← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Lars
Thread ID: 14741 | Posts: 26 | Started: 2004-08-17
2004-08-17 19:04 | User Profile
Because of our "less intelligent" christan european americans. You guys have intervened twice in our internal european affairs (the two WW) with disastrous consequences to the european people. You did this because the jews told you to do so (and the english).
What I have read sofar on this forum, you guys seem to be christian and at the same time anti-semites. This is in my opinion a contradiction. A christian cannot/should not be anti-semite, because [u]everything[/u] in christianity is jewish. I have the privililege to have the opportunity to be a anti-semite (meaning anti-jewish, not anti-arab, I don't have anything against arabs) because I'm not a christian.
It should not come as a surprise to you that the jews run the US almost totally (there is a lot of info already on this forum that makes this fact evident). And this sad fact is enabled because of the support from the christian zionists. All your massmedia, almost without exception, is owned and runned by jews, but again this cannot be a surprise to you.
I'm aware of the fact that my view is pretty controversial. But I hope that if I keep civil tone in my posts I will not be censored.
Cheers Lars!
2004-08-17 19:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Lars]I'm aware of the fact that my view is pretty controversial.
Not really, Lars. It's actually a fairly mainstream view 'round these parts/internet forae. You're running with the herd, in my opinion.
But I hope that if I keep civil tone in my posts I will not be censored.[/QUOTE]
No worries. Christ himself and all the apostles were jews, after all.
2004-08-17 20:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Lars]Because of our "less intelligent" christan european americans.
Why "less intelligent"? Do you have some statistical data or something supporting your claim that Christian Americans are less intelligent than non-Christian Americans? I'd like to see it if you do.
You guys have intervened twice in our internal european affairs (the two WW) with disastrous consequences to the european people.
Conjecture.
You did this because the jews told you to do so (and the english).
Maybe some jewish influence, but far and away the greatest influence was the English. Nobody else close, really.
What I have read sofar on this forum, you guys seem to be christian and at the same time anti-semites.
I speak for no one else, but I am not an anti-semite.
This is in my opinion a contradiction. A christian cannot/should not be anti-semite, because [u]everything[/u] in christianity is jewish.
Until we decide what exactly is an anti-semite, it is hard to explore the rest of this statement. I will say that the New Testament is a fulfillment of the Old Testament and cannot be divorced from it. We Lutherans like to talk about Law and Gospel and you should check out St. Paul's epistle to Titus.
I have the privililege to have the opportunity to be a anti-semite (meaning anti-jewish, not anti-arab, I don't have anything against arabs) because I'm not a christian.
Since you claim not to be a Christian, I shall pray for your eternal soul. Once the fate of that is settled, then I trust God to work out what you are an anti- of.
It should not come as a surprise to you that the jews run the US almost totally (there is a lot of info already on this forum that makes this fact evident).
I believe we get the government we deserve, but nevertheless it would not be in authority without God's ok.
And this sad fact is enabled because of the support from the christian zionists.
Among many millions of others...
All your massmedia, almost without exception, is owned and runned by jews, but again this cannot be a surprise to you.
We still have the right to turn off the TV and radio and not buy newspapers and magazines.
I'm aware of the fact that my view is pretty controversial. But I hope that if I keep civil tone in my posts I will not be censored.
Addressed above.
Cheers.
2004-08-17 22:34 | User Profile
I think those of us who have read the New Testament and subscribe to the main beliefs of the Protestant Reformation are more than capable of combating or dealing with the jew.
Unfortunately, many, if not most of the so-called Christians have never read the New Testament. Because the Bible begins with the Old Testament and Genisis in the front of the good book, most are familiar with the ancient jews---but---they never read toward the back of the book and the New Testament. If, as the transtlators of the New Testament, and the KJV had intended, the New Testament had come first in the order of the Bible, then we would have a whole different situation today.
Plus all Catholics, and many Christians are not familar with the Protestant Reformation, and do not understand, such things as justification by faith alone, the authority of scripture (Sola Scriptura), and importance of every man being his own priest, or as it is also called the priesthood of all believers.
