Recall especially that today’s “Jews” boast that they follow the Pharisees…

 

“The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.”  Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 pg. 474

 

“Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered.”

Rabbi Dr. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, The Jewish Publication Society of America (1946) p. xxi

 

“The Talmud is the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the ‘Tradition of the Elders,’ and to which He makes frequent allusions.” *

Michael L. Rodkinson, The History of the Talmud: From The Time Of Its Formation About 200 B. C. Up To The Present Time, Kessinger Publishing, LLC (June 8, 2006), ISBN-13: 978-1428631366, p.70

* “Allusions”? Yes, Jesus damned those man-made traditions for voiding the commandment of God. Mark 7:8-9

 

“This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible.”

Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Judaism and the Christian Predicament, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967, p.59, 159

 

…and that Jesus singled out the followers of the Pharisees as twofold children of Hell more than the Pharisees themselves.

 

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

Matthew 23:15

 

The word “Jew” is a modern word with many ambiguous meanings, but neither by race, residence, nor religion was Jesus Christ a “Jew”

and He certainly isn’t a bastard of a whore boiling in feces as Jews insist.

 

In his book The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed drills that point home most eloquently;

 

What manner of man was this? Another paradox in the story of Zion is that in our generation Christian divines and theologians often insist that “Jesus was a Jew”, whereas the Judaist elders refuse to allow this (those Zionist rabbis who occasionally tell political or “interfaith'” audiences that Jesus was a Jew are not true exceptions to this rule; they would not make the statement among Jews and seek to produce an effect among their non-Jewish listeners, for political reasons). *

 

This public assertion, “Jesus was a Jew”, is always used in our century for political purposes. It is often employed to quell objections to the Zionist influence in international politics or to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, the suggestion being that, as Jesus was a Jew, none ought to object to anything purporting to be done in the name of Jews. The irrelevance is obvious, but mobs are moved by such phrases, and the paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most offensive to literal Jews, is most frequently made by non-Jewish politicians and ecclesiastics who seek Jewish favour.

 

The English abbreviation, “Jew” is recent and does not correspond to anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for “Judahite” or “Judean”, which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, the English noun “Jew” cannot be defined (so that dictionaries, which are scrupulously careful about all other words, are reduced to such obvious absurdities as “A person of Hebrew race”); and the Zionist state has no legal definition of the term (which is natural, because the Torah, which is the Law, exacts pure Judahite descent, and a person of this lineage is hardly to be found in the entire world).

 

If the statement, “Jesus was a Jew”, has meaning therefore, it must apply to the conditions prevailing in his time. In that case it would mean one of three things, or all of them: that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (therefore Judahite); that he was of Judean domicile (and therefore Judean); that he was religiously “a Jew” if any religion denoted by that term existed in his time.

 

Race, residence, religion, then.

 

This book is not the place to argue the question of Jesus's racial descent, and the surprising thing is that Christian divines allow themselves some of the statements which they make. The reader should form his own opinion, if he desires to have one in this question.

 

The genealogy of Mary is not given in the New Testament, but three passages might imply that she was of Davidic descent; St. Matthew and St. Luke trace the descent of Joseph from David and Judah, but Joseph was not the blood father of Jesus. The Judaist authorities discredit all these references to descent, holding that they were inserted to bring the narrative into line with prophecy.

 

As to residence, St. John states that Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea through the chance that his mother had to go there from Galilee to register; the Judaist authorities, again, hold that this was inserted to make the account agree with Micah's prophecy that “a ruler” would come out of Bethlehem”.

 

The Jewish Encylopaedia insists that Nazareth as Jesus's native town, and indeed, general agreement exists that he was a Galilean, whatever the chance of his actual birthplace. Galilee, where nearly all his life was spent, was politically entirely separate from Judea, under its own Roman tetrarch, and stood to Judea in the relationship of “a foreign country” (Graetz). Marriage between a Judean and a Galilean was forbidden and even before Jesus’s birth all Judeans living in Galilee had been forced by Simon Tharsi, one of the Maccabean princes, to migrate to Judah.

 

Thus, the Galileans were racially and politically distinct from the Judeans.

 

Was this Galilean, religiously, what might today be called “a Jew”? The Judaist authorities, of course, deny that most strenuously of all; the statement, often heard from the platform and pulpit, might cause a riot in the synagogue.

 

It is difficult to see what responsible public men can mean when they use the phrase. There was in the time of Jesus no “Jewish” (or even Judahite or Judaist or Judean) religion. There was Jehovahism, and there were the various sects, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, which disputed violently between themselves and contended, around the temple, for power over the people. They were not only sects, but also political parties, and the most powerful of them were the Pharisees with their “oral traditions” of what God had said to Moses.

