← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco

Thread 7285

Thread ID: 7285 | Posts: 21 | Started: 2003-06-12

Wayback Archive

Franco [OP]

2003-06-12 02:37 | User Profile

For newbies -- I did not write it; send it to a Christian pal who needs it

[color=red][SIZE=3]Jesus Was Not a Jew[/color][/SIZE]

[url=http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/html2/jm0026a.htm]http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/html2/jm0026a.htm[/url]

Thank God! My Savior Was Not A Jew! Part 1 of 8 by Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr, A.U.S. Ret.

A critical look at the historical Christ, free of Jewish distort!

". . . I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan." - Rev. 2:9

". . . They (Jews) shall build up, and I (God) shall throw down: and they (true Israel) shall call them (Jews), The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation forever . . ." - Malachi 1:4

Introduction

Jesus -- Not A Jew

Seemingly, in every age, since the advent of the Christian Church, a book or writing, like a messenger, comes along which vociferously and indignantly silences the false teachings and heresies of it's day. From the writings of St. Paul, the early church fathers, Augustine, Acquinas, Abelard, St. Francis of Assisi, Luther, Wesley, and scores of others there has always been a "generational" witness against the heresies of that particular era. Especially right and proper has this been when such erroneous teaching has become almost universally accepted by the so-called "purveyors of truth", usually those individuals who speak from a voiceless, and stagnant church age such as this one.

Such a book is this one.

In an age when much false teaching abounds, Jack Mohr has scripturally and historically "slammed the door" on one such false teaching, namely that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was a Jew and thus, Christianity sprang from Judaism.

Mohr exposes the hypocritical facade and lack of in-depth research into this vitally important subject in a myriad of ways and from a wide range of sources. With careful attention to true historical analysis, he effectively dismantles the monstrous apparition created over the centuries by a deceived and gullible populace which has been led and controlled by tired, lazy, "so called" scholars who willingly accept any and all information spoon-fed to them in colleges and seminaries across the land.... [snip]

Patrick

2003-06-12 03:28 | User Profile

Agree completely...

.....The good Colonel actually left out some of the evidence; did I pass? ;)

seq

2003-06-12 04:21 | User Profile

[color=gray]> The numerous varieties of people who settled in and around the area of Galilee (practically all of whom eventually became the progenitors of European and Scandinavian stock) testify to God's providential intervention in maintaining an area of comparative purity and productivity destitute of overriding Jewish influence .

Excerpt from Pontius Pilate's Report to Tiberius of the Arrest, Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ: [Note the Scandinavian-like physical description of Jesus and Pilate's despairing prediction about Rome's destiny.]

“Among the various rumours that came to my ears there was one in particular that attracted my attention. A young man, it was said, had appeared in Galilee preaching with a noble unction a new law in the name of the God who had sent him. At first I was apprehensive that his design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day in passing by the place of Siloe, where there was a great concourse of people. I observed in the midst of the group a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected, so great was the difference between him and those listening to him. His golden-coloured hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about thirty years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between him and his hearers, with their black beards and tawny complexions. . . .

“It was on account of the wisdom of his sayings that I granted so much liberty to the Nazarene, for it was in my power to have him arrested, and exiled to Pontus; but that would have been contrary to the justice which has always characterised the Roman Government in all its dealings with men; this man was neither seditious nor rebellious. I extended to him my protection, unknown perhaps to himself. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and address the people, and to choose disciples, unrestrained by any Praetorian mandate. Should it ever happen (may the gods avers the omen!), should it ever happen, I say, that the religion of our forefathers will be supplanted by the religion of Jesus, it will be this noble toleration that Rome shall owe her premature death, while I, miserable wretch, will have been the instrument of what the Jews call Providence, and we call destiny."

(From the "Archo Volume," containing Manuscripts, in Constantinople, and the Records of the Senatorial Docket, taken from the Vatican at Rome. Translated by Drs. McIntosh and Twyman, of the Antiquarian Lodge, Genoa, Italy).

[url=http://www.innsyn.com/english/pilates_report.htm]http://www.innsyn.com/english/pilates_report.htm[/url]

Patrick

2003-06-12 04:34 | User Profile

Hello, seq...

