Jesus was not a Jew, in the sense of the meaning of the word 'Jew' as 'a person who adheres to the religious practice called Pharisaism or Talmudism'. At that time in history, there was no religious, racial or national group in Judea known as 'Jews', nor had there ever been prior to that time. Judahites subscribed to the Pharisaical dogma; they were Talmudists.
When the word 'Jew' was introduced into the English language its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was 'Judean'. However, from the 18th through 20th centuries a well organized and well-financed international 'pressure group' created a 'secondary meaning' for the word 'Jew' among the English- speaking people of the world. This 'secondary meaning' bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation - meaning 'Judean'. The secondary meaning today has practically totally eclipsed the original and correct meaning of the word. (from Facts Are Facts by Ben Freedman)
Basically, it comes down to this: If Jesus was a Judean, it has no bearing on the religion practiced by the Judeans at that time, nor on the given-meaning today, namely that a Jew is:
1) A person who professes the form of religious worship known as 'Judaism';
2) A person who claims to belong to a racial group associated with the ancient Semites;
3) A person directly the descendant of an ancient nation which thrived in Palestine in Bible history; and/or
4) A a person blessed by divine intentional design with certain superior cultural characteristics denied to the other racial, religious or national groups, all rolled into one.
Jesus was NOT a Jew in that sense of the word, and there is not a person in the whole English-speaking world today who regards a 'Jew' as a 'Judean' in the literal sense of the word. We will defer here to the learned Rabbis, in the definition of that religious practice. From Facts are Facts, we read:
"Jesus abhorred and denounced the form of religious worship practiced in Judea in His lifetime and which is known and practiced today under its new name 'Judaism'. That religious belief was then known as 'Pharisaism'.
The Christian clergy learned that in their theological seminary days but they have never made any attempt to make that clear to Christians.
The eminent Rabi Louis Finkelstein, the head of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (often referred to as 'The Vatican of Judaism') in the Foreword to his First Edition of his classic The Pharisees, The Sociological Background of Their Faith, on page XXI states:"... Judaism... Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name... the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered...
From Palestine to Babylonia, from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia, and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered ...
... demonstrates the enduring importance which attaches to Pharisaism as a religious movement..."
(Recall Moses Mendelssohn's words "Judaism is not a religion. Judaism is a law religionized".)
"Rabbi Louis Finkelstein in his great classic quoted from above, traces the origin of the form of religious worship practiced today under the present name 'Judaism', to its origin as 'Pharisaism' in Judea in the time of Jesus.
Rabbi Finkelstein confirms what Rabbi Adolph Moses says in his: Yahvism, and Other Discourses (in collaboration with Rabbi H.G. Enlow), published in 1903 by the Louisville Section of the Council of Jewish Women. Rabbi Adolph Moses, on page 1, states:"Among the innumerable misfortunes which have befallen... the most fatal in its consequences is the name Judaism . . . worse still, the Jews themselves, who have gradually come to call their religion Judaism . . .
Yet, neither in biblical nor post-biblical, neither in talmudic, nor in much later times, is the term Judaism ever heard. . . To distinguish it from Christianity and Islam, the Jewish philosophers sometimes designate it as the faith or belief of the Jews. . .
It was Flavius Josephus, writing for the instruction of Greeks and Romans, who coined the term Judaism, in order to pit it against Hellenism...
The Christians eagerly seized upon the name...
The Jews themselves, who intensely detested the traitor Josephus, refrained from reading his works. Hence, the term Judaism coined by Josephus remained absolutely unknown to them. It was only in comparatively recent times, after the Jews became familiar with modern Christian literature, that they themselves began to name their religion Judaism"
This statement by the world's two leading authorities on this subject clearly establishes beyond any question or any doubt that 'Judaism' was not the name of any form of religious worship practised in Judea in the time of Jesus.
Religious worship known and practiced today under the name 'Judaism' by 'Jews' throughout the world was known and practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus under the name 'Pharisaism'... "
The form of religious worship known as 'Pharisaism' in Judea in the time of Jesus was based exclusively upon the Talmud. The Talmud today exercises virtual totalitarian dictatorship over the lives of Jews, whether they are aware of that fact or not. . . and Talmudic Law has been incorporated into U.S. and International law (more on that later).
