to try to get rid of Putin as our country did to Huessein and to get. Control of its resources. And also maybe for a complete overthrow for good of Russia as a country or to divide her up .
Our ancestors have warned us that when this country which Bush and Biden said were working for a New World Order has served its purpose then we will be overthrown.
Maybe everyone who loves Alex Jones and his ( he says) almost 30 years of anti government propaganda might not see that what he did was to maybe prove to the New World Order that American’s can be taught to hate their government enough to try to overthrow it. Many have tried to expose Alex Jones , but like Trump, their followers can’t hear the arguments against them. When the year 2,000 was to come, Alex Jones gave a Orsen Wells scare attack on his show pretending a Russian attack. William Cooper exposed him. Jones and Others have spent the last over 22 and more years selling the fear of survival to sell gold, survival supplies, and other things. Steve Quail is another one.
Everyone is on their own now that the Catholic Church no longer teaches Satan or Lucifer seeks to rule the world. The only reason abortion is a political issue , publicly any more is because it has not been made a law to oppose it like homosexuality which always was a sin, fault, social wrong and when made law, illegal to show prejudice against. That’ why no one opposes homosexuality anymore, because the Catholic Church has been replaced for the Jews and their so called Judaism and antisemitism, racism of the blacks as our moral laws. And the 1938 Jewish Encyclopedia says that Phariessiam is still practiced today.
And that is what is said I believe by others that Christ opposed. Or as said : the traditions of men..
I read the Bible once through so anyone can criticize , laugh or attack my comment.
But we will not stand up to the Jews and why we quit our jobs, careers, give up our livihoods when the Jews and their pets the blacks call anti semitism and racism against anyone who says anything not liked by them.
This article says I believe that the Jews hate Christianity, Israel. Wasn’t Russia considered a Christian country? The Czar and his family Christian?
Zelensky is a Jew and tells , demands. Biden and the world and United States , directly or indirectly what he wants and Biden gives it. Israel did the same for our secret Patriot Defense System after 9/11 and got it. Germany makes submarine’s for Israel, showing that the Jews still control her as they did before Hitler and kept control after WW11.
Some say Putin is a Christian and others say he is a communist because he was a KGB agent. Why not? What attractive jobs or opportunities are there under Communism?
I see Gavin Newsom , governor of California has bills advocating reparations for the blacks because of slavery. Every race has suffered and the blacks and Jews no more or worse than any other. And if the “FAKE JEWS” deserve The Holy Land as their home, because they claim a tale in a book says they lived there and the blacks of Rhodesia and South Africa claim they deserve two ready made White civilizations be given to them because they were there before Whites, the. American Indian deserves his land back. But who cares. Stuff the American Indian into a reservation , a more noble race than the blacks ever were have no jews , or NAACP to stand up for them.
I can’t ever remember hearing of the nationalities making up Ukraine, but Zelensky makes his talk seem like it is a distinct country as though he’ is like the United States, , even though we have many nationalities . That is where Stalin fled to when Moscow was threatened by Germany. in WW11.
So how many Jews make up Ukraine? Is Ukraine a part of the Kazarian empire and the Jews still control it and was a part of Russia after 2917, but when communism fell, is why it was separated from Russia and why Putin wants it back?
Where do we read of Esau-Edom in Genesis 49….?
How do so-called {{{JEWS}}} manifest before the word…{{{{JEW}}}…?
When does the Synagogue of Satan appear in the Old Testament…?
Where do the {{{{MONEY-CHANGERS }}}} and {{{{PHARISEES}}}} appear in the Old Testament…?
and what about Deuteronomy 28…? how do the Proselytes to Talmudic Judaism get into…
the Script…?
Yes, we all know that Jews wrote themselves into the Bible after the fact.
Judaism was created as a reaction against Christianity, and its entire raison d’etre is to deny Christ.
Israelites wrote the Bible, not Jews.
Today’s Jews are no different from blacks who claim they are “Hebrews”. Same sh*&t, different pile.
It’s called LARPing, or “live action role playing”. Yes, make believe.
But unlike blacks, Jews have billions of dollars and all the media behind them pushing their fantasy that they are the “Chosen Ones” who wrote the Bible, and who gave us our Messiah.
…… Er Um…. Trillions…..
and the currency printing press !
KEY WORD : REMNANT !
https://israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/Chronology.htm
who are the israelites in your opinion ?
Danilo……
https://christiansfortruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Abrahamic-Covenant.pdf
James,,,
Regarding going to heaven that you mentioned. Don’t take what I am about to say as criticism of you, it is not. You like millions of others have been fed this stuff by false teachers of religion. It’s not your fault, the fault lies squarely with them who should know better.
This going to heaven nonsense has unfortunately misled Christians for centuries. This nonsense started by the Catholic Church and blindly followed by other denominations has to be corrected. Let us look at what The Bible actually says.
In the book of John 3:13 RSV, it says:
“No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man”.
Some people quote the saying ‘in my Father’s house are many mansions’ as if Jesus is going there for us to follow him. Not so!
Let us read where it is and read what it is really saying.
John 14: 2. “in my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? (v3) And where I go and prepare a place for you, I will COME AGAIN AND TAKE YOU TO MYSELF, THAT WHERE I AM YOU MAY BE ALSO” (emphasis mine) Jesus is coming back, not taking people to heaven.
An analogy would be like preparing food in the kitchen, but eating it in the dining room.
This place where Jesus will be, will be on earth, not in heaven.
In Matthew 6: 9-13 it clearly states in the Lord’s prayer about God: verse 10: “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.”
(emphasis mine)
It is a pity that the words appear to be said without really understanding what they mean when most people recite this prayer.
And if we look at Revelation 21:1-4 we have confirmation of where this kingdom will be. It will be on earth.
verse3.”… Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them…”
In Corinthians 1.15: 21.
“For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurection of the dead.( verse 22.) For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (v23) But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then AT HIS COMING THOSE WHO BELONG TO CHRIST. (emphasis mine) (v24) Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. (v25) For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. ( v26) The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (v27) “For God has put all things in subjection under his feet”… (v28) When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.
As it says in Corinthians 1 15. There are different resurrections. It is worth reading the whole chapter to understand ‘life after death’.
Thanks, Jane Doe, so much to consider. What I poorly write – I gave up school at a young age and it still shows. If a book was made to show Christians how and why the jews are not God’s chosen and how they stole that identity – it could help Christianity ? It’s frustrating to see so many millions not have a open mind, but if that dam was broken, that would be stepping things up.
James…
You say “If a book was made to show Christians how and why the Jews are not God’s chosen…it could help Christianity”
There is such a book. It is called the Bible.
The so called “church ministers” and others who go on and about dying and going to heaven, which is shear nonsense, because they have not read the Bible, but have blindly followed man’s traditions and not the word of God. Continue with the nonsense that the Jews are God’s chosen people. They are not. Israel is God’s chosen people. The tribes that came from the sons of Jacob (Israel)
Deuteronomy 7: 6. “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. (v7)
The Lord did not set his affection on you and because you were more than numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. (v8) But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt”.
There were no Jews in slavery. It was the Hebrews who were in slavery. The word Jew is a nickname for a Yehudi, the fourth son of Jacob. The word Jew came into existence, no one knows how long ago, but it was not known at the time of the Hebrews being in slavery.