.....I have the whole piece in my archives; there are those that call it fraud, but it aligns too well to dismiss...

grep14w

2003-06-12 05:03 | User Profile

**Should it ever happen (may the gods avers the omen!), should it ever happen, I say, that the religion of our forefathers will be supplanted by the religion of Jesus, it will be this noble toleration that Rome shall owe her premature death, while I, miserable wretch, will have been the instrument of what the Jews call Providence, and we call destiny. **

Oh, please. Why don't you have him also say "and eat powdermilk biscuits, too, when those are invented many centuries from now. Heavens they're tasty! Or rather, will be tasty. In the future."

I used to wonder why obvious forgeries like the Donation of Constantine (with its massive internal contradictions and historical anachronisms) was accepted as fact for centuries. Well, I wonder no longer. The capacity for rational analysis and skepticism is a rare ability that has to be carefully cultivated, and is never possible except for a minority of even the most rational of peoples.

seq

2003-06-12 05:33 | User Profile

Patrick:

Hello, to you.

I’m aware that this is thought by some to be a fraud. I don’t know for sure whether it is or is not, nor does anyone else.

grep14w:

How fortunate and blessed we are to have you among us now--no doubt one of that tiny rational minority--with your carefully cultivated capacity for rational analysis and skepticism here to enlighten us.

grep14w

2003-06-12 06:05 | User Profile

Originally posted by seq@Jun 11 2003, 23:33 * *Patrick:

Hello, to you.

I’m aware that this is thought by some to be a fraud.  I don’t know for sure whether it is or is not, nor does anyone else.

grep14w:

How fortunate and blessed we are to have you among us now--no doubt one of that tiny rational minority--with your carefully cultivated capacity for rational analysis and skepticism here to enlighten us.**

If you can't spot a hilarious fraud when you read it, you are seriously in need of a better education in history, and some basics in "spot the anachronism!" and other elementary forms of logic. Getting snippy about your gullibility doesn't change the facts.

It's stuff like this which drives away intelligent whites.

As for Jesus not being a Jew, it's all in how you define your terms. The "Judaism" of Jesus' own time was a far broader and more complex phenomenon than what we today call Judaism, incorporating many incompatible groups.

What is today called Judaism is stimply the Pharisee's version of Judaism, which triumphed over the other forms, some of which became the various versions of Christianity, others of which became gnostic sects like the Mandaeans, and so on.

When people say "Jesus was a Jew" they assume what is meant by "Jew" is the people today going by that name.

Jesus, to the best we can now tell, was in no way affiliated with or sympathetic to any form of the Pharisee's religion. That's one thing we can be sure of.

So with this distinction in mind, it is true that Jesus was not a Jew.

His physical ancestry and "race" however, is another matter entirely, since we have absolutely no evidence, no physical evidence, no first hand witnesses, only a handful of sayings and a lot of mythology written down generations later by people who had never seen Jesus and who were in any case conspiciously silent about his race and ancestry (apart from the need to tie into the Davidic lineage for purposes of "fulfilling prophecy" after the fact).

il ragno

2003-06-12 06:15 | User Profile

Oh, please. Why don't you have him also say "and eat powdermilk biscuits, too, when those are invented many centuries from now. Heavens they're tasty! Or rather, will be tasty. In the future."

ROTFLMMFAO!

Yeah, Jesus was a Jew. But only on his mother's side, so cheer up!

seq

2003-06-12 06:26 | User Profile

you are seriously in need of a better education in history, and some basics in "spot the anachronism!"

And you and your obese ego are in serious need of some elemental social skills, Ms. Knowitall.

Avalanche

2003-06-12 13:40 | User Profile

At the risk of singing only one note -- PLEASE consider reading:

Rosslyn (by ?); and The Second Messiah and The Hiram Key (both by Knight and Lomas); and The Templar Revelation, Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ (Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince) -- all FASCinating! They are all tracing the connections between the Knights Templar, the Freemasons, the early 'Christian' Church, Egyptian mystery religions, and so on.