 

If today the Zionists are “the Jews” (and this is the claim accepted by all great Western nations), then the party which in Judea in the time of Jesus corresponded to the Zionists was that of the Pharisees. Jesus brought the whole weight of his attack to bear on these Pharisees. He also rebuked the Sadducees and the scribes. but the Gospels show that he held the Pharisees to be the foes of God and man and that he used an especial, scarifying scorn towards them. The things which he singled out for attack, in them and in their creed, are the very things which today's Zionists claim to be the identifying features of Jews, Jewishness and Judaism.

 

Religiously, Jesus seems beyond doubt to have been the opposite and adversary of all that which would make a literal Jew today or would have made a literal Pharisee then.

 

None can say with certainty who or what he was, and these suggestive statements by non-Jewish politicians ring as false as the derisive and mocking lampoons about “the bastard” which circulated in the Jewish ghettoes.

 

 

*Rabbi Stephen Wise, the leading Zionist organizer in the United States during the 1910-1950 period, used this phrase for the obvious political motive, of confusing non-Jewish hearers. Speaking to such an “inter-faith” meeting at the Carnegie Hall at Christmastide 1925, he stated “Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian” (Christianity was born with the death of Jesus).

For this he was excommunicated by the Orthodox Rabbis Society of the United States, but a Christian Ministers Association “hailed me as a brother”. Rabbi Wise adds the characteristic comment: “I know not which was more hurtful, the acceptance of me as a brother and welcoming me into the Christian fold, or the violent diatribe of the rabbis”.

 

The Controversy of Zion

by Douglas Reed, First Printing 1956, p. 59 ff.

download here

 

 

Even through the Gospel of St. John you can appreciate how the meaning of “the Jews” changed from meaning the whole of the people to meaning those who conspired against Jesus, murdered Him, and now defame Him and persecute His Church and His new Chosen people, His Believers.

 

Geographically, Jesus of Nazareth was a Galilean, not a Judean.

 

Liturgically, some claim Jesus celebrated a “seder.” Can you really see Jesus Christ of the Beatitudes calling down the talmudic hate feast’s liturgical “Passover” curse on Gentiles—“Pour Out Thy Wrath…” (Shefokh hamatkha)?

 

Doctrinally, Jesus of Nazareth and His Holy Family practiced God’s commandments as delivered by Moses. Jesus of Nazareth and His Holy Family did not follow the Pharisees or others that Jesus damned for making void the commandments of God for the traditions of men. Mark 7:6-9 & Matthew 15:9

 

Judaism boasts that it follows the Pharisees and Jesus Himself damned the followers, “proselytes,” of the Pharisees as “two fold children of Hell” more than the Pharisees themselves. Matthew 23:15

 

Jesus emphatically repudiated Pharisaical/Talmudic Judaism. Jesus did not turn His back on His people, but many of them turned their backs on Him!

 

If anyone insists that “Jesus was a Jew,” it is likely they are either (1) ignorant or (2) trying to elevate a lying, murderous Master Race creed that Jesus Christ Himself damned.

 

 

Definitely not one of them!

 

It is diabolical indeed that the synagogue of Satan pretends that Jesus was one of them. Now, to give themselves cover, they now use the Holy Name of Jesus, the One they hate most, the One whose blood they called down on themselves and all their generations, the One they say was an idolater [Sanhedrin 43a, 107b], the One they say was a mamzer (bastard) conceived adulterously in niddah (menstrual filth) by a Roman soldier named Pandera [Kallah 51a] of a whore [Sanhedrin 106a] and that He is now in Hell boiling in feces and, in some editions because Jesus is accused of sexual perversion, semen [Gittin 57a].

 

Do not be suckered by those that God warned are “the synagogue of Satan, those who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie.” Apocalypse 3:9

 

Jesus and the Holy Family were most emphatically not one of them.

 

 

As for the foolish Essene claim:

 

Essenes were forbidden to make animal sacrifice. Not only did Jesus’ Holy Family offer the sacrifice of turtledoves (Luke 2:24), but Jesus Himself commanded the healed leper to make the animal sacrifice (Mark 1:44) required by Mosaic Law (Leviticus 14:30).

 

​

 

the etymology of “Jew” relates to the tribes of Israel

 

 

A caveat: Consulting Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible regarding the word “Jew” is problematic because Strong’s Concordance was compiled for the “King James Version” of the Bible (KJV). The KJV is itself based on the fraudulent post-Christian and anti-Christian Masoretic texts. The KJV and the derivative Strong’s Concordance are thus heavily invested in mistranslations and misdirections.