The Jews are Not God’s chosen people. Rest assured.
Regards.
Jane Doe
James…
I have a little correction in my previous post to you.
I should have quoted:
Deuteronomy 7:7 in full but I missed out a few words.
Here it is as it should be.
“The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than the other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples….”
Regards.
An interesting and educational article about Esau – Edom, and the colour red.
Tradition is to paint Judas Iscariot with red hair.
(a) At Ramersdorf on the lower Rhine portrays him with red hair.
(b) At a windows in the Cathedral of Chatres.
(c) In a miniature in the Emblemata Biblica.
(d) Leonard’s Last Supper has his hair and beard a dull red.
(e) Sixteenth century Flemish painter
Jean Stradan shows Judas with red hair and beard.
Interesting to note the following:
Wright’s English Dialect Dictionary gives “Judas Born” as meaning born with red hair.
all the above from:
THE JOURNAL OF ENGLISH AND GERMAN PHILOLOGY
volume 21 No3 (July 1922) p520.
Interesting to note too, a sly and cunning fox is red in colour and in the Arctic winter turns white to fool its prey.
But there is zero evidence in the New Testament that Judas Escariot was an Edomite. Some people claim that the area he came from had a lot of Jews, but that proves nothing. John 6:70 tells us that Christ chose His disciples including Judas. Why would He chose an Edomite? Makes no sense unless Christ specifically let everyone know He chose an Edomite to show the world what Edomites are capable of. Also, John 13:27 tells us that “Satan” entered Judas, which explains why Judas betrayed Christ. Satan can and does enter Israelites, not just Edomites.
Judas is an example of an Israelite who was perfectly capable and willing to betray his fellow Israelite, Jesus Christ. “Men of Israel” called for the death of Christ. Israelites killed their own prophets. They were capable of every sort of sin, hypocrisy and evil, even sacrificing their own children to Molech. Israelites are not all sinless angels, and that’s one of the most important lessons of the Bible. That despite their birthright, Israel can be their own worst enemies.
and therein lies the {{{{RUB}}}} !
VERY IMPORTANT POINT !!!!
SEE ALSO REVELATION 7…..
No One on Earth HAS to be a so-called {{{JEW}}}.
….especially the modern day so-called….. {{{JEWS}}}!!!
A Clifton ………………….
“….After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands……”
So, you are placing the yellow man, the negro, the aboriginal and the mixed raced “jew” into the Kingdom of Heaven if only they repent and follow Jesus Christ?
A simple Yes or No will suffice.
Flavius Josephus tells us:-
“Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.”( Flavius Josephus “The Antiquity of the Jews Chapter 9 How, After The Death Of Antiochus, Hyrcanus Made An Expedition Against Syria, And Made A League With The Romans. Concerning The Death Of King Demetrius And Alexander)
( See also The History Of The Jews by Heinrich Graetz, volume 2, page 7) “To the Jews who believed in him, Jesus said;” If you make my Word your home, you will indeed be my disciple, you will learn the Truth, and the Truth will make you free” They answered, “ We are descendants of Abraham, and we have never been slaves to anyone, what do you mean “You will be free?” Jesus answered, “II tell you most solemnly, everyone who commits a sin is a slave. Now the salve’s place in the house is not assured. But the Son’s place is assured. So, if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. I know you are descended of Abraham, but in spite of that, you want to kill me, because nothing I have said penetrates into you. ” John 8: 31-36.
Apparently, these Jews who were listening to Jesus were not descendants of Jacob, Israel, from whom came the Hebrew community who were enslaved for 400 years in Egypt. After all, they would not have claimed that they were never slaves to anyone, if they were the descendants of the Hebrew who were enslaved in Egypt.. We know, that the Hebrew people were enslaved by the Egyptians for 400 years. How could they forget this enslavement whose redemption they cerebrated as “Pass-Over” every year! Besides, even if they forgot Egyptian enslavement, how could the Jews forget the Babylonian Captivity, which was even more recent?
The Book of Psalms, includes a Psalm for the remembrance of captivity in Babylon. “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept at the memory of Zion. On the poplars there we had hung up our harps. For there our gaolers had asked us to sing them a song, our captors to make merry, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion.’ How could we sing a song of Yahweh on alien soil?” Psalms 137:1-4 Genesis prophesies enslavement of Israel into Egypt. “ Then Yahweh said to Abram, ‘Know this for certain, that your descendants will be exiles in a land not their own, and be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years. But I shall bring judgement on the nation that enslaves them and after this they will leave, with many possessions.” Genesis 15:13-14
So, the Edomite converts, who had never been enslaved, had already hijacked Judaism in the time of The Christ. That is why, The High Priest, Caiaphas. Was an Edomite. So was the King Herod. These Edomite Jews, were later in the year 700AD, joined by Khazarians
Bear, in John 8:32, the Jews didn’t understand that Jesus was using metaphorical language here and took him literally.
The Pharisees had not been enslaved to anyone in their lifetimes, not as the “seed of Abraham”, and that’s why they responded the way they did, as they were very literal minded.
Many of the “seed of Abraham” had been enslaved throughout history, including the Edomites.
The Edomites had been enslaved many times — to the Israelites (1 Samuel 14:47–48; 2 Samuel 8:13–14, Amos 9:12), and the Babylonians (Ezekiel 25:12–14), and later the Nabateans (Malachi 1:2–5), and then under Israelite Hyrcanus, so if the Pharisees were Edomites, why would they deny they were ever enslaved? That makes no sense.
The high priest Caiaphas was an Edomite? Where does it say that in the Bible? According to Joephus and Luke, Caiaphas was a legitimate high priest.
Recall Coponius was replaced by Marcus Ambivius, who appointed Annias Rufus as high priest. Some years later Annias was deprived of the high priesthood — and in quick succession the following three high priests were also deposed:
The high priest appointed after that was none other than Caiaphas (Josephus, Antiquities 18, 2, 2). This is important because these two are none other than the same Annas and Caiaphas who are referred to in John 18:13, “…and brought Him to Annas first; for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.”
Suffice to say that even though Josephus states that Caiaphas was officially the high priest, there must have been some dynamic in which the office was shared. It is probable then that even though Annas was deposed officially, he must have still retained some authority with the ruling priests of the time.
Luke attests to this, and again attests to the high priestly office these men held in Acts 4:6, “…and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent.” Luke unequivocally claims Caiphas was a legitimate Israelite high priest.
This verse is really very critical to understanding the station of high priests. According to Luke, these men were of legitimate high priestly descent: as a high priest needed to be a descendant of Aaron, brother of Moses (Exodus 29:9,44, Numbers 18:7).
Are you also not aware that Josephus points out that the Pharisees did not accept the Edomite conversions? If that’s the case, why would the Pharisees allow Edomites into their ranks?
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146%3Abook%3D13
John 8
Well, I may be wrong on Caiaphas, but the gist of the argument is that Edomites hijacked Judaism, just as the Babylonians hijacked Judaism, as the Book of Esther states: “Of the country’s population many became Jews, since now the Jews were feared.” Esther 8:15-17. Then the Khazarians latter hijacked Judaism.