From The World's Troublemakers read carefully and consider the implications of the following paragraph from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Jews and Judeo-Christians alike, read each word as though it were highlighted, italicized, and underlined.
"This is the continuation of Phariseeism, as acknowledged in the Jewish Encyclopedia under the word 'Pharisee':Henceforth, Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees.
The whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past.
Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thoughts of the Jew for all the future.
Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, in his book The Pharisee, confirms this and says:"The spirit of the ancient Pharisee survived unaltered!"
On this basis, whenever the word 'Jew' is used we should remember that it refers to the Pharisees. This group believes now, as it did then, that it has been specially chosen by its own particular god to exercise dominion over all other groups, and that any means to this end has divine sanction."
From the Library of Congress' Dead Sea Scrolls website we find another assertion that modern Judaism IS Pharisaism; that is... Talmudism:
"... With the destruction of the Temple and the commonwealth in 70 C.E., all that came to an end. Only the Judaism of the Pharisees -- Rabbinic Judaism -- survived."
We Christians have been told that the Bible is the Word-of-God, every jot and tittle, both Old and New Testaments; not a word has been changed and according to the 'word' itself, dire consequences await any who doubt its veracity or who would dare attempt to change a jot or tittle. That's a slick way to keep the masses under control and scare hell out of any who would dare question.
The King James Version seems to be revered as 'the one and only' true written word of God. The two King James versions in our home are copyrighted. How would or could one 'copyright' the Word of God? According to copyright laws, when publishing work written by someone else at least twenty-percent of the material must be different from the original in order to secure a copyright. That 20% gives great leeway for additions, deletions and more subtle changes in a word here, a phrase there.
It has been written in several sources that Sir Francis Bacon was involved in the construction of the 'authorized' King James version of the Bible; that his biographer, William T. Smedley, wrote of the extent of Bacon's 'editing' as follows:
"It will eventually be proved that the whole structure of the Authorized Bible was Francis Bacon's. He was an ardent student not only of the Bible, but also of early manuscripts. St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and writers of theological works, were studied by him with industry."
The first five books of Christendom's Old Testament make up the Torah, which is the foundation of the Babylonian Talmud now comprised of sixty-three volumes. Then there is the extended Talmud which is oral - forbidden to be written - lest the heathen learn its secrets.
Those first five books of the so-called Christian Bible lay out a political program designed to create a World Government controlled by the same Ruling Sect that set the plan in motion before Jesus was born. From several sources we have read excerpts of Rabbi Rabinovich's speech given to a group of Rabbis from around the world in Budapest, in 1952, in which he makes clear the 'goal': (emphasis added)
"The goal for which we have striven so concertedly for three thousand years is at last within our reach, and because its fulfillment is so apparent, it behooves us to increase our efforts and our caution tenfold.
I can safely promise you that before ten years have passed, our race will take its rightful place in the world, with every Jew a king and every Gentile a slave.
We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa. I can state with assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born."
In response to questions regarding the pure authenticity of the Bible, Christian friends have often remarked: "God is all-powerful and would not allow His Word to be tampered with".
On the other hand, Christians have also declared that Lucifer controls the physical plane, this material third-dimensional world. Which way is it then?... because we can't have it both ways. Double mindedness is a form of insanity, and we must be insane in order to hold two absolutely opposing thoughts in our mind believing both to be truth.
Douglas Reed, in his Controversy of Zion, sheds some light on the question of authenticity of the Old Testament. As an aside, his book title is taken from Isaiah 34. The dust jacket of the original publication bears a photocopy of the page from the Bible, beginning with verse 6:
The sword of the Lord is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the Lord hath a sacrifice in Boz'rah, and a great slaughter in the land of Id-du-me'-a.
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness For it is the day of the LORD'S vengeance, and the year of the recompenses for the controversy of Zion.
Slaughter, blood, destruction, blood, curses, vengeance and more bloody passages abound in the Old Testament. I wonder, where is the love? The 'Dr. Kastein' who Mr. Reed quotes throughout the book is introduced in the first chapter as:
"A most zealous Zionist historian, Dr. Josef Kastein . . . will often be quoted during this narrative because his book, like this one, covers the entire span of the controversy of Zion (save for the last twenty-two years; it was published in 1933).