 

 

The Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English usages for “Judean” and “Jew” are rooted in the name of Judah (יְהוּדָ֑ה‎, Yehudah), the fourth son of Jacob through Leah (Genesis 29:35), c. 16th century B.C. Judah is derived from the noun form of the root for “to praise,” Yod (י)-Dalet (דּ)-He (ה) right-to-left in Hebrew, hence יְהוּדָה‎ .

 

​

​

The tribe of Judah settled towards the South.

 

​

 

Eventually the Kingdom of Judah  (יְהוּדָ֑ה‎, Yehudah) resulted from the break-up of the United Kingdom of Israel (c. 1020-930 B.C.) after the northern tribes refused to accept Roboam (Rehoboam), the son of Solomon, as their king. The split is recounted in 3 Kings (1 Kings) Chapter 12.

 

At first, only the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the House of David, but the tribe of Benjamin soon joined Judah. Both kingdoms, Judah in the south and Israel in the north, co-existed uneasily after the split until the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel by Assyria in approximately 722 B.C., noted in 1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 5:26.

 

The Kingdom of Judah existed until repeatedly besieged and eventually conquered by Babylon (the Babylonian Captivities, c. 597 B.C., 587-586 B.C., and 582-581 B.C.).

 

 

 

​

 

Though the initial references were specific to Judah, the Kingdom of Judah, and later Judea, the term eventually became conflated with all Israelites, no matter their tribe or location.

 

“Jew,” יְהוּדִ֔י (yehudi) appears in Esther 2:5 and is a reference specifically to the Judean from the tribe of Benjamin named Mordechai.  The word is derived patronymically from יְהוּדָה (yehudah); a Jehudite (i.e. Judaite, Judean, or Jew), or descendant of Yehudah (i.e. Judah).

 

 

​

https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/3/3064.html [note: uses Masorete numbering]

 

 

Esther 2:5

 

​

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/esther/2-5.htm

 

 

 

There was a man in the city of Susan, a Jew, named Mardochai, the son of Jair, the son of Semei, the son of Cis, of the race of Jemini, Who had been carried away from Jerusalem at the time that Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon carried away Jechonias king of Juda…

Esther 2:5-6 Douay-Rheims-Challoner

 

 

There was a man in the city of Susan, a Iew, named Mardocheus, the son of Iair, the son of Semei, the son of Cis, of the flocke of Iemini, who had been transported from Jerusalem the same time that Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon transported Iechonias king of Iuda…

Esther 2:5-6 1610 A.D. Douay Old Testament

 

 

​

 

 

4 Kings 16:6

 

An earlier verse, 4 Kings (2 Kings) 16:6, uses הַיְהוּדִ֖ים (hayudim) a plural cognate of  יְהוּדִ֔י (yehudi) for “men of Judah,” but appears in some English translations as “Jew.” The 1749-1752 A,D. Douay-Rheims-Challoner edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible translates the verse with “men of Juda”:

 

At that time Rasin king of Syria restored Aila to Syria, and drove the men of Juda out of Aila: and the Edomites came into Aila, and dwelt there unto this day.

 

The 1610 A.D. Douay Old Testament translates the verse with “Iewes,” one of the many English variants*** of “Jews”:

 

At that time Rasin the King of Syria restored Aila to Syria, and threw out the Iewes out of Aila: and the Idumeians [Edomites] came into Aila, and dwelt there unto this day.

 

 

*** the many English forms, singular: Gyu, Giu, Iu, Iuu, Iuw, Ieuu, Ieuy, Iwe, Iow, Iewe, Ieue, Iue, Ive, Iew”

and plural: Giwis, Giws, Gyues, Gywes, Giwes, Geus, Iuys, Iows, Iouis, Iews,

and then, finally, in the 18th century, “Jew” and “Jews.”

 

​

 

the Septuagint and Vulgate

 

A similar ambiguity arises in translations from the authentic Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate.