So, because of the historical conversion of non-Jews of other races to Judaism, the claim of Jews being a “Race” is a fallacy.
Bear said, “…Edomites highjacked Judaism…”
No, they did not. They were forced to convert to Hebrewism, not to “Judaism”. Judaism did not exist in 150BC as we know it today when Hyrcanus forced the Edomites to convert.
Judaism is NOT the religion of the Old Testament. That religion was Hebrewism, based on the Old Testament. The Jews created Judaism as a reaction to Christianity, and Judaism is based on the Talmud, not the Torah or Old Testament.
The Edomite converts were rejected by the mainstream Hebrews in Judea, as they should have been because their religion was also racially based. Non-Israelites need not apply. Hyrcanus was an Israelite and should have known that.
However, the religion practiced by the Pharisees was not true Hebrewism, as it was already influenced by the occult religions of Babylon, or the “traditions of the elders”. This religion would eventually become codified 200 years later as “Judaism” largely by non-Israelites.
We know that the Catholic Church still falsely claims that Judaism is the faith of the Old Testament but that is demonstrably false. Judaism is not based on the OT, and I believe many Popes have known that, as is witnessed by the great Disputations with Jews in the Middle Ages. At that time, Catholic Christians were shocked to find out that Judaism is not based on the Torah, but on the Talmud and Kabbalah. Look it up.
John 8 …….
Just wanted to say “thank you” for your comments. Thank you for putting in the work so to speak, taking time out of your day to speak to this specific topic.
From my experience here at CFT, about 2 years ago, many of the regular commenters had this conversation in great detail. It’s really working out semantics — naming the players accurately. Most of us then were all on the same page.
But it seems today, many of the commenters here are new and it feels to me like we are all back to square one — hashing this conversation out again. So, I appreciate that you have taken up the mantle to “correct” many of the common errors we all have made as we have navigated CI throughout the years.
It is amazing to me how that one word “jew” has really confused the conversation.
I hope you would agree with me that this word needs to be translated one of 4 ways when we choose to use it —– Judea/Judean; of Judah or a Judahite.
Interesting that you use the term “Hebrewism”. I’ve been using — “the religious practice of the Israelites” — to describe the same belief system. Or, the religion of the Israelites — The Mosaic Law.
Quick Question — would you agree with that? Or is that acceptable do you think.
Paul pleaded with us to all speak the same thing. So, this kind of thing is important to me. I want to speak as to not cause confusion.
Thanks for your time John 8! Keep up the great work.
Sincerely.
West,
I would agree that “Jew” in the Bible is better translated as “Judean” or “Judahite”, but we know that Paul, a Benjamite from Tarsus, is neither of those, and he still refers to himself as a “Jew”. The reason for that is Judah, Levi and Benjamin remained loyal to Rehoboam, and they collectively comprised the southern kingdom of “Judah”. So “Jew” in the NT can also refer to those three tribes collectively that still resided in Judea.
It’s all about context. For example, some people who don’t want to use the term “Jew” mistranslate Revelation 3:9 this way, “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Judeans, and are not, but do lie…” This makes no sense to use “Judeans” here, as no one falsely claims to be residents of Judea.
Unfortunately, we don’t have another term to refer to Judah, Benjamin, and Levi collectively other than “Jews”. Do you have a proposal of another collective noun to refer to them more accurately?
As far as describing the religion of the OT, sure, it’s either the Israelite religion or Hebrewism, but in the Bible, it’s also called “The Way” (Genesis 18:19, Genesis 3:24). Also, the “faith of our fathers” works too.
For me, it’s most important to not call it “Judaism”, which is the source of all confusion. Because of the curse of Babel, we will always have to wrestle with differences in language, but we can’t throw our hands up in frustration.
The NT is full of repetitions of the same ideas over and over. To defend the faith, we must do the same in our everyday lives with all new people who come to the truth. That work will never be finished in this life.
John 8 ……
Thanks for the reply.
So glad you brought up Revelation 2:9. I don’t remember any discussions about this often cited verse.
In regards to how it should be translated, I think we need to understand firstly it’s IMMEDIATE context.
I don’t know to be honest.
I do think, however, that we could interpret this verse in the year 2022 to mean or say —
“…I know the blasphemy of those who say they are of Israel and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan….”
Clearly Modern Jewry fulfills this dual prophecy.
But, I don’t know “who” exactly John is referring to when he penned it.
Do you have any thoughts on this?
I have heard people try to say these “letters” are times in History etc., etc., but I think these Letters were to existing Churches during that period of time.
Which could potentially lead to an interesting observation/argument to support the theory that there were indeed “mixed race” people claiming to be Israel/Judah during the time of Christ.
There seems to be a divide between those who believe the Pharisees and the Sadducees were pure blooded Adamic men.
And then there is the other side to the argument who says that non-adamic blood had been mixed into the Israelites during the time of Christ.
I’m on the fence only because there isn’t overwhelming evidence to support either case. I tend to lean towards the thesis Charles Weisman puts forward in his book — “Who is Esau-Edom.”
I tend to believe that Cain mixed his seed with non-adamics. While others believe Cain mixed his seed with his own bloodline.
There isn’t overwhelming proof for either position.
But since I believe in Pre-Adamics, it makes sense to me that Cain would have found a people of non-adamic blood.
My two cents.
Thanks for the dialogue! Enjoy it. 🙂
Correction/Edit —
“….And then there is the other side to the argument who says that non-adamic blood had been mixed into SOME Israelites during the time of Christ…..”
John 8
We really are not in disagreement here.
You say that “
No, they did not. They were forced to convert to Hebrewism, not to “Judaism”.
Then you agree with me, that “
“However, the religion practiced by the Pharisees was not true Hebrewism, as it was already influenced by the occult religions of Babylon, or the “traditions of the elders”
Remember Christ The Lord when He quoted Isaiah;
“Why do your disciples break away from traditions of the elders ? They do not wash their hands when they eat food.’ ‘And why do you ‘ He answered, ‘break away from the commandments of God for the sake of your traditions? For God said(Torah); Do your duty to your father and mother, and Anyone who curses his father of mother must be put to death. But you (in the Rabbinical Traditions compiled in the Talmud) say, “If anyone says to his mother and father, : Anything I have that I might have used to help you is dedicated to God” he is rid of his duty to father and mother. In that way, you have made God’s word null and void by means of your traditions. Hypocrites! It was you that Isaiah meant when he so rightly prophesied: This people honor me only with lips service, while their hearts are far from me. The worship they offer is worthless; the doctrines they teach are only human regulations” Mathew 15: 1-9”
So, it is evident that Yahwehism, or Hebrewism, which was actually the Old Testament religion which was later summarized by The Lord with Two Law, this Religion had died a long time ago. It did not survive Babylon. Babylon is where Judaism totally replaced Hebrewism or Yahwehism. And therefore The Edomites, could not have been forcedly converted to Hebrewism or Yahwehism, precisely because it had died in Babylon.
So, my argument is that although Edomites were forcedly converted into Judaism (Traditions of the Elders) they rose through the ranks, and took over Judaism, and perfected the Human Traditions into Humanistic Messianic Prophecy, which has over the Century remained as a latent and portent ideology, which was activated into an active political ideology by Sabbatai Tzvi, Jacob Frank, Isaac Weishaupt, and Rothschild, into today what is now “The New World Order Cult Of All Spying Eye” or The Illuminati.