Plus, Jesus Christ was not a jew---Jesus Christ was God!!!
2004-08-17 22:39 | User Profile
This "Goy" is with you all the way, so,,,,,,what's next?
2004-08-17 23:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Lars]You guys have intervened twice in our internal european affairs (the two WW) with disastrous consequences to the european people.
To echo Tex, I think you will find an almost universal aversion to interventionist actions among the people on this board and among American paleo-conservatives and paleo-libertarians, Lars. (My personal exception would be the Panama Canal. We payed for and built the damn thing and now the ChiComs have their fingers in it.....but's that's a discussion for a whole different thread and doesn't directly concern most Europeans.)
Though most of us weren't alive during the two world wars, I think you'll also find among us serious misgivings about American entry into WWI (disastrous in that it provided the catalyst for the UN) and WWII (at least American involvement in the European theater).
A read of Pat Buchanan's book [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261596/qid=1092785243/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-6356850-8261453?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]A Republic, Not an Empire[/url] would be a good start to get a feel for the American paleo perspective on foreign affairs.
The current "Christians" beating the war drums on behalf of Eretz Yisroel and the invasion of Iraq are dispensationalists (Christian Zionists). Though they are a squeaky wheel that makes alot of noise, they are by no means the entire population of Christians in the US. You'll find much more skepticism about interventionist actions among traditional Catholics, Orthodox, Calvinists and Lutherans in the US. But I doubt the European press often makes that distinction, since "US Christian = Warmonger" makes for sensational headlines which reinforce preconceived notions that most secular Europeans already have about American Christians. To be honest our own mainstream press doesn't cover the opinions of non-dispensational Christians much either.
2004-08-18 03:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]No worries. Christ himself and all the apostles were jews, after all.[/QUOTE]
I though the apostles were Christians, thus not Jews. If you mean they were of the Jewish race, I still doubt it. Strictly speaking, a Jew is someone of the tribe of Judah. I don't know of any apostles who were where of the tribe of Judah (e.g. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin).
Plus, Jesus Christ was not a jew---Jesus Christ was God (-Pennsylvania_Dutch)
No godly man in the Bible was a Talmudist, the modern religion of Jews. And, I wonder how many people who say they are of the Jewish race have the genealogical records to back it up.
2004-08-18 05:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Pennsylvania_Dutch]I think those of us who have read the New Testament and subscribe to the main beliefs of the Protestant Reformation are more than capable of combating or dealing with the jew.[/QUOTE]
That certainly was true for [URL=http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html]Martin Luther[/URL]!
[QUOTE]Unfortunately, many, if not most of the so-called Christians have never read the New Testament. Because the Bible begins with the Old Testament and Genisis in the front of the good book, most are familiar with the ancient jews---but---they never read toward the back of the book and the New Testament. If, as the transtlators of the New Testament, and the KJV had intended, the New Testament had come first in the order of the Bible, then we would have a whole different situation today.[/QUOTE]
I agree. I fail to see how anybody can read the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John and not conclude that Christ had marked down the Pharisees for special opprobrium (I'm putting it mildly).
Then one need only understand that the modern day Jews are [URL=http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Jews-in-the-New-Testament]Pharisees[/URL] (notably accepted are the [URL=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Karaites.html]Karaites[/URL]) to see that traditional Christianity and Talmudic Judaism are polar opposites. They grew directly from a total rejection one from the other.
Of course we're enemies. Note that the thing that really ticks off the modern day Ashkenazi isn't skinheads giving Roman salutes but a straight forward presenation of the Gospel by Mel Gibson.
2004-08-18 05:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Lars]What I have read sofar on this forum, you guys seem to be christian and at the same time anti-semites. This is in my opinion a contradiction. A christian cannot/should not be anti-semite, because [u]everything[/u] in christianity is jewish. I have the privililege to have the opportunity to be a anti-semite (meaning anti-jewish, not anti-arab, I don't have anything against arabs) because I'm not a christian. [/QUOTE]It is odd that you say you make that statement that > A christian cannot/should not be anti-semite, because [u]everything[/u] in christianity is jewish.