 

The Septuagint:

 

​

https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=20&page=2

 

 

The Latin Vulgate and Douay-Rheims Challoner interlinear:

 

​

http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=19&ch=2&l=5-#x

 

The Jewish Encyclopedia opines:

 

The Latin form "Judæus" was derived from the Greek 'Iουδαĩοσ; and this in turn from the Aramaic [יהד], corresponding to the Hebrew  יְהוּדִ֔י a gentilic adjective from the proper name "Judah," seemingly never applied to members of the tribe, however, but to members of the nationality inhabiting the south of Palestine (Jer. xliii. 9). It appears to have been afterward extended to apply to Israelites (II Kings xvi. 3 [by Masorete numbering]) in the north. The English word is met with in the plural form as early as 1175, in the Lambert "Homilies"; in earlier English the form "Iudea," derived from the place-name "Iudea," is found in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels (John xviii. 35) of about the year 1000. Ormin, about 1200, uses the form "Judeow," derived from Old High German "Judeo," from which the modern German "Jude" is also derived.

 

In the Old Testament the term "Jew" appears to be applied to adherents of the worship of Yhwh as conducted at Jerusalem after the Exile: it is thus used in the late Book of Esther. In more modern usage the word is often applied to any person of the Hebrew race, apart from his religious creed.…

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8621-jew-the-word

 

From Benjamin Freedman, a famous convert:

 

The Historical Tracing of the Word "Jew"

Authored by Benjamin H. Freedman

 

It is an incontestable fact that the word "Jew" did not come into existence until the year 1775. Prior to 1775 the word "Jew" did not exist in any language. The word "Jew" was introduced into the English for the first time in the 18th century when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals", II,i, "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew". Prior to this use of the word "Jew" in the English language by Sheridan in 1775 the word "Jew" had not become a word in the English language. Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" as you will see. Shakespeare never used the word "Jew" in any of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice", V.III.i.61, Shakespeare wrote as follows: "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?".

 

In the Latin St. Jerome 4th century Vulgate Edition of the New Testament Jesus is referred to by the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" in the Gospel of John reference to the inscription on the Cross, - "Iudaeorum". It was in the 4th century that St. Jerome translated into Latin the manuscripts of the New Testament from the original languages in which they were written. This translation by St. Jerome is referred to still today as the Vulgate Edition by the Roman Catholic Church authorities, who use it today.

 

Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.

 

 

The Biblical Manuscript Evidence

 

The available manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century accurately trace the origin and give the complete history of the word "Jew" in the English language. In these manuscripts are to be found all the many earlier English equivalents extending through the 14 centuries from the 4th to the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" these English forms included successively: "Gyu", "Giu", "Iu", "Iuu", "Iuw", "Ieuu", "Ieuy", "Iwe", "Iow", "Iewe", "leue", "Iue", "Ive", "lew", and then finally in the 18th century, "Jew". The many earlier English equivalents for "Jews" through the 14 centuries are "Giwis", "Giws", "Gyues", "Gywes", "Giwes", "Geus", "Iuys", "Iows", "Iouis", "Iews", and then also finally in the 18th century, "Jews".

 

With the rapidly expanding use in England in the 18th century for the first time in history of the greatly improved printing presses unlimited quantities of the New Testament were printed. These revised 18th century editions of the earlier 14th century first translations into the English language were then widely distributed throughout England and the English speaking world among families who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language. In these 18th century editions with revisions the word "Jew" appeared for the first time in any English translations. The word "Jew" as it was used in the 18th century editions has since continued in use in all elections of the New Testament in the English language. The use of the word "Jew" thus was stabilized.

https://zionismunveiled.blogspot.com/2009/08/historical-origins-of-word-jew.html

 

 

“a land without a people for a people without a land”

 

The biblical land of the Philistines, Philistia, came to be known as Palestine.

 

In Genesis 15:18-21, the Philistines are absent from the ten nations Abraham's descendants will displace and absent from the list of nations Moses tells the people they will conquer. In Exodus 13:17 God directed the Israelites away from the Philistines. In Genesis 21:22-17, Abraham agreed to a covenant of kindness with Abimelech, the Philistine king, and his descendants. Abraham's son Isaac made peace with them in Genesis 26:31.

 

Palestine is now occupied and ethnically cleansed by European and American Jewish Supremacists who have replaced the Word of God with their satanic Talmud.

 

 

 

Dishonorable mentions for talmudic portrayals of Jesus Christ:

 

“Pope” Francis’ Favorite Painting Contains the Rabbinic Acronym, YESHU, “May his [Jesus’] name be blotted out”

https://web.archive.org/web/20220702104948/http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2014/05/pope-francis-favorite-painting-contains.html

 

Update on the White Crucifixion

http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2014/05/update-on-white-crucifixion.html

 

The talmudic ghettofication of St. Joseph and Child Jesus

http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-talmudic-ghettofication-of-st.html

 

 

 

memes

 

​

 

​

 

​

 

​

 

​

 

 

​

 

 

 

​