On genetics and seedline corruption, could there be a kernel of truth in this “hebrews to negroes” nonsense?
In other words, could it be that these blacks who now claim to be the 12 tribes have found out that their lines were sired by race-mixing Israelites of yore?
I hope no Israelite would stoop to that, but I see interracial abominations being made nowadays.
Sure, technically Israelites went to Ethiopia and mixed with the nubian-cushites though the original Cushites were white. But they are not related to the west Africans who are the ancestors of American slaves. To claim they all have Israelite blood is a stretch.
RB …………………….
You may find this old book written in 1917 sobering — https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/212720
“THE SUPERIORITY OF THE MULATTO”
Here is an excerpt — “…A study of the more advanced groups shows a great preponderance of individuals of mixed blood and a dearth, almost an entire absence, of Negroes of pure blood. In the numerous lists of exceptional Negroes, published from time to time by Negroes as well as by white students of race matters, there is a regular recurrence of a few names; the various lists are virtually repetitions. The dozen or score of men everywhere mentioned as having attained some degree of eminence are, in all but one or two cases, men of more Caucasian than Negro blood….”
A pure blooded black African wouldn’t have the intelligence to consider himself to be an Israelite. I think you make an interesting observation.
Off topic …………… one thing I’ve noticed that can only be explained Supernaturally, is every mixed race person I have ever come across, NEVER identifies themselves with their “White” side.
Recently, I heard an interview on NPR with a man who is 1/10th American Indian. 1/10! But yet he hates White people and dedicates his life to helping “his people” — the Red Indian.
Astonishing.
Find me a Mulatto who sticks up for the White race!!! There are NONE. James Blake — a mixed race black/white Professional Tennis player advocates for the black race. Never does he defend his white side. And of course he took a White woman to wife.
You’re right – I notice the same thing, but some have had embarrassment to say they were black and would say they are something other than black if they could get away with it maybe 2%. I learned somethings from going to a 98% black school and getting kicked out for defending myself. I could of went to a 99.9 black school but said no thanks.
West,
Let me put my two cent on my understanding of the phrase ““…I know the blasphemy of those who say they are of Israel and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan….”
First, we need to go to Daniel’s prophecy regarding the “End of Times” of the House of Israel. Now this House of is the “True” House of Israel, those who not only followed the Mosaic Law, but also those who recognized, and accepted the Messiah when He appeared. The prophet says.
‘At that time Michael will arise — the great Prince, defender of your people. That will be a time of great distress, unparalleled since nations first came into existence. When that time comes, your own people will be spared — all those whose names are found written in the Book. ‘Of those who are sleeping in the Land of Dust, many will awaken, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting disgrace. Those who are wise will shine as brightly as the expanse of the heavens, and those who have instructed many in uprightness, as bright as stars for all eternity. ‘But you, Daniel, must keep these words secret and keep the book sealed until the time of the End.” Daniel 12:1-3
This prophecy, speaks of “The End Of Days” of the House of Israel. I submit, that this happened 70AD. with the burning and complete destruction of The Temple. The total Destruction of The Temple signified the damnation of the sinful Jews, and the resurrection of the Righteous Jews. God cleaned up the slate, and started something new, totally different from The Old Testament times. He became “The Immanuel” “God With His People” So, “The Jews” died with the Temple, and from that time, we no longer have “The Jews” We only have “The Christ” as St. Paul confirms;
“There is only Christ: he is everything and he is in everything. As the chosen of God, then, the holy people whom he loves, you are to be clothed in heartfelt compassion, in generosity and humility, gentleness and patience. Colossian3: 9-12
This means that any Jew or any person who referred to himself as a “Jew” is a person who had declared war with The Christ, because The Christ is everything, and all should kneel before Him, and every tongue should confess, that !Jesus Is The Lord”
“ as scripture says: By my own life says the Lord, every knee shall bow before me, every tongue shall give glory to God. It is to God, then, that each of us will have to give an account of himself.” Romans 14:11-12
That tells you, that every Jew who does not accept The Lord is a member of “The Synagogue Of Satan” That pretty much sums it up.
Bear, that makes sense. I would say Christian zionists are more zionist than Christian, and are the enemy of God and Christians. It’s a big thing to say, but look at all the evil they condone and protect.
Thanks James. Appreciated.
The Bear ………………………
I hear you.
However, I think the issue we are really trying to understand is DNA. Some call it “Race”.
It is most generally understood that “Race” does not exist in the Scriptures, as it is understood and taught today.
The Scriptures are a record of the Genealogy of Adam — which is White Peoples from the time of Adam up until now.
Non-white peoples would be considered non-adamics — part of the Pre-adamic creation.
I wonder if you would agree with what I just proposed?
If yes ……………………………. now we are trying to understand Revelation 2:9 based on DNA or genealogy.
It is EASY today to say that Modern Jews; or Modern Jewry have hardly any blood relations to the 12 Tribes of Israel or to Adamic Man.
A man like Paul Newman, however, could make a case. He looks very White. The more “White” a jew looks, the more Israelite or Adamic DNA he could claim.
Now, back to my original discussion with John 8 …………………………….
Today, CI is split over this issue —- Were the Israelites/Adamites during the time of Christ FULL BLOODED Israelites/Adamites???
Or were SOME of those who say they are of Israel, mixed with non-white blood.
This is the question that is being asked in regards to this topic —– What is a jew; who is a jew; when was ground zero for the first jew.
Jew = someone with mixed DNA.
We are taking the modern definition of “Jew” and working our way backwards down through time.
Clearly, when Martin Luther is talking about Jews, he is talking about a corrupted blood line. He is talking about those who say they are of Israel but are not.
When Tacitus, conversely, is speaking of Jews …………………………. he would have to be talking about True Israelites. Or at least from what he could observe.
Jews used to change their names to hide their identity so that they could conform into White society.
The Question is —- did this also happen during the time of Christ?
Were there Israelites who had non-adamic blood who were LARPING as pure blooded Israelites during the time of Christ?
I hope this makes sense.
See also my other comment in this thread —- https://christiansfortruth.com/who-is-esau-edom-the-traits-and-symbolism-found-in-modern-jewry/#comment-144968
West, you say that;
“The Scriptures are a record of the Genealogy of Adam — which is White Peoples from the time of Adam up until now.”
Well, I think you are setting yourself up for obfuscations, confusion, distraction, and manipulation. In as much as one would wish there to be some significance regarding “White People as Descendants of Adam” I do not think there is anything in the scriptures which backs it up. This claim is a distraction, and unnecessary scripturally, and spiritually. In fact, we can extrapolate St. Paul’s arguments in his letter to the Corinthians , and use it for the term “Race” Here, we insert the racial factor to drive the point home.