Dr. Kastein, a fervent Zionist, holds that the Law laid down in the Old Testament must be fulfilled to the letter, but does not pretend to take the version of history seriously, on which this Law is based. In this he differs from Christian polemicists of the 'every word is true' school.
He holds that the Old Testament was in fact a political programme, drafted to meet the conditions of a time, and frequently revised to meet changing conditions."
In view of the fact that Dr. Kastein is a Zionist Jew, Reed's introduction is included here. There is a possibility, slim perhaps, that his work would be given credence by other Jews, and just maybe some Jews and Christians will take heed. Page 49 begins the chapter on:
THE TRANSLATION OF THE LAW
"The most important event (as it proved) of the next four hundred years was the first translation of the Judaic scriptures (later to become known as the Old Testament) into a foreign tongue, Greek. This enabled, and still enables, 'the heathen' to become partially acquainted with the Law that ordained their own enslavement and destruction and the supremacy of Judah.
Save for the translation the nature of literal Judaism would have remained a matter of surmise, whereas the translation made it appear to be one of evidence and proof.
For that reason it is at first sight surprising that the translation was ever made (as tradition says, by seventy-two Jewish scholars at Alexandria between 275 and 150 BC). Dr. Kastein explains that it was undertaken"with a definite object in view, that of making it comprehensible to the Greeks; this led to the distortion and twisting of words, changes of meaning, and the frequent substitution of general terms and ideas for those that were purely local and national".
Dr. Kastein's words in this instance are carelessly chosen if they were intended to disguise what occurred; a matter is not made 'comprehensible' to others by distorting and twisting it, changing its meaning, and substituting ambiguous terms for precise ones. Moreover, so learned a Judaic scholar must have known what the Jewish Encyclopedia records, that the later Talmud even"prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, anyone so teaching 'deserving death'."
Indeed, the Talmud saw such danger in the acquirement by the heathen of knowledge of the Law that it set up the oral Torah as the last repository of Jehovah's secrets, safe from any Gentile eye.
If the Judaic scriptures were translated into Greek, then, this was not for the benefit of the Greeks (Dr. Kastein wrote for a largely Gentile audience). The reason, almost certainly, was that the Jews themselves needed the translation.
The Judahites had lost their Hebrew tongue in Babylon - thereafter it became a priestly mystery, "one of the secret spiritual bonds which held the Judaists of the Diaspora together", as Dr. Kastein says - and spoke Aramaic. However, the largest single body of Jews was in Alexandria, where Greek became their everyday language; many of them could no longer understand Hebrew and a Greek version of their Law was needed as a basis for the rabbinical interpretations of it.
Above all, the elders could not foresee that centuries later a new religion [Christianity] would arise in the world which would take over their scriptures as part of its own Bible [Old Testament], and thus bring "the Mosaic Law" before the eyes of all mankind. Had that been anticipated, the Greek translation might never have been made.
Nevertheless, the translators were evidently reminded by the priests that their work would bring "the Law" for the first time under Gentile scrutiny; hence the distortions, twistings, changes and substitutions mentioned by Dr. Kastein. An instance of these is apparently given by Deuteronomy 32:31, the translation which has come down to the heathen alludes vaguely to "a foolish nation", whereas the reference in the Hebrew original, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, is to "vile and vicious Gentiles".
What was translated? First, the five books of the Law, the Torah. After the 'New Covenant' had been forcibly imposed on the Jerusalemites by Ezra and Nehemiah, the priesthood in Babylon had given the Torah yet another revision;"Once again anonymous editors lent their past history, their traditions, laws and customs a meaning entirely in keeping with theocracy and applicable to that system of government...
The form which the Torah then received was the final and conclusive form which was not to be altered by one iota; no single thought, word or letter of it was to be changed". [Dr. Kastein]
When mortal men repeatedly "lend meaning" to something supposed already to be immutable, and force all spiritual tradition into the framework of their worldly political ambition, what remains cannot be an original revelation of God. What had happened was that the earlier, Israelite tradition had been expunged or cancelled, and in its place the Judaic racial law had assumed "final and conclusive form".