In one of them (and I can't remember which, although I think it is Templar Revelation), there is actually a discussion of what Jesus looked like -- because there IS actually one extant snippet of description -- some Roman warrant was issued for his arrest, and although all local (Palestinian) copies were destroyed, one 'file' copy WAS sent to Rome, and still exists!

weisbrot

2003-06-12 14:44 | User Profile

Originally posted by Avalanche@Jun 12 2003, 09:40 * ** In one of them (and I can't remember which, although I think it is Templar Revelation*), there is actually a discussion of what Jesus looked like -- because there IS actually one extant snippet of description -- some Roman warrant was issued for his arrest, and although all local (Palestinian) copies were destroyed, one 'file' copy WAS sent to Rome, and still exists! **

Wasn't that the famous file copy found in a folder marked, "Hold for invention of microfiche"?

Mmm. Biscuits...

Patrick

2003-06-12 14:55 | User Profile

”The “Judaism” of Jesus’ own time was a far broader and more complex phenomenon than what we today call Judaism, incorporating many incompatible groups.”

.....Various factions were, indeed, in existence, and in competition, one with another; most of which ended with the Roman occupation and the enthronement of Herod and the edomite faction; it was the pharisees that petitioned Rome for assistance, by which they could rid themselves of their primary rival, the sadduccees, all of which was related in the Jewish Encyclopedia... any remnant of other splinter groups would hardly have survived, and if they had, they were not at all similar to Christian; “judaism” and Christianity are, and have always been, antithetical, one to another... indeed, mortal enemies; Christians have allowed “judaism” to infiltrate and destroy to the point of allowing these “evil figs” to write the very Sunday school literature for their children in the whorehouses we call the “judeo”-Christian, (no such thing), “church”, (which it is not)...

Rabbi Moshe M. Maggal, wrote:

"...you will notice the great difference between the Jewish and

Christian religions. But these are not all. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other...we emphasized that there is no such thing as a Judeo- Christian religion...There is not any similarity between the two concepts." (Rabbi Maggal (President, National Jewish Information Service) letter, 21 August 1961)

.....Further, the talmud was in existence in the days of Our Christ, albeit, in the oral traditions, and while some writings did exist, it was not until the fifth century that it was codified; when Christ came against the “tradition of the elders”, it was this against which he most vehemently railed...

.....During his lifetime Michael Rodkinson, (the assumed name of a "jew" and was widely recognized as one of the world's leading authorities on the talmud, wrote History of the Talmud. This accepted authority on this subject was written by Mr. Rodkinson in collaboration with the celebrated Rabbi Isaac M. Wise. In his History of the Talmud, Michael Rodkinson, on page #70, states:

....."Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, on moral and Religious Subjects, which were current in his time, and must have been evaluated by Him during those thirty silent years when He was pondering His Future Mission? To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis answer by holding up the Talmud...and the question becomes, therefore, an interesting one to every Christian. What is the Talmud? The Talmud, then, is the Written Form of that which, in the Time of Jesus Was called the Traditions of the Elders and to which He makes frequent allusions."

”His physical ancestry and “race” however, is another matter entirely, since we have absolutely no evidence, no physical evidence, no first hand witnesses, only a handful of sayings and a lot of mythology written down generations later by people who had never seen Jesus and who were in any case conspiciously silent about his race and ancestry (apart from the need to tie into the Davidic lineage for purposes of “fulfilling prophecy” after the fact)."

I disagree...

.....That scarlet thread, (through which came Christ), was so carefully protected, from the garden forward, all inspite of the adversary’s repeated attempts to disrupt it, (which is what occurred in the garden, and afterwards, and provides the central theme of Scripture), and this first attempt was that which the “church”, (which it is not), has allowed to evolve into the myth of the “snake” and the “apple”, (neither of which appear in Scripture); this was done by satan, (the sissy), fathering Cain, however did not prevent the birth of Abel; the second attempt was the murder of Abel, then, in Genesis six, we have the first inculcation of the nephilim, or, fallen angels, which necessitated the flood of Noah... There was another infusion of these “fallen ones” in the Book of Numbers, with the “sons of Anak”, whose progeny is refered to as the “anakim”, which drew the sword of Israel, but failed to eradicate these of “the dead”; the point being, Scripture is a perfect story centered around the existence of those two bloodlines, brought forth, even from the garden, and the enmity that was placed between these two literal seeds in Genesis, 3:15, (which is what you find yourselves railing against in this day)... Surely it would be folly to go to so much trouble to protect and preserve this bloodline, only to allow the central player in the theme to become corrupt...