“As long as there are jealousy and rivalry among you, that surely means that you are still living by your natural inclinations and by merely human principles. While there is one that says, ‘I belong to “The White Race” and another that says, ‘I belong to “The Jewish Race” and another that “I Belong to the Hebrew Race” etc, are you not being only too human? For what is “The White Race” and what is “The Jewish Race”? The color of the skin, and cultures which you have come to believe in as superior and yet each has only what he was created by God with? 1 Corinthians 2-5
This is what I believe St. Paul would have said of the Race factor. When the Scriptures states “There is only The Christ” that pretty much clears u everything else. Whatever was there in History has been replaced by The Christ! We all are like raindrops falling from the skies. As long as we remain these raindrops, we could identify our distinctions. But once we fall, whether in the forest, or the mountains, or the rivers, or in the oceans, we are no longer “rain drops” Rather, we are all “Water” There is no distinctions. Those who wish to claim distinctions, have not as yet understood what the Christ has done. Whether the so-called “Whites” or “Hebrew” were descendants of Adam, has been made immaterial by The Christ. It no longer counts, and I do not think its worthy of discussion-in my own opinion.
The Bear …….
Simple Question — How long have you been coming to CFT and reading articles?
Unless blacks have a prominent position that brings them notice, fame or glory , the White wife awareness and publicity brings them what they can’t achieve otherwise.
They’re more prone to be accepted and tolerated with a White wife.
Interesting take, I always thought that Adam himself had red hair and while I believe he was White, I always thought his name referred to his hair color rather than skin color or the blushing of it.
King David and King Solomon had red hair just like Esau, it seems that sometimes the color red is taken in consideration and other times not.
In Europe, especially the Southern and eastern part, red hair are associated with jews because judas iscariot was mistakenly depicted as a redhead even though red hair remains way more common among with Whites.
About Adam, David and Solomon I can’t be certain though because it’s never well specified if red is meant as red hair or the blushing of the skin.
George, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Adam had red hair. His name “Adam” comes from the Hebrew words “Aw dahm” which means “to show blood in the face” which means “to blush”.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/120.htm
King David is described as “ruddy” which doesn’t mean having “red hair”. It means “rosy complexion”, a sign of beauty. (1 Samuel 16:12)
That said, Esau and Jacob had the same parents – Issac and Rebecca. For Esau to have red hair that means that Jacob, too, carried the gene for red hair. And that means that many of Jacob’s descendants would also have red hair, such as the Irish, Scottish, and many Europeans.
Esau didn’t get his red hair from mixing with his Canaanite wives.
Having red hair doesn’t necessarily make you an Edomite. The color red is merely a symbol of Esau that stayed with his descendants throughout history.
West…
You said ‘”Race” does not exist in the Scriptures, as it is understood and taught today’
That is true. Scripture uses the word “kind” when referring to “race”
Today the word race is wrongly used. The word that should be used is “ethnic”.
What defines race is being able to reproduce among the group. If reproduction is achieved, then the individuals belong to the same race or kind.
Whether we like it or not, a White mating with a yid shows they are both from the same race, that is the human race.
Human beings are composed of different ethnic groups. In animals the term is called “breeds”. So a Texas Longhorn and a Hereford can breed and produce offspring, although the “breeds” are different, the kind is the same – that is cattle.
Dandy wrote “What defines race is being able to reproduce among the group.”
This is incorrect. You are confusing “species” with race. So-called “scientists” define “species” as any animals that can inter-breed. But that is inconsistent, because zebras and horses are not the same species but can have offspring.
It’s an arbitrary definition, nor is it applied consistently. In reality, they don’t know what a “species” is, so they just do a eyeball test. And it’s never accurate. Not scientific.
Originally, scientists did not believe that all “humans” were of the same species. Heated debate. Ultimately, political correctness won out. Not based on science, but on politics.
Kellen.
Horses and donkeys can mate but their offspring is the end of the line. It’s an abberation. The mule has no kind to mate with. There has never been a reproduction from a mule to a mule. Or perhaps you have some further insight you would like to share with us concerning mules to mules.
I stand by what I said in my post.
Stand by your post, but ignore reality. Wolves and domesticated dogs are NOT the same species but can interbreed and create fertile offspring. So can many species of birds and fish, such as the Cichlid fish of Lake Malawi in Africa. If you want to see many more examples, just look it up for yourself – it’s never-ending.
A species is a man-made concept that does not exist in nature but rather is imposed on nature. Such boundaries in nature are far more fuzzy. Taxonomy is not science. Never has been, never will be.
When it was first conceived by Carl Linnaeus, the known “species” were very small in number compared to today. Since then millions more have been discovered which show that they do not fit into his neat little boxes. It’s “science” only to people who know very little about the subject.
Every high school student is taught the example of a horse and donkey mating and creating a sterile mule as “proof” of the theory of inter-species inviability. But it’s simplistic, and ignores all the exceptions to that “rule”. If there are exceptions, then the theory is not scientific, and it needs to be revised.
There are more genetic differences between white people and African pygmies or Australian aboriginies than between different species of Darwin’s finches, but somehow they are all the same species nevertheless. It’s political, not scientific.
https://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/different-species-animals-totally-the-same-species-different-humans.jpg
Kellen
‘You ignore reality.’ I find your comment offensive.
Red wolf: canis lupus rufus
Ethiopian wolf: canis sinerensis
dog.: canis lupus familiaris
Noticed the link!
Surely even you can see it. You criticise the scientists, you criticise me, everyone is wrong except you. But you don’t give your opinions on the matter.
You are a spanner thrower, because you don’t know how to use one.
Science vs. “Feelings”
https://files.catbox.moe/7uovzw.png
Dandy ………
What is your understanding of how the 4 Primary Races came into existence — White, black, yellow and red?
I don’t recognize your name. Are you a Christian?
How did you find CFT, if you don’t mind. What brought you here.
Thanks.
Man, that spells it out! How can Christians think they won’t go to Heaven if they say things about jews that are facts of evil doings about them but would condone it and protect them?
The jews have us fighting over who God’s chosen are and all the interpretations we go over to figure out in the bible? But not allowed about jews – that’s anti bla bla
Jesus will return if we support israel ? Common sense says hell no, why would supporting God’s and our enemies and their evil get rewarded to Heaven? Unless it makes Jesus want to straighten out the jews’ useful idiots. I try ? Thanks CFT
CFT, this is long but the amazing fact that you posted this today and me finding THIS today confirms everything. I don’t know how to make it smaller so I’ll leave that to you. Here goes:
THIS IS THE BOOK THAT IDF ZIONIST JEWS READ & APPLY IN ISRAEL
> TORAT HA’MELECH:
> THE KING TORAH
> Authors of the book: Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira and Rabbi Yosef Elitzur
> THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO KILLING NON-JEWS
> November 18, 2009
> Introduction by Gilad Atzmon
It is rather impossible to grasp the magnitude of the crimes against humanity performed by the Jewish state in the name of the Jewish people unless one elaborates on Jewish culture in the light of Judaic teaching.
> Zionism was founded as a secular movement. It was there to provide the emancipated Diaspora Jew with a ‘national home land’ of his or her own. However, Zionism was rather effective in transforming the Old Testament from a spiritual text into a land registry. As the truth of Israeli barbarism is unfolding a devastating continuum is being established between Israeli murderous policies and Judaic Goy hating.
It would be fair to argue that Judaic teaching is not monolithic. As we know, one of the only Jewish collectives that stands along the Palestinians call themselves the Torah Jews (Neturei Karta), a Jewish orthodox sect. In other words, the Torah must have a humanist side to it.