And at the same time claim you are anti-semitic and more intelligent than Christians. I'll admit that many so-called "White Nationalists" make this pose today on the internet. But I don't see how you could possibly be both anti-semitic and intelligent and make this statement.
Everything in judaism expressly says that Christianity not only is deeply and irredeemably anti-semitic. Most jews in fact basically seem to state that not only is real Christianity deeply anti-semitic, but that it is principly responsible for anti-semitism. This belief actually, along with an anti-Christian worldview in general is generally accepted serious students of Judaism is one of its core tenats.
How can you, and other so-called "White Nationalists" claim to be "anti-semitic" and at the same time be so utterly ignorant of the what the semites actually believe and teach? It is fairly evident in fact that there is a strong cryptic strain of philosemitism in most of the pagan "White Nationalist" movement, which manifests itself in quite a number of ways, and is generally responsible for its hostility, a la Judaism, toward Christianity.
2004-08-18 09:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch] Plus all Catholics, and many Christians are not familar with the Protestant Reformation, and do not understand, such things as justification by faith alone, the authority of scripture (Sola Scriptura), and importance of every man being his own priest, or as it is also called the priesthood of all believers. [/QUOTE]
Many of us know about those things. We just don't agree with them.
2004-08-18 13:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Lars]Because of our "less intelligent" christan european americans. [/QUOTE] I'm afraid that's not the case. Why don't you try posting on some of the athiest sites like ethical athiest, JREF, Brights, and Internet Infidels if you want to see how intelligent our fellow athiests/agnostics are. They will rant and rave about Christians and Islam but mention Talmudism and see what happens. I have tried and been banned/censored from most of them.
2004-08-18 14:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]Plus, Jesus Christ was not a jew---Jesus Christ was God!!![/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ was God, sure, but we are not Gnostics. He was also fully man and as such, an ethnic jew. So were his disciples to a man, as well as St. Paul (Romans 9). Is this in dispute?
2004-08-18 21:33 | User Profile
To PA Dutch, TX Dissident, et al.,
Belloc, Sobran, Buchanan, and all of the Catholic writers with whom we at OD are simpatico, have written about the destruction of Western European Civilization wrought by the Protestant Reformation, including, sometimes implicitly, the rise of Jewish influence.
Lars,
The Jews of today are in no way continuous with the Jews of the Old Testament. In fact, the Jews who did not become part of the new "People of God" (i.e., Christian), are merely the product of Christian Era Judaism (which can trace its beginnings to no earlier than the reactionary movement against Christianity in the first Christian century).
2004-08-19 06:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Jesus Christ was God, sure, but we are not Gnostics. He was also fully man and as such, an ethnic jew. So were his disciples to a man, as well as St. Paul (Romans 9). Is this in dispute?[/QUOTE]
That's right.
Jesus was a Jew.
I agree that the Khazar connection would detract from the Ashkenazim's claim to Palestine, but that doesn't go to whether Jesus was a Jew. He was a Jew - and of course much more besides.
The main point is that He was in direct opposition to trends that had come into Judaism from Babylon that were carried by the Pharisees and that were later set down in writing as the Talmud. The modern day Jews are mostly Pharisees who cling to the Talmud as their most fundamental source of authority, and so remain directly opposed to Christ and His movement.
I'm a supercessionist - the Church replaced the Jews as God's Chosen.
Why the Jews remain is a mystery that even St. Paul was unable to uncover, but viewed in retrospect it seems to me that God left the Jews among us to chastise and persecute the Church so that all that was foretold may come to pass.
I think that it can be fairly said that Jesus is the Anti-Pharisee, but the converse is also true: the Pharisees are collectively the Anti-Christ. This seems clear enough to me from the Scriptures, but my mind remains open to instruction.