The same method was followed in the compilation of the other books, historical, prophetic or lyrical.
The book of Daniel, for instance, was completed at about this time, that is to say, some four hundred years after the events related in it; small wonder that the anonymous author got all his historical facts wrong. Dr. Kastein is candid about the manner in which these books were produced."The editors who put the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings into their final form gathered every fragment" (of the old teachings and traditions) "and creatively interpreted them...
It was impossible always definitely to assign particular words to a particular person, for they had so frequently worked anonymously, and, as the editors were more concerned with the subject matter than with philological exactitude, they were content with stringing the sayings of the prophets together as best they could".
(This method might account for the attribution of the identical "Messianic" prophecy to two prophets, Isaiah 2:2-4 and Micah 4:1-4, and for the numerous repetitions to be found in other books).
The subject matter then, was the important thing, not historical truth, or "philological exactitude", or the word of God.
The subject matter was political nationalism in the most extreme form ever known to man, and conformity with this dogma was the only rule that had to be observed. The way in which these books were compiled, after Judah was cast off by Israel - and the reasons - are clear to any who study their origin.
The resultant product, the growth of five or six hundred years and the work of generations of political priests, was the book which was translated into Greek around 150 BC. After the lifetime of Jesus, it, and the New Testament, was translated into Latin by Saint Jerome, when both"came to be regarded by the Church as of equal divine authority and as sections of one book" (from a typical modern encyclopedia),
a theological dictum which was formally confirmed by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century of our era and has been adopted by nearly all Protestant churches, although in this matter they might have found valid reason to protest.
In view of the changes which were made, at the translation, (see Dr. Kastein's words above), none but Judaist scholars could tell today how closely the Old Testament in the Hebrew-Aramaic original compares with the version which has come down, from the first translation into Greek, as one of the two sections of Christendom's Bible.
Clearly substantial changes were made, and quite apart from that there is the "oral Torah", and the Talmudic continuation of the Torah, so that the Gentile world has never known the whole truth of the Judaic Law.
Nevertheless, the essence of it is all in the Old Testament as it has come down to Christendom, and that is a surprising thing. Whatever may have been expunged or modified, the vengeful, tribal deity, the savage creed and the law of destruction and enslavement remain plain for all to ponder.
The fact is that no amount of twisting, distortion, changing or other subterfuge could conceal the nature of the Judaic Law, once it was translated; although glosses were made, the writing beneath remains clear, and this is the best evidence that, when the first translation was authorized, the universal audience it would ultimately reach was not foreseen.
With that translation the Old Testament, as we now call and know it, entered the West, its teaching of racial hatred and destruction only a little muted by the emendations. That was before the story of the West even had truly begun.
By the time the West and Christianity were nineteen and a half centuries old the political leaders there, being much in awe of the central sect of Judaism, had begun to speak with pious awe of the Old Testament, as if it were the better half of the Book by which they professed to live.
Nevertheless it was - as it always had been - the Law of their peoples' [Christians'] destruction and enslavement; and all their deeds, under the servitude which they accepted, led towards that end."
So much for the authenticity of the Old Testament as every-word-the-word-of-God, unless we are willing to elevate the Pharisees and the Scribes to the status of Creator.
As I re-read and ponder what has just been written, my thoughts turn to our reader who is beginning to see through the mist of lies, whether Jew, Christian or any one of the hundreds of other religious persuasions.
I remember the shock and anger and hurt when I discovered that our Christmas -- the 'birthday' of Jesus -- was celebrated in ancient times as the Saturnalia, the Festival of Lights. It was a drunken orgy, during the Winter Solstice, and the priesthood turned it into a 'religious holiday' for Christians.
Some of you will read this, deny all the evidence and continue on as before. If your desire for truth is deep and strong and unrelenting, you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
Those words of love and encouragement were meant for all of us - no religious doctrine or dogma or threats of hellfire and damnation. Just truth and love. They are one and the same. We can leave the lies behind us and keep what is real; Love is real. And we shall know the truth. . .
Previous Page | Next Page