>
The following is a review of Torat ha-Melekh, a “kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew”. It was published by Ma’ariv Israel’s second biggest paper. It is a must read. I would assume that those American and British corrupted politicians who are happy to take donations from Israeli Tycoons and other ‘Friends of Israel’ better start to understand once and for all what kind of Ideology they are aligning themselves with.
>
> Here is a full translation of an article in the Maariv newspaper of Israel
> http://didiremez.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/settler-rabbi-publishes-the-complete-guide-to-killing-non-jews/
> Ma’ariv 09.11.09 (p. 2) by Roi Sharon –
When is it permissible to kill non-Jews? The book Torat ha-Melekh [The King’s Teaching—INT], which was just published, was written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the dean of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the community of Yitzhar near Nablus, together with another rabbi from the yeshiva, Yossi Elitzur. The book contains no fewer than 230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.
Although the book is not being distributed by the leading book companies, it has already received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis such as Yitzhak Ginsburg, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, that were printed at the beginning of the book. The book is being distributed via the Internet and through the yeshiva, and at this stage the introductory price is NIS 30 per copy. At the memorial ceremony that was held over the weekend in Jerusalem for Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was killed nineteen years ago, copies of the book were sold.
>
Throughout the book, the authors deal with in-depth theoretical questions in Jewish religious law regarding the killing of non-Jews. The words “Arabs” and “Palestinians” are not mentioned even indirectly, and the authors are careful to avoid making explicit statements in favor of an individual taking the law into his own hands. The book includes hundreds of sources from the Bible and religious law. The book includes quotes from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the fathers of religious Zionism, and from Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, one of the deans of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the stronghold of national-religious Zionism that is located in Jerusalem.
>
The book opens with a prohibition against killing non-Jews and justifies it, among other things, on the grounds of preventing hostility and any desecration of God’s name. But very quickly, the authors move from prohibition to permission, to the various dispensations for harming non-Jews, with the central reason being their obligation to uphold the seven Noahide laws, which every human being on earth must follow. Among these commandments are prohibitions on theft, bloodshed and idolatry.
> [The seven Noahide laws prohibit idolatry, murder, theft, illicit sexual relations, blasphemy and eating the flesh of a live animal, and require societies to institute just laws and law courts—INT]
>
“When we approach a non-Jew who has violated the seven Noahide laws and kill him out of concern for upholding these seven laws, no prohibition has been violated,” states the book, which emphasizes that killing is forbidden unless it is done in obedience to a court ruling. But later on, the authors limit the prohibition, noting that it applies only to a “proper system that deals with non-Jews who violate the seven Noahide commandments.”
>
The book includes another conclusion that explains when a non-Jew may be killed even if he is not an enemy of the Jews.
> “In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created,” the authors state. “When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed.”
>
One of the dispensations for killing non-Jews, according to religious law, applies in a case of din rodef [the law of the “pursuer,” according to which one who is pursuing another with murderous intent may be killed extra-judicially] even when the pursuer is a civilian. “The dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly,” the book states. “Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer.”
>
Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur determine that children may also be harmed because they are “hindrances.” The rabbis write as follows:
> “Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”
>
In addition, the children of the leader may be harmed in order to apply pressure to him. If attacking the children of a wicked ruler will influence him not to behave wickedly, they may be harmed. “It is better to kill the pursuers than to kill others,” the authors state
>
In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directed mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers.
>
Retaliation also has a place and purpose in this book by Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur. “In order to defeat the enemy, we must behave toward them in a spirit of retaliation and measure for measure,” they state. “Retaliation is absolutely necessary in order to render such wickedness not worthwhile. Therefore, sometimes we do cruel deeds in order to create the proper balance of terror.”
>
In one of the footnotes, the two rabbis write in such a way that appears to permit individuals to act on their own, outside of any decision by the government or the army.
“A decision by the nation is not necessary to permit shedding the blood of the evil kingdom,” the rabbis write. “Even individuals from the nation being attacked may harm them.”
>
> Unlike books of religious law that are published by yeshivas, this time the rabbis added a chapter containing the book’s conclusions. Each of the six chapters is summarized into main points of several lines, which state, among other things:
“In religious law, we have found that non-Jews are generally suspected of shedding Jewish blood, and in war, this suspicion becomes a great deal stronger. One must consider killing even babies, who have not violated the seven Noahide laws, because of the future danger that will be caused if they are allowed to grow up to be as wicked as their parents.”
>
Even though the authors are careful, as stated, to use the term “non-Jews,” there are certainly those who could interpret the nationality of the “non-Jews” who are liable to endanger the Jewish people. This is strengthened by the leaflet “The Jewish Voice,” which is published on the Internet from Yitzhar, which comments on the book:
> “It is superfluous to note that nowhere in the book is it written that the statements are directed only to the ancient non-Jews.”
>
The leaflet’s editors did not omit a stinging remark directed at the GSS, who will certainly take the trouble to get themselves a copy. “The editors suggest to the GSS that they award the prize for Israel’s security to the authors,” the leaflet states, “who gave the detectives the option of reading the summarized conclusions without any need for in-depth study of the entire book.”
>
One student of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar explained, from his point of view, where RabbisShapira and Elitzur got the courage to speak so freely on a subject such as the killing of non-Jews. “The rabbis aren’t afraid of prosecution because in that case, Maimonides [Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204] and Nahmanides [Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270] would have to stand trial too, and anyway, this is research on religious law,” the yeshiva student said. “In a Jewish state, nobody sits in jail for studying Torah.”
> …………………..
> Iran Rabbi urges Jews to burn controversial book
> Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:57:20 GMT
> http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=111484§ionid=351020101
> *************************
> The impact of the torching a mosque in the Upper-Galilee village of Tuba Zingerah, which lies within the Green Line, on October 3, 2011 by an Israeli underground organization, raises urgent questions on the motives of burning the mosque and the body behind this crime. The underground, Jewish terrorist organization, which burnt the mosque, left its mark at the crime scene, just as it did when it set fire to more than five mosques in the occupied West Bank recently. On the walls of the mosques it burnt the Jewish terrorist organization sprayed the Hebrew words tag mehir (literally translated as “price tag”). In such a crime, the primary suspect is a racist and extremist network that is rooted in the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, especially the Jewish religious schools (yeshivas) scattered in these settlements and their extensions across the Green Line. In order to scrutinize the background of these heinous crimes, and their underpinning in intellectual, religious and political basis, embraced and heralded by a very large number of West Bank settlers, as well as a growing number of Israelis inside the Green Line, it is useful to read The King’s Torah, a book written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, head of the Yeshivat Od Yosef Chai (Joseph Still Lives), in the Yitzhar settlement located in the West Bank, south of the city of Nablus.
>
> The book is co-authored by Rabbi Yosef Elitzur, a teacher at the same religious Yeshiva. It should be noted that this book is just the tip of the iceberg of extremist, racist, and anti-human ideas that poison the mobilized students’ minds of the Jewish religious schools in the West Bank settlements, in addition to the settler rabbis who foment hatred, racism, and hostility among their followers in the settlements, yeshivas or beyond toward the Palestinians.