Walter
2004-08-19 08:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]"You guys have intervened twice in our internal european affairs (the two WW) with disastrous consequences to the european people."
Conjecture.[/QUOTE]
Conjecture? It seems to me he's on pretty solid ground in saying that the U.S. shouldn't have intervened in the two World Wars in Europe. While its technically true that we don't know what the results of our not having done so would have been (Soviet tanks in Lisbon, perhaps?), when one's nation commits evil, imperialist actions against our European cousins, it seems to rise slightly above the level of "conjecture" for one of those cousins to point out the folly of our deeds.
2004-08-19 10:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Conjecture? It seems to me he's on pretty solid ground in saying that the U.S. shouldn't have intervened in the two World Wars in Europe. While its technically true that we don't know what the results of our not having done so would have been (Soviet tanks in Lisbon, perhaps?), when one's nation commits evil, imperialist actions against our European cousins, it seems to rise slightly above the level of "conjecture" for one of those cousins to point out the folly of our deeds.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps we could have done without both WWI & WWII. It cost us a terribly in treasure and blood, not to mention getting us involved so deeply in Empire that we've all but lost the Republic.
PJB seems to be of the opinion that we would have done well to stay out of both wars, and maybe he's right. It's impossible to say what would have happened had we not interevened, so anything any of us say on that score is mere conjecture, but here're my two cents.
There are arguments that we needed to intervene for our own security, and I think these arguments are not completely without merit. Certainly WWI was a far weaker case than WWII, inasmuch as in WWI we faced just a Christian Kaiser and his plans for Empire whereas in WWII we faced deeply ideological threats to Christendom itself from both Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia - two rapacious empires that were at the time in tight coalition. The war with the Japanese Empire was clearly avoidable, but the two theaters were related.
But nevertheless these arguments always struck me as farfetched. Even a Europe united under the Nazis or the Communists couldn't conquer the United States. Even if Japan and China tried it in conjunction with them, I doubt they could do it, although they may have been emboldened to try with terrible results. To be sure there are a number of wild cards in that particular deck, including the race for nuclear weapons and the role of China.
And of course we should also keep in mind that our neighbor to the north was still involved with the British Empire, and staying out of a naval war with Germany even as Canada was supplying the Brits was far easier said than done. What were we going to do, blockade Canada? (say, that's an idea) For all the Canucks' holier-than-though posturing about American imperialsim since WWII, they did more than any other country to drag us into Empire int the first place. I suspect that we had less choice in the matter than one might think.
But that's all history. Clearly our best interests are served now by pulling out of the rest of the world nearly altogether. We patrol the border between North and South Korea, but leave our own southern border wide open. It's nuts, not to mention ruinously expensive.
Walter
2004-08-19 14:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Conjecture? It seems to me he's on pretty solid ground in saying that the U.S. shouldn't have intervened in the two World Wars in Europe.
I completely agree with that. In no way should we have involved our blood and treasure over there.
What is conjecture is whether or not the consequences for Europe would have been better or worse without our involvement. There's no way we can know that.
But make no mistake -- I am an unapologetic and strict isolationist. America first, last and always.
2004-08-19 14:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]To PA Dutch, TX Dissident, et al.,
Belloc, Sobran, Buchanan, and all of the Catholic writers with whom we at OD are simpatico, have written about the destruction of Western European Civilization wrought by the Protestant Reformation, including, sometimes implicitly, the rise of Jewish influence.
No! I'm shocked by that. :wacko:
2004-08-19 14:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]America first, last and always.[/QUOTE]
Amen to that.
2004-08-29 22:44 | User Profile
Let's see. Lars....total posts: one.
Methinks this fellow is not an atheist/agnostic WN but rather a clever Talmudist with a long, convex shnoz trying to divide and conquer. If he were in fact who he pretends to be, what benefit to himself or WN's in general could be gained by his antagonistic post? Zero.
2004-08-30 01:06 | User Profile
Yes, why hasn't Lars returned to his thread? And, does he have an answer for white the decline of the white population coincides with the decline of Christianity?
2004-08-30 15:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Yes, why hasn't Lars returned to his thread? [/QUOTE]
Obviously he just wanted to take a drive-by pot shot at Christianity and our Christian heritage without any intention of discussing the matter. This is exactly why I inserted the board guideline about traditional, orthodox Christianity. Imagine this post times 100 or so and you begin to understand the reasoning.
And, does he have an answer for white the decline of the white population coincides with the decline of Christianity?
Of course he doesn't. Concern for the extinction of whites pales in consideration to their blind hatred for God and unwillingness to submit to the authority of Christ. If only they could understand Christ's words in Matthew 11:28-30:
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
2004-08-31 10:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Certainly WWI was a far weaker case than WWII, inasmuch as in WWI we faced just a Christian Kaiser and his plans for Empire whereas in WWII we faced deeply ideological threats to Christendom itself from both Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia - two rapacious empires that were at the time in tight coalition. The war with the Japanese Empire was clearly avoidable, but the two theaters were related.
There was no rational argument for U.S. intervention in the First World War (and few attempts were made at the time; Wilson was an ardent Anglophile, the people trusted whomever was President, and the Congress wouldn't vote down a presidential request for a Declaration of War, out of respect for the office). German imperialist ambitions basically amounted to annexing Luxembourg and small portions of eastern Belgium and northern France. I mean, who gives a crap?
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]And of course we should also keep in mind that our neighbor to the north was still involved with the British Empire, and staying out of a naval war with Germany even as Canada was supplying the Brits was far easier said than done. What were we going to do, blockade Canada?
I'm a little unclear about how German U-boats attempting to sink British and Canadian ships going in and out of the St. Lawrence Seaway, or into the Port of Halifax, would have constituted much of an issue for the United States. In any event, FDR illegally ordered the U.S. Navy to attack all German naval vessels on sight back in June of 1940 (17 months prior to Pearl Harbor, that is). Hitler responded by ordering the German navy to never fire back, under any circumstances, and to always retreat in the face of American naval power, in order to avoid a naval war with America. Despite our having destroyed several German submarines, damaged some of their surface ships and killed hundreds of their sailors, the German navy was not permitted to shoot back. All in all, it doesn't sound as if avoiding a naval war with Germany would have been particularly difficult, seeing as how it ranked among Hitler's fondest wishes and all. On the contrary, FDR was frequently frustrated by his persistent inability to provoke the Germans into just such a war.
2004-09-19 21:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Jesus Christ was God, sure, but we are not Gnostics. He was also fully man and as such, an ethnic jew. So were his disciples to a man, as well as St. Paul (Romans 9). Is this in dispute?[/QUOTE] Yes, I would certainly care to "dispute" this herresy. Jesus was no more a Jew then Sammy Davis Jr. was. Jesus Annointed was of the root and race of David, David being an ethnic Hebrew and being of ruddy complexion. This word that people keep using, such as Judeo's and American Judaised Zionist Churchianity followers all use i.e. "Jew", meant specifically a person either of the tribe of Judah, or a Judean. If that is what is meant by your useage of it, then I would reluctantly agree. But note that these folks calling themselves "Jews" are neither of the tribe of Judah nor are they Judeans.
See here -
[url="http://missiontoisrael.org/survey/defenseofisraelsurvey.php"]http://missiontoisrael.org/survey/defenseofisraelsurvey.php[/url]
Defense of True Israel survey
and as well -
[url="http://missiontoisrael.org/israelite.html"]http://missiontoisrael.org/israelite.html[/url]
Could YOU be an Israelite, and not know it?
[font=Arial][size=5] [/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=4]"Here's a paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox: and anthropological fact, many Christians may have much more Hebrew-Israelite blood in their veins than most of their Jewish neighbors." [url="http://missiontoisrael.org/israelite.html#anchor1"][size=1][color=red]1[/color][/size][/url]
[/size][/font]
2004-09-19 21:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]I though the apostles were Christians, thus not Jews. If you mean they were of the Jewish race, I still doubt it. Strictly speaking, a Jew is someone of the tribe of Judah. I don't know of any apostles who were where of the tribe of Judah (e.g. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin).