.....The discrepancies to be found in Davidic lineage, even from Adam, are textual corruptions, no more and the lineage was protected whereby Our Father’s Only Begotten son would have a clean and pure vessel through which to be brought forth; neither would “jew” be appropriate in any sense, but the term Israelite applies... Our Christ was not a “Judean”, but a Nazarene, and a Galilean; on top of all of that, the very term “jew” is Scripturally invalid, and not added to the bastardized English texts until the latter seventeenth century... In virtually all cases, wherein the NT uses “jew”, it should be rendered “Judean”, and speaks to a geographic location; in the OT, it was “Judahite”, and essentially speaks to both geography, and lineage from Judah... Great difficulty arises when one considers Scripture to be “mythology”, but I will grant you that the English texts have been manipulated to the degree of creating a well-crafted “jewish” fable, but we were warned of such; with some 22,000 thousand translational errors, (transliteration), infused intentionally for your deception...

golfball

2003-06-23 20:37 | User Profile

Jesus was not a Jew!

All the truth is in the New Testament book of Luke, Chapter One!

Lets see what the Holy Bible ( KJV 1611 ) says on this subject. Luke 1

1. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
5. There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
7. And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.
8. And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
9. According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
11. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
12. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
14. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
16. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
17. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
18. And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
19. And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
20. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.
21. And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.
22. And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.
23. And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.
24. And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
25. Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.
26. And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27. [color=blue]To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.[/color]
28. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
32. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36. [color=blue]And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, [/color]she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37. For with God nothing shall be impossible. ...............

[All that I am going to use for now]

We know that Jesus' Father is God. We also know the lineage of Joseph, the Jew.

So the earthly lineage rests with Mary. Was Mary a jewess? No. Can I prove this? Yes. Mary's direct family line is referenced to in verse 36, "[color=blue]And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, [/color]".

Mary and Elisabeth are DIRECT cousins! Well, what about the lineage of Elisabeth? We can find that in verse 5. Look: 5. There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: [color=red]and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.[/color]

Elisabeth is of the daughters of Aaron, a LEVITE! Mary is her direct family cousin and is a LEVITE also! An interesting note to this is that all priests are Levites, and Jesus was born from this line. :)

Patrick

2003-06-23 21:10 | User Profile

"We know that Jesus' Father is God. We also know the lineage of Joseph, the Jew."

Very good, golfball...

.....With the exception of this one sentence, of course; Joseph was not a "jew", either, but an Israelite, and the last member of the "scarlet thread" bloodline, representing the legal line...

golfball

2003-06-24 17:00 | User Profile

Okay, my apologies.... ;)

How about a descendant of Judah ( Judas ), from Jacob-Israel? :)

Matthew 1

1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and [color=blue]Jacob begat Judas [/color]and his brethren;
3. And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
4. And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
5. And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and [color=blue]Obed begat Jesse; [/color]
6. [color=red]And Jesse begat David the king[/color]; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
7. And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
8. And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
9. And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
10. And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
11. And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
12. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
13. And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14. And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15. And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16. [color=blue] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, [/color]of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Patrick

2003-06-24 17:21 | User Profile

"How about a descendant of Judah ( Judas ), from Jacob-Israel?"

.....That are muchly gooder... :)

.....Joseph was the "legal line" and Miriam was the "blood line"...

Hugh Lincoln

2003-06-24 17:44 | User Profile

So what if he was?

God is a Gentile.

Patrick

2003-06-24 18:31 | User Profile

Hugh Lincoln...

.....He wasn't; the reason it matters is because it is blaspheme to so say...

golfball

2003-06-24 21:14 | User Profile

Yes, it is foolish to make statements like that, unless one does not really care in the first place.... :(

It is a terrible thing to be in the hands of a living God. :shock:

Patrick

2003-06-24 21:16 | User Profile

"It is a terrible thing to be in the hands of a living God."

Yes...

.....And even moreso to fall out of His Hands...

Hugh Lincoln

2003-06-25 20:18 | User Profile

Please. Blasphemy is how I communicate. I spent time in God's hands and I got all hot and wrinkly.