>
> The King’s Torah aims to determine the position of the Torah and Jewish law on gentiles (non-Jews or ‘goyim’ in Hebrew), which the Jewish State and the Jews must be committed and adhere to. The book classifies mankind into multiple ranks. According to this classification, Jews are ranked higher. They are, immeasurably, better than any other human beings. It deems the Jews as the only real humans, while the gentiles are lower in rank – closer to the status of animals. Therefore, the Jewish State and the Jews should take discriminative attitudes toward them, at best, or allow them be killed, or they should often be killed, particularly in time of war,
>
The King’s Torah … a guide to the killing of Palestinians
The two authors extensively tackle an issue that dominates the entire book – that is, when will the Jews be allowed to kill the gentiles (goyim)? When should the Jews kill them? The gentiles must not be misidentified. Clarifying the ‘gentiles’ here as being basically the Palestinian Arabs, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginzburg, a revered religious figure among the religious Jews in Israel, says in the introduction to The King’s Torah that the issues addressed by the book:
> “are closely related to the situation in the land of Israel, which we should restore from our enemies.”
> He argued that the book serves the objective of achieving this goal, strengthening the morale of the Israeli people and soldiers, and explaining both the Torah’s deep comprehensive view and Jewish law on outstanding relevant issues.
> “In the war on the fate of the land of Israel, the gentiles must be killed,” the authors say, adding,
> “The gentiles, who claim this land for themselves, are stealing it from us, but it is a legacy from our forefathers.”
>
> This book really represents a guide for the perplexed, the hesitant and those who seek a religious Jewish legal opinion (fatwa) as to when it is allowed to kill the Palestinian Arabs and when this “should” take place according to the Jewish law. Moreover, it provides moral and religious support to many settlers and Israelis who are convinced of the content of this book before reading it.
>
> Written in ancient Hebrew similar to ancient religious Jewish writings, the authors consolidate their views in the book, especially those calling for the killing of gentiles (i.e., the Palestinians), with texts from Jewish law and a lot of quotes by senior Jewish rabbis through different ages. They make this a backdrop for any opinion they hold in the book, giving it a religious aura influencing many Jews, especially the religious. The outstanding religious sources of the Jewish law were a basis for the book. In addition to the written Torah, which they quote little, the authors depend as well on the oral Torah, Mishnah (about AD 200), and on post-Mishnah rabbinic interpretations compiled in the Babylonian Talmud (AD 5th Century Babylonia) and the Jerusalem Talmud (AD 4th Century Palestine).
>
> The King’s Torah is also based on Mishneh Torah, compiled and commented on by Moses Ben Maimon or Maimonides (Rambam) (1135-1204), and Rabbi Moshe Ben Nahman’s (Ramban) writings, as well as Rabbi Joseph Caro’s Shulhan Arukh (The Prepared Table) (published in the sixteenth century), and the writings and opinions of 20th Century senior rabbis who held a prominent place in the Zionist religious mainstream, such as Rabbi Kook.
>
> Although it is widely based on the most important sources in Jewish law, The King’s Torah reviews and cites the most extremist Jewish texts, legal opinions, and interpretations that permit, favor, call for or mandate the killing of ‘gentiles,’ overlooking the positive human values of the Jewish law. This makes the book more dangerous, as it incites and openly calls for the extermination of the Palestinian Arabs.
>
> Chapters of the Book
> Published in 2009 by the Biblical Institute in Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva, the 230-page The King’s Torah consists of an introduction, six chapters, and a summary. The Biblical Institute intends to issue a second volume of the book once the authors complete it. It will address a range of topics, such as the position of The King’s Torah toward the “minorities in the Jewish State”.
>
> In chapter one, the authors confirm that the biblical obligation “Thou shalt not kill” only prohibits the killing of a Jew by a Jew, but it does not apply at all to the Jew who kills one or more gentiles. The book points out that in many cases the Jew has the right to kill the gentiles. In many other cases, the Jew should kill the gentiles.
>
> In chapter two, entitled “The Killing of a Non-Jew Who Violates the Seven Laws (of Noah),” the authors stress that a non-Jew who violates one of the laws ordained on Noah’s sons “must be killed”. God, according to the authors, asked all human beings to accept His Torah, but only the Children of Israel responded while all other human beings rejected God’s ordinance. Therefore, God distinguished the Children of Israel from all other human beings, and gave them a very special and reputable status and drew them to Him.
> Conversely, God degraded the gentiles, whom the authors call “Noah’s sons” and classify them in lower ranks in a hierarchy of classification for the human beings set by The King’s Torah. Noah’s sons must commit themselves to the Seven Laws ordained by God through the Children of Israel, with any Jew having the right to kill anyone from Noah’s sons who violates one of the Seven Laws. The implementation of this murder, according to the authors, does not require a court of law or prosecution witnesses. It is enough for a Jewish person to see or know that a non-Jew violates one of the Seven Laws and thus kills him.
>
> In chapters three and four, the authors compare between Jews and gentiles, focusing on how far each side adheres to their respective beliefs and their position on murder. The Jews are freer to kill non-Jews than the gentiles can kill other gentiles, the authors conclude.
>
> MURDER IS THE MASTER OF RULINGS
>
> In chapter five, entitled “The Killing of Gentiles in War,” the authors write that it is not only the fighters who engage in war against Israel that should be killed, but any citizen in the region or in a hostile state, who encourages fighters or expresses satisfaction with their actions, must be killed as well. They add that the citizens of a hostile state or region, who do not encourage their state to commit acts of war, can be killed, claiming that the Jewish law doubts that they do not want, in time of peace, to shed the blood of the Jews. This suspicion is growing to the extent that they want to shed the blood of the Jews in time of war, thus allowing the killing of those innocent civilian gentiles who do not participate at all in the course of war.
The authors give other reasons for allowing the killing of innocent civilians. “A large part of the malice and evil that exists within these civilian gentiles stems from their violation of the Seven Laws,” the authors say.
“Hence, we would enforce the ruling and kill them because of their violation of this. This is why our great sages ruled that the best gentiles during the time of war are ‘the dead’ – that is, there is no room for reforming the gentiles, given their intensive danger and malice. As for children from birth through adolescence, who of course do not violate the Seven Laws for not realizing or hearing about them, can be killed “because of the future risk they pose if they are allowed to live and grow up and thus become evildoers like their parents.”
>
The authors add,
> “Of course, the children and other civilians, whom the evildoers seek their protection, are allowed to be killed too. Thus, the evildoers must be killed, even if this led to the killing of children and civilians.”
>
TARGETING INNOCENT CIVILIANS
In chapter six, “Targeting the Innocents,” the authors tackle the killing of the innocents in a “good state,” (i.e., Israel), saying that this “good state” used to force its innocent men to go to war and risk their life. Not only that, but the state used to appoint guards to stand behind the fighting soldiers to kill whoever escapes from them. The authors add that if the king could not harm his combatant citizens in order to participate in war and force them to make headway and be ready for death, his kingdom cannot face bad people who do not hesitate to kill to achieve victory. If the king, the authors conclude, is allowed to kill his innocent combatant men to force them to fight, he has the right and it is allowed to target the civilians belonging to the kingdom of evildoers.