Plus, Jesus Christ was not a jew---Jesus Christ was God (-Pennsylvania_Dutch)
No godly man in the Bible was a Talmudist, the modern religion of Jews. And, I wonder how many people who say they are of the Jewish race have the genealogical records to back it up.[/QUOTE] I believe you have "hit the proverbial nail squarely upon its head" as it is said.
They can not and most usually and freely admit that they can not..
Nearly all of Christendom is being taught that today's "Jews" represent Israel. Yet, how many of those same people have ever been taught that the Bible warns us of Israelite impostors? That's right, non-Israelites who fallaciously claim to be Israelites:
| "I know ...**the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews** [i.e., Judahites, thus Israelites] **and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan."*** (Revelation 2:9)* |
Also, how many Christians have been told that there is actually a people who admit to being those impostors? For example, The 1980 Jewish Almanac's first chapter entitled "Identity Crisis," begins with the following admission:
| **"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an 'Israelite' or a 'Hebrew.'" [url="http://missiontoisrael.org/israelite.html#anchor4"][size=1][color=red]4[/color][/size][/url] ** |
This amazing confession is confirmed by several other Jewish sources and individual Jews. [url="http://missiontoisrael.org/israelite.html#judea-enc"][size=4][color=#800080]**[/color][/size][/url] Dr. Oscar Levy went so far as to declare:
| **"And are not they** [today's Jews] **the inventors of the Chosen People myth?" [url="http://missiontoisrael.org/israelite.html#anchor5"][size=1][color=red]5[/color][/size][/url]** |
Why hasn't Christendom and the American public been told that over 90 percent of the people known as "Jews" are not descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? History reveals they are actually descendants of the fierce Turkish, Mongolian Khazar tribes which roamed the steppes of southern Russia and who adopted the religion of Judaism between the 7th and 9th Centuries. Today, the Khazars are known as "Jews" not because of race, but because of religion. [url="http://missiontoisrael.org/israelite.html#anchor6"][size=1][color=red]6[/color][/size][/url]
As stated, the Bible declares that there would be Israelite impostors, these impostors have inadvertently or deliberately identified themselves by their own writings. Therefore, if today's Jewish people are not true Israel, someone else must be!
--
For FOLK and FAITH! [url="http://www.folkandfaith.com/invisionboard"]www.folkandfaith.com/invisionboard[/url] Creating a true North American Alternative!
[url="http://missiontoisrael.org/israelite.html"]http://missiontoisrael.org/israelite.html[/url] (see above kindred)
2004-09-20 00:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Pennsylvania_Dutch]I think those of us who have read the New Testament and subscribe to the main beliefs of the Protestant Reformation are more than capable of combating or dealing with the jew.
Unfortunately, many, if not most of the so-called Christians have never read the New Testament. Because the Bible begins with the Old Testament and Genisis in the front of the good book, most are familiar with the ancient jews---but---they never read toward the back of the book and the New Testament. If, as the transtlators of the New Testament, and the KJV had intended, the New Testament had come first in the order of the Bible, then we would have a whole different situation today.
Plus all Catholics, and many Christians are not familar with the Protestant Reformation, and do not understand, such things as justification by faith alone, the authority of scripture (Sola Scriptura), and importance of every man being his own priest, or as it is also called the priesthood of all believers.
Plus, Jesus Christ was not a jew---Jesus Christ was God!!![/QUOTE] Jerome's Vulgate and other translations of the Bible (including English translations) antedate, many centuries, the KJV (Jerome's Vulgate pre-dates the KJV by over a millennium). But this is certainly an interesting idea, placing the NT before the OT. If it were left to me, I'd make the NT the main text with the OT as small script footnotes.
Personally, I'd like to see a Hutton Gibson annotated Bible.