>
> The authors emphasize Israel’s right to target and kill the citizens of a hostile state, regardless of their age and number. Even if they have just been born, elderly or on the brink of death, be they male or female, participating in fighting or not, Israel is entitled to target and kill them all.
>
> Their view is based on the Jewish law and rabbinic interpretations over ages. The authors use all provisions of Jewish law that allow for the killing of gentiles, such as the ruling of pursuing and persecuting the Jews, the din rodef (law of the pursuer), and slandering the Jews or din moser (law of the informant), all to justify Israel’s killing of Palestinians.
>
> Again the authors confirm that the Palestinians should be killed because they violate the Seven Laws, adding that the Palestinian civilians who help the “killers” must be targeted, even if the innocent were forced to do so.
> “Even if they are tied or imprisoned and no way to escape and have no choice but to stay in the same place, like hostages, they can be targeted, crushed and killed if this is the way to get rid of the evildoers. As we explained earlier, whoever helps to kill someone against their will can be targeted and killed. In many cases, children find themselves in such a case: they block, by their presence at the scene, the way of rescue. They are forced to do so unintentionally. However, they can be targeted and killed, for their presence helps murder.”
>
> Accordingly, it can be concluded that the The King’s Torah justifies Israel’s targeting and killing of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians if they happen to be, willingly or forcibly, in a big building where a wanted Palestinian is in.
>
> The authors make a distinction between the laws of war that apply to non-Jewish States, and the laws that apply to Israel. In a war between two “fair” and “evil” non-Jewish States, if the military action carried out by the fair state leads to the killing of a large number of innocent citizens of the evil state to save a few citizens of the former, the latter is prohibited from carrying out this operation. However,
> “in war between Israel and gentiles, we simply prefer to kill non-Jews in order to save the Jews, because the lives of the Jews are more valuable and better, as we explained in Chapter Four. Moreover, the Jews are the ones who are reforming the world and also delivering the Word of God, especially the Seven Laws, to the whole world.”
> Revenge…revenge…on children
>
> The authors put revenge in an aura of veneration in chapter six of The King’s Torah, confirming that Israel should take revenge on the Palestinians. Revenge is a necessity that makes the killing of evildoers a must. It is an essential need to defeat and win. Therefore, it is possible to delay the burial of a dead body in order to take revenge. As manifestation of justice, revenge must be done with enthusiasm and “without accountability”. Revenge is not only necessary for those alive, but also for the dead.
“In the world of the dead, there is a similarity between a person’s soul and justice. The soul demands justice, which is revenge.”
>
> The authors add,
> “No one must be excluded when Israel retaliates. All the Palestinians are vulnerable to retaliation. In the face of revenge, no one is innocent, be they old, young, children, men or women, and regardless of their health. Children and adults, men and women, whatever their condition, should be avenged.”
>
> Justifying the killing of children, particularly infants who have just been born, the authors say the Children of Israel had killed the young children of Midian (is a geographical place and a people mentioned in the Bible and in the Qur’an believed to be located in Saudi Arabia) in the bygone time.
>
> The killing of children en masse is not only meant to create a balance of terror, because those children belong to the evildoers, but for “the existence of an internal need for revenge,” and the killing of children, especially the young, responds to this need. Enumerating reasons for the killing of Palestinian children, the authors say it is possible to deal with the necessity of killing Palestinian children on the basis that they are chosen by fate to be killed to save the Jews. By the same token, by killing them, evil can be avoided.
>
> “In addition to what we mentioned in the previous chapter, they are, of course, accused of becoming evildoers when they grow up,” they say.
>
> It is noted that all penalties and provisions included in The King’s Torah book for any offense is murder and death. There are no penalties in the book but murder and death. Even the punishment prescribed by the book on the innocent is murder and death. Other penalties, such as imprisonment, fining or the like, have no room in the book. It is also noted that the book does not recognize international laws related to war, protection of civilians in time of war, or international humanitarian law on the prevention of genocide and punishment of the perpetrators.
>
> This is, perhaps, because the book assumes, as many Israelis believe, that Israel is above the international laws, and as long as the US administration supports Israel, the balance of power in the region will tilt in favor of Israel, while the Arab countries are subject to Israel and are unable to face or resist it.
>
> The danger of this book lies in the fact that its hostile theories and ideas – the worst ever inhuman theories that emerged in human history – are not confined to a few setters isolated from the rest of the Israeli society.
> These ideas are adopted by very large segments of the Jewish settlers in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, and large groups of religious Zionists as well as the ultra-Orthodox Jews, the Haridim, in Israel. The senior rabbis, who publicly support The King’s Torah and defend what is mentioned in it, are not marginal at all. They are known for being belonging to the religious mainstream of Israel, both religious ultra-Orthodox (Haridim) and national-Zionist wings.
>
> In addition, thousands graduate from the Jewish religious schools (yeshivas) in the Israeli settlements and inside Israel after they have learnt hatred, resentment, and anti-human values, such as the hostile, attitudes toward the Palestinians calling for their expulsion and killing. These values are also based on the teachings mentioned in The King’s Torah that advocate extermination of the Palestinians. The number of students is growing year after year as are the numbers in the Israeli army.
>
> The danger of this book does not lie in the adoption and preaching of these ideas, even though it is very dangerous. Rather, large sectors of the settlers turn from the adoption of these ideas into putting them into action. Under the auspices of the Israeli government and the protection of the occupying Israeli army, the settlers have been assaulting Palestinians, their property, and holy places. The rabbis and yeshiva students, who revere the ideas of The King’s Torah and deal with it as their original Torah, represent the spearhead of settlers and the occupation. They abuse the Palestinians, ravage their towns and villages, cut down their trees, and burn their farms, crops and mosques, thus turning their lives into a hell as a prelude to deportation. In this context, a secret, Jewish military organization named Tag Mehir emerged in 2009 from the ranks of those rabbis and their West Bank settlement yeshiva students, representing the military power of The King’s Torah-guided settlers.
>
GENTILES IN HALACHA
>
Foreword — Daat Emet
>
> For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha’s real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva — so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot; see there). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article “Jews Are Called ‘Men’” by R’ David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.
> In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:
>
> “The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”
>
> That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs not on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.
> For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:
>
> 1. Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).
>
> 2. A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.
>
> 3. A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.
>
> 4. The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.
>
> 5. A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.
>
> 6. The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.
>
> 7. One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.
>
> 8. A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.
>
> 9. One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.
>
> 10. A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).
>
> 11. One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.
>
> 12. The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
> 13. One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbor” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
> 14. One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”
>
> 15. Gentiles are likened to animals.
>
> 16. If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
> 17. The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
> 18. One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
> 19. An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
> 20. Their members(genitals) are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.
> 21. Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought
>
> R’ Bar-Chayim’s arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R’ Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the “Conclusion” of his article: “It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce ‘compromises’ or ‘renovations’ into it.”
> On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet — as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d — are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.
> In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R’ Bar-Chayim’s article, “Between Jews and Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought,” because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written: “And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like — most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah” (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.
> http://www.come-and-hear.com
> GOOGLE:
> THE JEWS ARE CALLED MEN
> Tzfi’a 3
> THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN JEWS AND GENTILES IN TORAH
> Rabbi David Bar Chaim
> Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav